Log in:  

Register

Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re: Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

10 Jun 2018 15:04

pastronef wrote:Thomas stage races

TDF 2011 30th
Bayern Rundfahrt 2011 win
Bayern Rundfahrt 2014 win
Algarve 2015 win
TDF 2015 15th
TdSuisse 2015 2nd
Algarve 2016 win
Paris-Nice 2016 win
TDF 2016 15th
Tirreno 2017 5th
Trentino/Alps 2017 win
Algarve 2018 2nd
Tirreno 2018 3rd
Dauphine 2018 in yellow now



G also managed to get a 6 on the suspicion index for the UCI. That was a good result :cool:

6 Linus Gerdemann, Christian Knees, Egoi Martínez, Alessandro Petacchi, Francesco Reda, Mauro Santambrogio, Geraint Thomas

7 Jeremy Hunt, Andreas Klöden, Tony Martin, Christophe Moreau, Michael Rogers, Wesley Sulzberger

8 David De la Fuente, Ivan Gutiérrez, Danilo Hondo, Matthew Lloyd, Iban Mayoz, Dmitriy Muravyev, Rinaldo Nocentini, Daniel Oss, Kevin Seeldraeyers, Kanstantsin Siutsou, Jurgen Van Den Broeck

9 Denis Menchov

10 Carlos Barredo,Yaroslav Popovych

User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,481
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

10 Jun 2018 15:42

Hayabusa wrote:Realistically the UK has only had one GT champion which is Froome. Wiggins won due to having a course which heavily favoured his speciality

This myth again. Wiggins outclimbed everyone but Froome in that Tour. That includes Nibali.
User avatar hrotha
Veteran
 
Posts: 15,727
Joined: 10 Jun 2010 20:45

Re: Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

10 Jun 2018 16:07

Gung Ho Gun wrote:
pastronef wrote:Thomas stage races

TDF 2011 30th
Bayern Rundfahrt 2011 win
Bayern Rundfahrt 2014 win
Algarve 2015 win
TDF 2015 15th
TdSuisse 2015 2nd
Algarve 2016 win
Paris-Nice 2016 win
TDF 2016 15th
Tirreno 2017 5th
Trentino/Alps 2017 win
Algarve 2018 2nd
Tirreno 2018 3rd
Dauphine 2018 in yellow now

Seems like something changed in 2015. Bayern has been won by such acclaimed stage racers as Dowsett and Malori, i.e., it's mainly a time trial and not remotely comparable to the rest.


something changed in 2013 when he was able to control Contador and co relatively comfortably on the Noyer in the Dauphine

And while I agree about BR, the last one he won had a finish here

http://www.quaeldich.de/paesse/winklmoosalm/profile/stichstrasse-von-reit-im-winkl-seegatterl/
User avatar roundabout
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,160
Joined: 07 Jun 2010 11:43

Re: Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

10 Jun 2018 16:49

Gung Ho Gun wrote:
pastronef wrote:Thomas stage races

TDF 2011 30th
Bayern Rundfahrt 2011 win
Bayern Rundfahrt 2014 win
Algarve 2015 win
TDF 2015 15th
TdSuisse 2015 2nd
Algarve 2016 win
Paris-Nice 2016 win
TDF 2016 15th
Tirreno 2017 5th
Trentino/Alps 2017 win
Algarve 2018 2nd
Tirreno 2018 3rd
Dauphine 2018 in yellow now

Seems like something changed in 2015. Bayern has been won by such acclaimed stage racers as Dowsett and Malori, i.e., it's mainly a time trial and not remotely comparable to the rest.

In 2015 he was already able to outclimb everyone bar teammate Richie Porte in Paris-Nice.
User avatar Alexandre B.
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,589
Joined: 10 Feb 2015 20:04
Location: Paris, France

Re: Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

10 Jun 2018 17:40

Alexandre B. wrote:
Gung Ho Gun wrote:
pastronef wrote:Thomas stage races

TDF 2011 30th
Bayern Rundfahrt 2011 win
Bayern Rundfahrt 2014 win
Algarve 2015 win
TDF 2015 15th
TdSuisse 2015 2nd
Algarve 2016 win
Paris-Nice 2016 win
TDF 2016 15th
Tirreno 2017 5th
Trentino/Alps 2017 win
Algarve 2018 2nd
Tirreno 2018 3rd
Dauphine 2018 in yellow now

Seems like something changed in 2015. Bayern has been won by such acclaimed stage racers as Dowsett and Malori, i.e., it's mainly a time trial and not remotely comparable to the rest.

In 2015 he was already able to outclimb everyone bar teammate Richie Porte in Paris-Nice.


Croix de Chaubouret, they smashed the field and little Richie won ;)
pastronef
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,333
Joined: 19 Aug 2011 08:25
Location: Italia

10 Jun 2018 17:53

Exactly my point. So in 2015, a year in which he still won E3 and podiumed Gent-Wevelgem, he became able to smash fields on mountain finishes. Not controlling the bunch, not limiting losses before a time trial, but going head to head with the best in the race.
User avatar Gung Ho Gun
Member
 
Posts: 503
Joined: 15 Jul 2013 14:46

Re: Re:

10 Jun 2018 18:38

veganrob wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
The Hegelian wrote:
silvergrenade wrote:
The Hegelian wrote:GB: no Tour winners for 100+ years.
Between 2012-19: Two from the same team, potentially three.

Okay, you got me there.
So? :confused:


How often are GT champs are produced even in traditional cycling nations?

Answer: rarely. The Netherlands got their first in decades last year. France hasn't had a win in how long? Spain have had Contador/Valverde + Italy Nibali/Aru.

The implication: It is very, very hard to become a GT champion, and Sky are basically just churning them out - not just buying a known star, but building them, producing them. It's for sure the most suss thing in the picture.


Ahh...'Brits don't win at cycling' . Now I'm beginning to understand the problem....

And you want to call out others for being obtuse. Dude, wake up and smell your own sh1t.



Obtuse how?

The post I responded to was built around the incredulity of 2 GT winners coming in rapid succession from a 'non traditional cycling nation. For effect and impact it was boosted to 'potentially 3.

In the words of the OP 'for sure the most suss thing in the whole picture'. FOR SURE.

You might agree. I disagree. That doesn't mean I'm being obtuse.

Genuine question to illustrate why I disagree...if history allowed us to swap out our 2/3 Brit no hopers (not my assessment, just paraphrasing for illustration purposes) turned champions for a trio of continental European no hopers turned champions, would you find this less suspicious?

Brits have had the capacity, means and indeed a history of doping (across many, many sports) for years. This hasn't changed. There has however been a seismic shift in the landscape of cycling in the UK, the facilities, the funding, the enablers and the motivations over the last 12 years.

So, do I think Sky are doping? Hell yeah, I've never denied it. Does the specific fact they've achieved what they have with Brits lead me to this conclusion more strongly than other factors. Hell no.

That's not being obtuse. That's having an opinion.

And to the last part of your post...stay classy. Dude.
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 887
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re:

10 Jun 2018 18:42

The Hegelian wrote:GB: no Tour winners for 100+ years.
Between 2012-19: Two from the same team, potentially three.


Let's be generous and say no Tour winner for 50+ years - until the 60's, mass-start road racing was basically banned in Britain, and even time trials were run in secret with the participants wearing plain clothes: http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/blog/2007/10/23/history-of-british-cycle-racing-part-i-the-ban.html

As for Thomas, I predict some comically strong days in the mountains followed by a disastrous crash or mechanical that ends his chances.
User avatar vedrafjord
Member
 
Posts: 860
Joined: 15 Jan 2013 03:35
Location: Land of Ire

Re: Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

10 Jun 2018 18:52

@brownbobby

I'll break it down for you...

a traditional cycling nation producing a tour winner with a young protege - no suspicions aroused
a young protege from non-cycling nation winning the tour - no suspicions aroused

a traditional cycling nation producing a our winner with a no-hoper - suspicion aroused
a no-hoper from a non-cycling nation winning the tour - double suspicion

a no-hoper from a non cycling nation winning the Tour straight after the first no-hoper - treble suspicion

two no-hoper GT winners with a number of PED allegations swirling around them and with a history of working with a convicted Dr (who specialised in GT winners) - quadruple suspicion

I could go on...but we're at about ten-fold suspicion for Froome.....

And that's before starting on 'G'........... ;)
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,482
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

10 Jun 2018 19:12

gillan1969 wrote:@brownbobby

I'll break it down for you...

a traditional cycling nation producing a tour winner with a young protege - no suspicions aroused
a young protege from non-cycling nation winning the tour - no suspicions aroused

a traditional cycling nation producing a our winner with a no-hoper - suspicion aroused
a no-hoper from a non-cycling nation winning the tour - double suspicion

a no-hoper from a non cycling nation winning the Tour straight after the first no-hoper - treble suspicion

two no-hoper GT winners with a number of PED allegations swirling around them and with a history of working with a convicted Dr (who specialised in GT winners) - quadruple suspicion

I could go on...but we're at about ten-fold suspicion for Froome.....

And that's before starting on 'G'........... ;)


I agree with everything here except the significance of the nationalities involved.

In fact, unintentionally I'm sure, you've helped to illustrate my point, by throwing in the references to the Doctors, the Ped allegations...I could throw in many other things that make me suspicious.

So to repeat...the fact that 2 Brits happen to be the beneficiaries of this great doping success, if indeed that's what this is, is way down on the list of things that make me suspicious.

Maybe you factor it in, but the OP opined it was 'the most suss thing in this whole story for sure.

You're not changing my opinion, my disagreement, on that specifically.
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 887
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Re:

10 Jun 2018 21:18

Hayabusa wrote:
The Hegelian wrote:
silvergrenade wrote:
The Hegelian wrote:GB: no Tour winners for 100+ years.
Between 2012-19: Two from the same team, potentially three.

Okay, you got me there.
So? :confused:


How often are GT champs are produced even in traditional cycling nations?

Answer: rarely. The Netherlands got their first in decades last year. France hasn't had a win in how long? Spain have had Contador/Valverde + Italy Nibali/Aru.

The implication: It is very, very hard to become a GT champion, and Sky are basically just churning them out - not just buying a known star, but building them, producing them. It's for sure the most suss thing in the picture.


This is pure nonsense.

Realistically the UK has only had one GT champion which is Froome. Wiggins won due to having a course which heavily favoured his speciality with a number of key rivals hampered by other efforts or a lack of a strong team.

Spain have had stronger GT riders in the last few years than the UK (i.e. Contador, Valverde, Rodriguez). All three are better GT riders than Wiggins.


Froome is a Kenyan. Wiggins is the only UK GT winner and he was born in Belgium, with an Aussie father.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,516
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re: Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

10 Jun 2018 21:20

brownbobby wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:@brownbobby

I'll break it down for you...

a traditional cycling nation producing a tour winner with a young protege - no suspicions aroused
a young protege from non-cycling nation winning the tour - no suspicions aroused

a traditional cycling nation producing a our winner with a no-hoper - suspicion aroused
a no-hoper from a non-cycling nation winning the tour - double suspicion

a no-hoper from a non cycling nation winning the Tour straight after the first no-hoper - treble suspicion

two no-hoper GT winners with a number of PED allegations swirling around them and with a history of working with a convicted Dr (who specialised in GT winners) - quadruple suspicion

I could go on...but we're at about ten-fold suspicion for Froome.....

And that's before starting on 'G'........... ;)


I agree with everything here except the significance of the nationalities involved.

In fact, unintentionally I'm sure, you've helped to illustrate my point, by throwing in the references to the Doctors, the Ped allegations...I could throw in many other things that make me suspicious.

So to repeat...the fact that 2 Brits happen to be the beneficiaries of this great doping success, if indeed that's what this is, is way down on the list of things that make me suspicious.

Maybe you factor it in, but the OP opined it was 'the most suss thing in this whole story for sure.

You're not changing my opinion, my disagreement, on that specifically.


When has it ever been anything else?
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,516
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re: Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

10 Jun 2018 21:45

brownbobby wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:@brownbobby

I'll break it down for you...

a traditional cycling nation producing a tour winner with a young protege - no suspicions aroused
a young protege from non-cycling nation winning the tour - no suspicions aroused

a traditional cycling nation producing a our winner with a no-hoper - suspicion aroused
a no-hoper from a non-cycling nation winning the tour - double suspicion

a no-hoper from a non cycling nation winning the Tour straight after the first no-hoper - treble suspicion

two no-hoper GT winners with a number of PED allegations swirling around them and with a history of working with a convicted Dr (who specialised in GT winners) - quadruple suspicion

I could go on...but we're at about ten-fold suspicion for Froome.....

And that's before starting on 'G'........... ;)


I agree with everything here except the significance of the nationalities involved.

In fact, unintentionally I'm sure, you've helped to illustrate my point, by throwing in the references to the Doctors, the Ped allegations...I could throw in many other things that make me suspicious.

So to repeat...the fact that 2 Brits happen to be the beneficiaries of this great doping success, if indeed that's what this is, is way down on the list of things that make me suspicious.

Maybe you factor it in, but the OP opined it was 'the most suss thing in this whole story for sure.

You're not changing my opinion, my disagreement, on that specifically.


You need to consider the consecutive nature of the GT winners/prospects, alongside the economics of why a team spends money in the first instance, who they're targeting (i.e. which markets), and how they aim to succeed in their marketing aims.

Fact is: Sky had a mission to 'make' the first GB tour winner. Had to be British. Since then they've dominated the tour with Froome, and have Thomas waiting in the wings in case Froome gets popped. In all cases, as a brand they're targeting the general/popular non-cycling British audience, and the only way to do that is to generate interest in the tdf. To achieve this aim, they must have a British rider contending for the win - otherwise, the popular audience will not watch/take interest.

What's suss about it: they've simply gone ahead and made this happen in the same manner as the Chinese government building a bridge "Here's the money, go do it." So let's say for the sake of argument, that it is a fluke of genetics and luck that Wiggins came along, and then Froome came along, and Sky was the beneficiary of these great signings. Well, the fact they can prepare the next British candidate to just 'take his place' and contend for the tdf win, without so much as one year off: it's extraordinary. And extraordinarily implausible that this is not being engineered using whatever means necessary.
User avatar The Hegelian
Member
 
Posts: 854
Joined: 06 Jul 2014 09:18

11 Jun 2018 06:48

Froome popped?

Herrrrrres G! "The Welsh boyo from the valleys!" "From pit face to cycle race!" "From the steel mills to will of steel!"

(Men of Harlech in the background as small children wave daffodils) Go Geeeeeeeeee!
"Are you going to believe me or what you see with your own eyes?"

“It doesn’t matter what I do. People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.”
User avatar Robert5091
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,853
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

Re: Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

11 Jun 2018 07:41

thehog wrote:
pastronef wrote:Thomas stage races

TDF 2011 30th
Bayern Rundfahrt 2011 win
Bayern Rundfahrt 2014 win
Algarve 2015 win
TDF 2015 15th
TdSuisse 2015 2nd
Algarve 2016 win
Paris-Nice 2016 win
TDF 2016 15th
Tirreno 2017 5th
Trentino/Alps 2017 win
Algarve 2018 2nd
Tirreno 2018 3rd
Dauphine 2018 in yellow now



G also managed to get a 6 on the suspicion index for the UCI. That was a good result :cool:

6 Linus Gerdemann, Christian Knees, Egoi Martínez, Alessandro Petacchi, Francesco Reda, Mauro Santambrogio, Geraint Thomas

7 Jeremy Hunt, Andreas Klöden, Tony Martin, Christophe Moreau, Michael Rogers, Wesley Sulzberger

8 David De la Fuente, Ivan Gutiérrez, Danilo Hondo, Matthew Lloyd, Iban Mayoz, Dmitriy Muravyev, Rinaldo Nocentini, Daniel Oss, Kevin Seeldraeyers, Kanstantsin Siutsou, Jurgen Van Den Broeck

9 Denis Menchov

10 Carlos Barredo,Yaroslav Popovych



That's because the UCI don't understand its because of his Track background.
User avatar MartinGT
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,760
Joined: 04 Jul 2010 20:48

Re: Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

11 Jun 2018 09:02

https://www.twitter.com/RiksRedGuard/status/1005849499405873152

The collective fury of Twitter right now could power a city the size of Mexico! **** wind power, Team Sly rage is the future of renewable energy....
pastronef
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,333
Joined: 19 Aug 2011 08:25
Location: Italia

Re: Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

11 Jun 2018 16:55

The Hegelian wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:@brownbobby

I'll break it down for you...

a traditional cycling nation producing a tour winner with a young protege - no suspicions aroused
a young protege from non-cycling nation winning the tour - no suspicions aroused

a traditional cycling nation producing a our winner with a no-hoper - suspicion aroused
a no-hoper from a non-cycling nation winning the tour - double suspicion

a no-hoper from a non cycling nation winning the Tour straight after the first no-hoper - treble suspicion

two no-hoper GT winners with a number of PED allegations swirling around them and with a history of working with a convicted Dr (who specialised in GT winners) - quadruple suspicion

I could go on...but we're at about ten-fold suspicion for Froome.....

And that's before starting on 'G'........... ;)


I agree with everything here except the significance of the nationalities involved.

In fact, unintentionally I'm sure, you've helped to illustrate my point, by throwing in the references to the Doctors, the Ped allegations...I could throw in many other things that make me suspicious.

So to repeat...the fact that 2 Brits happen to be the beneficiaries of this great doping success, if indeed that's what this is, is way down on the list of things that make me suspicious.

Maybe you factor it in, but the OP opined it was 'the most suss thing in this whole story for sure.

You're not changing my opinion, my disagreement, on that specifically.


You need to consider the consecutive nature of the GT winners/prospects, alongside the economics of why a team spends money in the first instance, who they're targeting (i.e. which markets), and how they aim to succeed in their marketing aims.

Fact is: Sky had a mission to 'make' the first GB tour winner. Had to be British. Since then they've dominated the tour with Froome, and have Thomas waiting in the wings in case Froome gets popped. In all cases, as a brand they're targeting the general/popular non-cycling British audience, and the only way to do that is to generate interest in the tdf. To achieve this aim, they must have a British rider contending for the win - otherwise, the popular audience will not watch/take interest.

What's suss about it: they've simply gone ahead and made this happen in the same manner as the Chinese government building a bridge "Here's the money, go do it." So let's say for the sake of argument, that it is a fluke of genetics and luck that Wiggins came along, and then Froome came along, and Sky was the beneficiary of these great signings. Well, the fact they can prepare the next British candidate to just 'take his place' and contend for the tdf win, without so much as one year off: it's extraordinary. And extraordinarily implausible that this is not being engineered using whatever means necessary.


I get the Sky suspicion but at the root of this is an obvious question looking from the perspective of the other teams looking at Sky and that is why don't they do the same as Sky? Or even more obvious, surely a doped racehorse can beat a doped Sky donkey? In other words, surely if the dice has all teams on it, the chances of it landing on Sky with a doped donkey are very slim if all the others are doped racehorses? It suggests either all the racehorses are not doping or Sky are doing something the racehorse teams don't currently do yet.

If it comes down to paying UCI money for anti-doping protection, why can only a team less than 10 years old, new to the game pay for it, but teams within the sport for the last 100 years winning, not, just because Sky come along? It's not down to just money. Clearly there is an incentive for UCI to accept all teams money for protection, not just from one or perhaps more lucratively sell it to the highest bidder/brown paper bag and it change more frequently that how long Sky have paid for it. I get the developing British market for sponsors thing, but nobody could argue a French winner of Tour de France against a British Team with a British rider from Kenya would not have a huge ROI assuming such protection is not hundreds of $millions. What was it Pantani earned Mercatone Uno for his 1998 Tour win. I believe their turnover increased over 1000% in the following 3 years due it that win. The company couldn't actually build enough new stores to keep up with demand after Pantani's win, yet before they were relatively small company to three years after. The same would happen for any French company sponsoring a French team winning. ROI for UCI protection and a guaranteed win would be huge.

Undetectable doping of unknown substances and/or unknown methods we'll never know until later if that's the case with Sky. Given the last 100 years, the doping has never been experimental or cutting edge. Undetectable, perhaps, but largely because it wasn't tested for, today that is not so difficult anymore.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,872
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re: Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

11 Jun 2018 18:52

samhocking wrote:
The Hegelian wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:@brownbobby

I'll break it down for you...

a traditional cycling nation producing a tour winner with a young protege - no suspicions aroused
a young protege from non-cycling nation winning the tour - no suspicions aroused

a traditional cycling nation producing a our winner with a no-hoper - suspicion aroused
a no-hoper from a non-cycling nation winning the tour - double suspicion

a no-hoper from a non cycling nation winning the Tour straight after the first no-hoper - treble suspicion

two no-hoper GT winners with a number of PED allegations swirling around them and with a history of working with a convicted Dr (who specialised in GT winners) - quadruple suspicion

I could go on...but we're at about ten-fold suspicion for Froome.....

And that's before starting on 'G'........... ;)


I agree with everything here except the significance of the nationalities involved.

In fact, unintentionally I'm sure, you've helped to illustrate my point, by throwing in the references to the Doctors, the Ped allegations...I could throw in many other things that make me suspicious.

So to repeat...the fact that 2 Brits happen to be the beneficiaries of this great doping success, if indeed that's what this is, is way down on the list of things that make me suspicious.

Maybe you factor it in, but the OP opined it was 'the most suss thing in this whole story for sure.

You're not changing my opinion, my disagreement, on that specifically.


You need to consider the consecutive nature of the GT winners/prospects, alongside the economics of why a team spends money in the first instance, who they're targeting (i.e. which markets), and how they aim to succeed in their marketing aims.

Fact is: Sky had a mission to 'make' the first GB tour winner. Had to be British. Since then they've dominated the tour with Froome, and have Thomas waiting in the wings in case Froome gets popped. In all cases, as a brand they're targeting the general/popular non-cycling British audience, and the only way to do that is to generate interest in the tdf. To achieve this aim, they must have a British rider contending for the win - otherwise, the popular audience will not watch/take interest.

What's suss about it: they've simply gone ahead and made this happen in the same manner as the Chinese government building a bridge "Here's the money, go do it." So let's say for the sake of argument, that it is a fluke of genetics and luck that Wiggins came along, and then Froome came along, and Sky was the beneficiary of these great signings. Well, the fact they can prepare the next British candidate to just 'take his place' and contend for the tdf win, without so much as one year off: it's extraordinary. And extraordinarily implausible that this is not being engineered using whatever means necessary.


I get the Sky suspicion but at the root of this is an obvious question looking from the perspective of the other teams looking at Sky and that is why don't they do the same as Sky? Or even more obvious, surely a doped racehorse can beat a doped Sky donkey? In other words, surely if the dice has all teams on it, the chances of it landing on Sky with a doped donkey are very slim if all the others are doped racehorses? It suggests either all the racehorses are not doping or Sky are doing something the racehorse teams don't currently do yet.

If it comes down to paying UCI money for anti-doping protection, why can only a team less than 10 years old, new to the game pay for it, but teams within the sport for the last 100 years winning, not, just because Sky come along? It's not down to just money. Clearly there is an incentive for UCI to accept all teams money for protection, not just from one or perhaps more lucratively sell it to the highest bidder/brown paper bag and it change more frequently that how long Sky have paid for it. I get the developing British market for sponsors thing, but nobody could argue a French winner of Tour de France against a British Team with a British rider from Kenya would not have a huge ROI assuming such protection is not hundreds of $millions. What was it Pantani earned Mercatone Uno for his 1998 Tour win. I believe their turnover increased over 1000% in the following 3 years due it that win. The company couldn't actually build enough new stores to keep up with demand after Pantani's win, yet before they were relatively small company to three years after. The same would happen for any French company sponsoring a French team winning. ROI for UCI protection and a guaranteed win would be huge.

Undetectable doping of unknown substances and/or unknown methods we'll never know until later if that's the case with Sky. Given the last 100 years, the doping has never been experimental or cutting edge. Undetectable, perhaps, but largely because it wasn't tested for, today that is not so difficult anymore.


Obfuscation.

Doping has never been experimental?????/

Sure, riders wait years before trusting to new PEDs, i mean they dont want to take risks with their health, better to wait for tests to catch them.

Sky look exactly like every other big rich doping team, Banesto, Mapei, USPostal, Astana etc etc....and anyone who doesn't think this knows little about the sport or has another agenda.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,516
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

11 Jun 2018 19:29

What were the experimental pre-clinical/non-approved substances only one team used and no other could then in the last 100 years? I can't think of any that were not simply already known about and/or approved substances within medicine at the time anyway. Riders might have experimented using them to find what worked best initially and we know that from 6 - day racing where riders and coaches did just that before the Grand Tours to perfect their cocktails of potions, but that isn't the same as them being an experimental drug only one team can use or obtain to gain an advantage over others, that's just looking for improvement with what doping already exists to everyone already.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,872
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re:

11 Jun 2018 19:48

samhocking wrote:What were the experimental pre-clinical/non-approved substances only one team used and no other could then in the last 100 years? I can't think of any that were not simply already known about and/or approved substances within medicine at the time anyway. Riders might have experimented using them to find what worked best initially and we know that from 6 - day racing where riders and coaches did just that before the Grand Tours to perfect their cocktails of potions, but that isn't the same as them being an experimental drug only one team can use or obtain to gain an advantage over others, that's just looking for improvement with what doping already exists to everyone already.


Nothing I know of in cycling but I'll believe that cycling's in a new clean era before I believe Patrick Arnold, Victor Conte and the rest of the Balco crew are the only ones to have made their own PEDS.
wansteadimp
Junior Member
 
Posts: 278
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 12:16

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Nomad, samhocking and 16 guests

Back to top