I'm
red_flanders wrote:samhocking wrote:red_flanders wrote:DFA123 wrote:The other issue with this is that why would the special program - which seems to be based around weight loss - only work with a few riders. Or why did they only trial it with a few riders. Why didn't they turn EBH into a GT winner, or Cummings?
I think in EBH you have the career arc of a naturally talented rider who has decided not to dope. His results are probably about what a clean rider can hope for, at least classics-wise, which seems to be his skill set. Who knows, however, what a full program would have allowed him to do.
Is that suggesting Sky's program is not team-based but an individual rider decision then? Assuming Sky have a magic cocktail, magic doctor nobody else has and not detectable, why give him a contract at all to allow him to ride clean and rhen renew his contract again two years later? He was there for 4 years with Wiggins & Froome.
That a team would have a doping program and that decisions about doping are made by individuals are two things not in conflict. That would be normal, and as such I don't think your question makes sense.
When you start talking about magic this or that, it suggests you're less looking for an answer to those questions than poking fun at a notion that Sky have some kind of advantage. That's fine, it does seem unlikely they have special knowledge at this point, after all the transfers in and out of the team. But it's certainly not impossible.
To put a finer point on the team/individual component, it's a fact that Froome's original breakout in the Vuelta was a huge surprise to the team. The obvious conclusion, at least to me, is that he started a program individually, likely with Bermon (
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=29971). Clearly Froome was not in position to be part of any inner circle of doping, if it existed at the time, and clearly his ascendance pissed of Wiggins beyond just a power struggle. One had the distinct feeling Froome
wasn't supposed to be there. Whether the last bit is the case or not, you almost certainly have at least one rider doping outside of the framework of the team at one point in time.
What that means as far as how they conduct any program they may have is unclear. Teams have long had circles of riders who are in our out of a program, that would not be new or unusual. And riders outside of the inner circle have been gainfully employed for extended periods, but do not tend to make the team for big races like the Tour. But sometimes they have, so who knows?
What you have in EBH is a rider who was fantastic in youth and junior racing, who came to the pros and had some early results, and then was blown away by what appears to be a resurgence in full-tilt doping after what appears to have been a reduction in doping at the time of the passport's introduction. It all fits a view that new testing had some effect on doping at the time and then teams, as they do, figured out ways around it.
There is no case to be made that because EBH isn't doping that Sky aren't running a full program. Makes no sense. His career path is compatible with team-wide, inner-circle wide, or individual doping. Sky's results strongly suggest but do not prove team-wide doping. A team-wide cover-up of doping on the team is not in question. See Sky's reaction to the surprise of Froome as the first concrete example of this.
I'm not using the term magic in that way, I'm using it to imply we don't know how Sky are winning in so far assuming you believe its via doping but other teams are doping too, so still unknown in effect.
To me, even a basic doping strategy would involve all riders in a team. Doping is cheap.
[b]Corticosteroids are £7, EPO £20, Testosterone £8.[/b] Why would you make the decision to put a randomly doping individual or a non-doper in to a team who's doping is organised. Is that not increasing risk of getting popped by that rider or if clean, simply weakening the team? Even if your GC guys are inner circle, why purposely weaken the team by not team doping everyone.
Alternatively if doping is purely individual.acros the team, then doping is actually then definitely the same as every other team because those riders come from every other team prior to arriving at Sky. That's still not going to explain winning either.
What I'm still puzzled about is, the assuredness of the clinic Sky are winning because they are doping, yet that doping is in other teams too, so doesn't explain the imbalance in success. Sure if the jiffy bag claim was something we've never heard about on cycling, or revealed some secret squirrel doctor or substance, yes that would torally explain it. Testosterone, Corticosteroids and TUEs are not going to explain it, no matter how much proof there is that's what Sky riders have been given, because that is not advanced doping that is doping of 20 years ago any rider could perform perfectly adequately external to Sky.[/quote]
Blimey that’s cheap, where ya getting ya gear Sam......asking for a friend
[/quote]
You can get cheaper. Kenalog 40 you can get for under £2 online lol. None of it is difficult to find. DRS website, Pharm2u etc. That's not even looking at other corners of the internet.
I nearly crashed into him laughing.
