Haha that's true. Though what they were on probably no good for riding a bike!Eshnar said:nevertheless they were able to see Gods, monsters and stuff so they surely were on something powerful.
Haha that's true. Though what they were on probably no good for riding a bike!Eshnar said:nevertheless they were able to see Gods, monsters and stuff so they surely were on something powerful.
Why did Rabobank and Saunier Duval let them get away with it? Teams benefit when their riders win. They can either be complicit or willfully ignorant.Logic Al said:If that's true why are Sky letting him get away with it? If he gets caught the fallout will be massive
Froome may be dumb (though that's debateable) but to say all of Sky are surely is stretching it somewhat?
It's not simple maths, it's not a simple formula, you don't inject 200 dopes and get to ride at 6 W/kg and then at 6.2 W/kg if you go with 300 dopes. It takes a lot of medical expertise to make the most out of a doping program that's also safe enough.Logic Al said:Contador and Valverde are two guys. Surely there's a dozen other of the top 20 who could juice up as much as Froome?
The post I was responding to was stating that Sky was seemingly prepared to go a lot further with their risks than all the other teamBalabar said:Why did Rabobank and Saunier Duval let them get away with it? Teams benefit when their riders win. They can either be complicit or willfully ignorant.
The fallout for Rabobank has been enormous, but they were more than willing to look the other way while Rasmussen took every drug imaginable. What makes you think Sky would be any different? Why look a gift horse in the mouth? Rabobank only stepped in when it became painfully obvious to everyone else that Rasmussen was doping.
They probably are. But like hrotha said, it's not as simple as that.Logic Al said:Contador and Valverde are two guys. Surely there's a dozen other of the top 20 who could juice up as much as Froome?
For reasons we can only guess, they didn't.Logic Al said:Contador and Valverde are two guys. Surely there's a dozen other of the top 20 who could juice up as much as Froome?
So sky's doping program is much more sophisticated and advanced than anyone else's and has been for over 2 years?hrotha said:It's not simple maths, it's not a simple formula, you don't inject 200 dopes and get to ride at 6 W/kg and then at 6.2 W/kg if you go with 300 dopes. It takes a lot of medical expertise to make the most out of a doping program that's also safe enough.
Yep he had help from the UCI and the best doctors/resourcesH2OUUP2 said:They probably are. But like hrotha said, it's not as simple as that.
Maybe, like I said in an earlier post, the Peleton is actually getting cleaner, and Sky didn't get the memo??
Doping effects different people in different ways, so it's impossible to really know why??
I dunno.But Armstrong was doping while everyone else was as well. Why did he win? We have evidence he had help from the UCI...Maybe that's why everyone thinks this is what's happening now.
I think that most long-time cyclists and cycling-fans are watching Froome, and hearing all the flat-out stupid rationalisations from people like Brailsford (and he's calling us too stupid to understand powermeter data), and wondering whether we're seeing another "miracle."DirtyWorks said:Time for another summary:
Froome goes alien on the first mountain top finish, destroying everyone.
Froome attacked repeatedly over at least 60KM with no help over monster climbs and survives just fine.
Froome displays total TT domination, just barely losing to a TT specialist, destroys the GC contenders again.
All of this power and speed revealed only when riding for Sky.
The UCI has ignored positives before. There's no consequences for ignoring positives. Why did they pick Sky to support? No idea. But, it sure seems like they have.Logic Al said:But if Froome can get away with whatever he's doing from the testers then why can't they? and what about the cyclists without the history?
Like you say it's those who have been busted who are closer to Froome than those who haven't!
After the fallout from Armstrong what do the UCI have to gain from ignoring positives?DirtyWorks said:The UCI has ignored positives before. There's no consequences for ignoring positives. Why did they pick Sky to support? No idea. But, it sure seems like they have.
Or that elderly gent from times way gone by, Mauro Santambrogio. But he rode ages ago, this generation is totally different.Bronstein said:You forgot to mention Cobo. A true leader of this new generation if there ever was one.
ever think ASO are probably hoping Sky Tv eventually buy the rights to The Tour?Logic Al said:So sky's doping program is much more sophisticated and advanced than anyone else's and has been for over 2 years?
Guess it's possible, though would be interesting who's involved as a relatively new team has come along and blown other teams who have been doping for years out the water
Realize too they left at least one other grand tour podium contender out. (Uran) Sky had 4-5 grand tour podium contenders after the Giro. Think about that.ihavenolimbs said:...without any credible explanation as to what Sky's miracle-sauce is, I don't know how anyone can be so convinced of doping, just yet. Though, after a few more stages like today ...
Remember, the UCI feels they did nothing wrong with Armstrong. Those people that did that are still in power today. So they probably feel the same way.Logic Al said:After the fallout from Armstrong what do the UCI have to gain from ignoring positives?
Also is there anything to suggest Froome has failed a test?
Making money! Doping controversy loses money. No doping controversy makes money. Cleanest peloton ever.Logic Al said:After the fallout from Armstrong what do the UCI have to gain from ignoring positives?
How would anyone know unless the UCI opens a case? The samples are anonymous to everyone but the UCI now. (2013) No more Contador positives slipping out. No one knew Armstrong's 2009/10 samples were red-hot positive until the UCI screwed up and released the rider code for Armstrong.Logic Al said:Also is there anything to suggest Froome has failed a test?
Pretty sure that Sky would quit the sponsorship if a leading rider got caught doping. Reputational damage would be huge otherwisechrisb said:ever think ASO are probably hoping Sky Tv eventually buy the rights to The Tour?
If Sky got the cycling onto their satellite tv channel then the sport could be as big, in monetary terms as the premierleague. So we're talking riders, team owners, team principals, and lets not forget ASO and the UCI would be cashing in millions a year.
this thing goes deeper than Chris Froome sticking a syringe into his arm
But then it tends to come out in the end, and a lot more people will believe the rumours these days.DirtyWorks said:Making money! Doping controversy loses money. No doping controversy makes money. Cleanest peloton ever.
Nobody knows, but people are speaking like it's happenedDirtyWorks said:How would anyone know unless the UCI opens a case? The samples are anonymous to everyone but the UCI now. (2013) No more Contador positives slipping out. No one knew Armstrong's 2009/10 samples were red-hot positive until the UCI screwed up and released the rider code for Armstrong.
Sorta like a certain fellow who just recovered from testicular, lung, and brain cancer... and took a drug which causes cancer to such a degree...leon7766 said:Pretty sure someone will say yes and come up with some sort of justification that's a bit silly
I'm confident they would insist that in nw way they believed the team would be doping and that they are terribly disapointed since they really believed blahblahblah...Logic Al said:Pretty sure that Sky would quit the sponsorship if a leading rider got caught doping. Reputational damage would be huge otherwise
Murdoch is the man behind Team Sky, Murdoch owned the Sunday World who wire tapped the parents of the 2 young girls that where murdered by Ian Huntley.Logic Al said:Pretty sure that Sky would quit the sponsorship if a leading rider got caught doping. Reputational damage would be huge otherwise
Not sure whether they could get a similar level of sponsorship?
With Armstrong etc... It was clearly in UCI's interest to cover it up. Just not seeing why that's the case now. They'd likely not survive another fallout like that
Shaking head and rolling eyes simultaneously...argyllflyer said:Well according to Rob Hayles on Eurosport it was specifically designed to cope with the winds in that part of France for today's stage. He was standing there by the Sky bus with the bike in his hands and I assume that info came from someone with slightly more knowledge than you? The bike was angled apparently to be more aerodynamic in a particular type of crosswind.