Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[thehog]

According to this logic all of Riis' riders are clean, but only if he promises us that they are.

Yes I agree. This only "generally" though.

Sean Yates never confessed which means Sky riders might be doping.

But I doubt it.

Because Bobby Jullich said Froome is not doping.

Its true.

If Froome was doping. Bobby would tell us all that the Dawg is dabbling in the black arts.

 

[FrankChickens]

Yes I agree. This only "generally" though.

Sean Yates never confessed which means Sky riders might be doping.

But I doubt it.

Because Bobby Jullich said Froome is not doping.

Its true.

If Froome was doping. Bobby would tell us all that the Dawg is dabbling in the black arts.

Yes, no doubt he would quit his coaching gig immediately and go straight to the press. Makes sense.

 

[del1962]

According to this logic all of Riis' riders are clean, but only if he promises us that they are.

That would be a valid comparison if Bobby J was still working for team sky, but he isn't

 

[del1962]

Yes, no doubt he would quit his coaching gig immediately and go straight to the press. Makes sense.

It is likely that he would if he had been forced out for his own past sins, but saw it happening at Sky.

 

[FrankChickens]

"to affirm or declare positively or earnestly"

This is want Walsh has done with team sky being clean, he has interviewed Julich (a self confessed doper) who has affirmed that he saw nothing of doping at sky.

Generally when a self confessed ex doper who has experience with rider (s) who affirms this we think it is a good indication that the rider (s) are not doping

Leinders also fessed up to assisting with doping products at Rabobank. Lets ask him too. Surely nobody is in a better position to shed light on this?

 

[del1962]

Leinders also fessed up to assisting with doping products at Rabobank. Lets ask him too. Surely nobody is in a better position to shed light on this?

I agree ask him aswell and the de Jongh.

 

[Ferminal]

Is this the same Julich who stopped doping in 98?

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Saint of the Fraud?

What?

ten c's

 

[the sceptic]

Somehow i doubt Walsh is going to even mention Leinders. Sky wants that name to be forgotten about as soon as possible.

 

[the sceptic]

Is this the same Julich who stopped doping in 98?

Yes luckily he isnt spanish or italian, so we can trust what he says.

 

[del1962]

Somehow i doubt Walsh is going to even mention Leinders. Sky wants that name to be forgotten about as soon as possible.

Well he has mentioned him before, and I expect he will again

 

[Ferminal]

Yes luckily he isnt spanish or italian, so we can trust what he says.

Did Kim Andersen say he was clean though?

 

[JRTinMA]

It is likely that he would if he had been forced out for his own past sins, but saw it happening at Sky.

Maybe he remembers what happened to the last doper who talked about doping. Maybe he decided its not worth the grief.

 

[Heckler]

What?

ten c's

Broglio, in Italian, can mean fraud, cheat or manipulatively pull strings.

I thought that was why you were asking.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Broglio, in Italian, can mean fraud, cheat or manipulatively pull strings

Oh! that way ... i did not get the joke in the beginning .. and tauxs has pm me and told me why he wrote it that way

 

[thehog]

Is this the same Julich who stopped doping in 98?

I think its half brother Steve Jullich.

He stopped doping in 98.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

aaaa you mean santa(o) broglio?

 

[Heckler]

News Bulletin: The Real Reason Froome is the New Leader of Sky Cycling

http://instagram.com/p/ayXP8emxiO/#

His head is bigger than everybody elses...

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Has Julich had anything negative to say (about Sky, not necessarily about doping but just a more two-sided discussion of the organisation), or is it all a very bland "I've doped, and I've seen doped riders, and these guys aren't doped riders" kind of statement that tells us very little in real terms?

I mean, you could argue that a lot of people hung a lot of faith in guys like David Moncoutié because of Gaumont, but Gaumont explicitly announced that his whole team were doping, including several who hadn't been explicitly fingered as dopers, so as he had seemingly nothing to gain from the statements and was actually standing to lose by alienating peers who were now being accused of doping by a teammate, the excluding of Moncoutié and Tombak from the accusations carried a lot more weight in the public eye.

Julich is the man that presided over Froome's miracle transformation, so although he doesn't work for Team Sky anymore, if Froome's transformation that Julich oversaw turned out to be a fraud, it may impact Julich's future job prospects. It could be that he had nothing to say along Gaumont's lines because there was no doping that he saw.

However, having people who have been "in the loop" at Sky and people on the Murdoch payroll saying "Froome's clean. Sky are all clean. It's all super mega clean awesome yea!" is, unfortunately, inherently suspicious in and of itself, even with the résumés of the sources involved. They don't have the 'burning my own bridges by telling the truth' factor that made Gaumont, Hamilton or even Kohl more believable, and as a result it is not surprising if, in view of just how unpalatable the sudden change of Team Sky into all-conquering assassins who destroy world class fields of cycling while breathing through their noses has been in terms of immediate believability in the context of cycling history, people are suspicious of the motives of the people making those assertions to Froome's cleanliness.

 

[the sceptic]

Did riders in the 70s or 80s ever get huge improvement late in their careers or is this only possible with doping? Has any clean rider ever done a donkey to racehorse transformation?

 

[airstream]

Did riders in the 70s or 80s ever get huge improvement late in their careers or is this only possible with doping? Has any clean rider ever done a donkey to racehorse transformation?

For instance no and what? It proves anything? If anything happened before, it's impossible?

 

[Heckler]

conversely no-one should label froomey a doper without evidence

in the overblown post above from LS faith is mentioned it's not about faith
we deserve facts.................enough people must know the truth so in time
we will too

Mark L

If he's a doper, he's following a very new and improved business model. Very few people will know about it.

That too many people knew the truth was LA's biggest mistake. In the new model, you don't need UCI collusion, because you're working beyond the existing rules. You don't need a large support group, because blood bags and coolers and saline aren't involved. That takes a lot of people out of the equation.

I would say there would be 5 people in the know if it's solely an independent project. Up to ten more, at the most, that know or have a legitimate suspicion if it is an enhancement above and beyond a team project.

 

[thehog]

Has Julich had anything negative to say (about Sky, not necessarily about doping but just a more two-sided discussion of the organisation), or is it all a very bland "I've doped, and I've seen doped riders, and these guys aren't doped riders" kind of statement that tells us very little in real terms?

Just so you know Bobby J never doped when he joined CSC in 2004. The sudden return to form had nothing to do with doping at because he stopped in 1998. Well he stopped using EPO in 1998

I made the decision to use EPO several times from August 1996 until July of 1998. Those days were very different from today, but it was not a decision that I reached easily. I knew that it was wrong, but over those two years, the attitude surrounding the use of EPO in the peloton was so casual and accepted that I personally lost perspective of the gravity of the situation.

During the 1998 Tour, my fiancé (now wife) found out what was going on from another rider's wife. She confronted me on it and it was one of the most dreadful experiences of my life. She was never a part of this and I put her in a very difficult situation. She told me right then and there that if it ever happened again, our relationship would be over. That was motivation enough and I knew I had to stop.

The Festina Affair changed everything for me. It reaffirmed for me that this was not only wrong and bad for my health, but also illegal with heavy consequences. In a strange way, I was relieved that the Festina Affair happened and was personally convinced doping would stop and that this problem would be over. I quickly realised how wrong I was.

 

[Heckler]

Has Julich had anything negative to say (about Sky, not necessarily about doping but just a more two-sided discussion of the organisation), or is it all a very bland "I've doped, and I've seen doped riders, and these guys aren't doped riders" kind of statement that tells us very little in real terms?

I mean, you could argue that a lot of people hung a lot of faith in guys like David Moncoutié because of Gaumont, but Gaumont explicitly announced that his whole team were doping, including several who hadn't been explicitly fingered as dopers, so as he had seemingly nothing to gain from the statements and was actually standing to lose by alienating peers who were now being accused of doping by a teammate, the excluding of Moncoutié and Tombak from the accusations carried a lot more weight in the public eye.

Julich is the man that presided over Froome's miracle transformation, so although he doesn't work for Team Sky anymore, if Froome's transformation that Julich oversaw turned out to be a fraud, it may impact Julich's future job prospects. It could be that he had nothing to say along Gaumont's lines because there was no doping that he saw.

However, having people who have been "in the loop" at Sky and people on the Murdoch payroll saying "Froome's clean. Sky are all clean. It's all super mega clean awesome yea!" is, unfortunately, inherently suspicious in and of itself, even with the résumés of the sources involved. They don't have the 'burning my own bridges by telling the truth' factor that made Gaumont, Hamilton or even Kohl more believable, and as a result it is not surprising if, in view of just how unpalatable the sudden change of Team Sky into all-conquering assassins who destroy world class fields of cycling while breathing through their noses has been in terms of immediate believability in the context of cycling history, people are suspicious of the motives of the people making those assertions to Froome's cleanliness.

It is possible that all these people are telling the truth as they know it.

When Evans published his finding on Aicar, that was the Aha! moment and a world of scientists went back to the lab with a new mission. That was 6 years ago. If there is a new doping program, it may not even be doping and, whatever it is, it is a big secret.

 

[thehog]

It is possible that all these people are telling the truth as they know it.

.

Possible. Probably not.

CN: Finally - Bjarne [Riis] seems to get the best out of a lot of people. Why is that?

BJ: Well, he doesn't have any magic sprinkle dust that he throws over us or some magic spell. I think that his main gift is that he can pick riders who will work well together, get along, and produce good results. And be friends. I think that's his main gift; how he can select the riders from so many different countries and yet still make it work. Now we have 30 guys, yet everyone gets along well. There is no tension in the team and if there is, we know how to fix it and not let it eat at you.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/riders/2006/interviews/?id=bobby_julich_mar06