Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Arrowfarm]

Re:

I'm sure you are mate, but it sounds like BS when you try to deflect away from genuine questions that people seem reticent to cover. I'm sure you'd love to dismiss anyone asking inconvenient questions as 'trolling', but everyone here has a right to attack or defend positions, and I believe that the clinic sceptics avoid talking about the SKY setup because they know that the deeper they go, the harder it is to rationalise that they set this up as a massive doping operation without SKY and Brailsford's sporting reputations being destroyed by a whistleblower or advance in science, be it in 5, 10 or 20 years.

They don't have 'loads of known dopers' in their ranks. They have people you believe are dopers, and there, yet again, you expose the sceptic mindset even further. Once the spiral begins, even suspicions are treated as absolute truths, like the Landa thing where Walsh said he was sceptical about Astana ergo Landa was doping ergo SKY signed a known doper. Just again, a willingness to make leaps where no firm evidence exists, and once they're made, they're part of the 'Team Sky is doping' canon, to be used and recycled every time Froome wins a stage.

Boasting and bragging is subjective. I find it difficult to warm to Froome or SKY as a team, but again, I just don't know what else they could realistically do. Imagine if they came out and said 'no comment' every time someone mentioned doping. You know for a fact that people in here would leap on that as admission of guilt, so why pretend otherwise?

I hate that the clinic drives me to defend a repulsive company in SKY/Murdoch/News Corp but I can't just sit back and not challenge people on the paranoid ramblings on here.

Troll someone else, please.

 

[simoni]

Re: Re:

I fail to see your question as anything other than baiting What sky does differently has been covered a gazillion times. They boast of new discoveries when in fact they have found norging new. No other teams do that. They brag about their ztp and how clean they are, when in fact they have plenty of known dopers in their ranks. They boast and brag even when they are not asked about these thing. Other teams just answer when asked and keep a low profile at most other times. Done with that subject.

Maybe doping is still common, maybe its not. Either way, I doubt Sky are significantly different to anyone else in terms of how close to the rules they adhere.

What they do have is cash to get hold of the best "raw material" and better focus and clarity on tactics (probably because they pay domestiques more to keep them in line).

One thing is for sure - if the likes of Van Avermaet, Van Garderen or Valverde rode for Sky they'd either be in the train or not at the race at all (and this is no criticism of any of those riders specifically).

To me, talk of some special formula or special protection is fanciful. The answers are a lot more obvious and staring right at us.

Why are you directing this at me? I haven't stated that I think sky are worse cheaters than the others. For the record, I don't. They're all cheating where ever they think they can gain an advatage. Those kinds of marginal gains are real.
Neither have I stated that I think they are protected or are doping in ways others aren't.
Sky are not worse cheaters. They lie more often than other teams and that's why I like them less than the other teams.

Apols - didn't mean to, forgot to remove your quote - was just a general obsevation.

 

[BYOP88]

This will be his 5th tour win.

in 2012 he would have won if not for wiggo.
in 2014 he would have won if not crashing out.

Do a love if's and but's theory, if I was fitter and quicker at riding a bike i would be on a WT team :lol:

I agree with 99.9% of what you said. But I do think if it wasn't for team orders in 2012 he'd be a few days away from #4.

 

[gazr99]

Re:

I'm sure you are mate, but it sounds like BS when you try to deflect away from genuine questions that people seem reticent to cover. I'm sure you'd love to dismiss anyone asking inconvenient questions as 'trolling', but everyone here has a right to attack or defend positions, and I believe that the clinic sceptics avoid talking about the SKY setup because they know that the deeper they go, the harder it is to rationalise that they set this up as a massive doping operation without SKY and Brailsford's sporting reputations being destroyed by a whistleblower or advance in science, be it in 5, 10 or 20 years.

They don't have 'loads of known dopers' in their ranks. They have people you believe are dopers, and there, yet again, you expose the sceptic mindset even further. Once the spiral begins, even suspicions are treated as absolute truths, like the Landa thing where Walsh said he was sceptical about Astana ergo Landa was doping ergo SKY signed a known doper. Just again, a willingness to make leaps where no firm evidence exists, and once they're made, they're part of the 'Team Sky is doping' canon, to be used and recycled every time Froome wins a stage.

Boasting and bragging is subjective. I find it difficult to warm to Froome or SKY as a team, but again, I just don't know what else they could realistically do. Imagine if they came out and said 'no comment' every time someone mentioned doping. You know for a fact that people in here would leap on that as admission of guilt, so why pretend otherwise?

I hate that the clinic drives me to defend a repulsive company in SKY/Murdoch/News Corp but I can't just sit back and not challenge people on the paranoid ramblings on here.

Totally agree.

If the clinic is right, Sky are one of the more disliked teams. There should be several whistleblowers by now if Sky is as dirty as everyone makes out. It's not like they haven't got rid of any staff/riders and potentially fallen out with them. Sky have dominated the TDF in recent years, I'm sure teams would love to weaken or remove the Sky train. Don't try to use the Murdoch owns the media excuse either, he owns a large proportion yes, but he too is disliked and has rival media companies, who I'm sure would love to bring the team down

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I'm sure you are mate, but it sounds like BS when you try to deflect away from genuine questions that people seem reticent to cover. I'm sure you'd love to dismiss anyone asking inconvenient questions as 'trolling', but everyone here has a right to attack or defend positions, and I believe that the clinic sceptics avoid talking about the SKY setup because they know that the deeper they go, the harder it is to rationalise that they set this up as a massive doping operation without SKY and Brailsford's sporting reputations being destroyed by a whistleblower or advance in science, be it in 5, 10 or 20 years.

They don't have 'loads of known dopers' in their ranks. They have people you believe are dopers, and there, yet again, you expose the sceptic mindset even further. Once the spiral begins, even suspicions are treated as absolute truths, like the Landa thing where Walsh said he was sceptical about Astana ergo Landa was doping ergo SKY signed a known doper. Just again, a willingness to make leaps where no firm evidence exists, and once they're made, they're part of the 'Team Sky is doping' canon, to be used and recycled every time Froome wins a stage.

Boasting and bragging is subjective. I find it difficult to warm to Froome or SKY as a team, but again, I just don't know what else they could realistically do. Imagine if they came out and said 'no comment' every time someone mentioned doping. You know for a fact that people in here would leap on that as admission of guilt, so why pretend otherwise?

I hate that the clinic drives me to defend a repulsive company in SKY/Murdoch/News Corp but I can't just sit back and not challenge people on the paranoid ramblings on here.

Totally agree.

If the clinic is right, Sky are one of the more disliked teams. There should be several whistleblowers by now if Sky is as dirty as everyone makes out. It's not like they haven't got rid of any staff/riders and potentially fallen out with them. Sky have dominated the TDF in recent years, I'm sure teams would love to weaken or remove the Sky train. Don't try to use the Murdoch owns the media excuse either, he owns a large proportion yes, but he too is disliked and has rival media companies, who I'm sure would love to bring the team down

Why should there be several whistleblowers? Landis only blew the whistle that led to the downfall of Armstrong because they would not give him a ride?

Can you point to any other rider who has similar cause?

It is also very well documented what happens to whistleblowers?

Sky are rich enough to buy the silence of any potential whistleblowers.

You think Murdoch's partners dont agree with Murdoch and would love to see their Brand exposed as dopers and cheats?

Sorry. But everything Sky has done mirrors doping teams.

 

[danielovichdk2]

This will be his 5th tour win.

in 2012 he would have won if not for wiggo.
in 2014 he would have won if not crashing out.

Do a love if's and but's theory, if I was fitter and quicker at riding a bike i would be on a WT team :lol:

I agree with 99.9% of what you said. But I do think if it wasn't for team orders in 2012 he'd be a few days away from #4.

Well, you caught my drift. 4 is also ok I guess

 

[Catwhoorg]

This will be his 5th tour win.

in 2012 he would have won if not for wiggo.
in 2014 he would have won if not crashing out.

Do a love if's and but's theory, if I was fitter and quicker at riding a bike i would be on a WT team :lol:

I agree with 99.9% of what you said. But I do think if it wasn't for team orders in 2012 he'd be a few days away from #4.

The mechanical in the first week as much as team orders. If he had been [this] close to yellow I think he may have gone for it no matter what the team said.

 

[elduggo]

Re: Re:

I'm sure you are mate, but it sounds like BS when you try to deflect away from genuine questions that people seem reticent to cover. I'm sure you'd love to dismiss anyone asking inconvenient questions as 'trolling', but everyone here has a right to attack or defend positions, and I believe that the clinic sceptics avoid talking about the SKY setup because they know that the deeper they go, the harder it is to rationalise that they set this up as a massive doping operation without SKY and Brailsford's sporting reputations being destroyed by a whistleblower or advance in science, be it in 5, 10 or 20 years.

They don't have 'loads of known dopers' in their ranks. They have people you believe are dopers, and there, yet again, you expose the sceptic mindset even further. Once the spiral begins, even suspicions are treated as absolute truths, like the Landa thing where Walsh said he was sceptical about Astana ergo Landa was doping ergo SKY signed a known doper. Just again, a willingness to make leaps where no firm evidence exists, and once they're made, they're part of the 'Team Sky is doping' canon, to be used and recycled every time Froome wins a stage.

Boasting and bragging is subjective. I find it difficult to warm to Froome or SKY as a team, but again, I just don't know what else they could realistically do. Imagine if they came out and said 'no comment' every time someone mentioned doping. You know for a fact that people in here would leap on that as admission of guilt, so why pretend otherwise?

I hate that the clinic drives me to defend a repulsive company in SKY/Murdoch/News Corp but I can't just sit back and not challenge people on the paranoid ramblings on here.

Totally agree.

If the clinic is right, Sky are one of the more disliked teams. There should be several whistleblowers by now if Sky is as dirty as everyone makes out. It's not like they haven't got rid of any staff/riders and potentially fallen out with them. Sky have dominated the TDF in recent years, I'm sure teams would love to weaken or remove the Sky train. Don't try to use the Murdoch owns the media excuse either, he owns a large proportion yes, but he too is disliked and has rival media companies, who I'm sure would love to bring the team down

Why should there be several whistleblowers? Landis only blew the whistle that led to the downfall of Armstrong because they would not give him a ride?

Can you point to any other rider who has similar cause?

It is also very well documented what happens to whistleblowers?

Sky are rich enough to buy the silence of any potential whistleblowers.

You think Murdoch's partners dont agree with Murdoch and would love to see their Brand exposed as dopers and cheats?

Sorry. But everything Sky has done mirrors doping teams.

add to that the fact that many of these riders have same agent (or handful of agents). Spitting in someone else's soup would come back to hurt them too.

Froome is highly unlikely to be toppled by a whistleblower, unfortunately. The only way I can see him being exposed is by an investigative journalist. When you discount the anti-doping agencies (useless), UCI (conflict of interest), whistleblowers (scared), thats the only possibility that remains.

 

[kwikki]

Lol.

Just heard Froome's comment that because he attacked on the descent, it means he is clean

Lets get this straight. a 13 second gap won on a descent explains a 4 minute gap to 2nd place this year, as well as 2 other tdf wins

My god is he desperate

A four minute gap is not exceptional in the history of the Tour. It's not proof of doping.

But he's not done it clean.

 

[ontheroad]

Sky have learned the lessons from US Postal and Lance. Don't p**s anyone off where possible and if they suffer fools easily (a la Walsh) then take them inside the tent and soften them up. Those who don't suffer fools easily (ie Tucker, Kimmage, Vayer etc) they try and scorn upon but in a manner much more subtle than that which Lance employed. Reality means nothing with sky but perception and image is everything.

Therefore by far the most important aspect of Sky's regime at the moment is the PR. The big focus at the minute is to look as least suspicious as possible in winning the tour and then get the hell out of France where they can be back in their own safe environment in the UK knowing that by and large the public will lap up this great British success story. They know that an adoring media will ask questions as to how they achieved this success in the ultimate endurance event and Brailsford and all the great scientists can wax lyrical about marginal gains and people will buy it and they can make money off the back of it. Witness Brailsford, Peters, Kerrison etc selling their mythical methods.

They also know that outside of their own patriotic fans the reception is one of respect at best and outright hostility at worst. Loved they certainly ain't. Their concerted PR campaign on social media, with compliant mediaoutlets and journalists is the bit that sickens me most. The blatant hypocrisy that no other team engages in to anywhere near the same level.

Whether Froome gets busted will depend on his level of greed and how long he wants to stay around for. Wiggins knew the deal and was uncomfortable continuing success on the road with an achievement based on a lie. He talks about his tour success with no great enthusiasm. He knows. Froome on the other hand seems far more comfortable with his continued success even though his is arguably the greatest transformation in the history of the sport. I do admire his brass neck in this regard considering the sudden dramtic increase in his ability at age 26. This Froome story is becoming bigger and bigger every year and the person/people who eventually uncovers the truth behind Brailsford, Froome sky etc will be heralded someday. Because while they themselves are making money now on the back of this success story, it is also that same thirst for money that will lead to their downfall. David Walsh, for example, has ridden the crest of both waves making a bucketful off the Armstrong story and is now profiting further from his close association with the sky/Froome story. There will be another David Walsh out there somewhere who will talk to people and do the same work with Froome now that the story has become so big and a financial incentive is there to uncover the truth. As Lance found out to his cost, the bigger you are the harder you fall.

 

[SeriousSam]

Lol.

Just heard Froome's comment that because he attacked on the descent, it means he is clean

Lets get this straight. a 13 second gap won on a descent explains a 4 minute gap to 2nd place this year, as well as 2 other tdf wins

My god is he desperate

A four minute gap is not exceptional in the history of the Tour. It's not proof of doping.

But he's not done it clean.

That completely misses the point, which is that Froome was deemed suspicious because he won the Tour thanks to going full genius in MTFs and time trials.

Now, Froome and Brailsford are trying really hard to make it seem like he won the Tour with a descent and a break, when in fact he won it by going full genius in the time trials.

Amazingly, it even seems work on some of their target audience. Never underestimate stupidity.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

I'm sure you are mate, but it sounds like BS when you try to deflect away from genuine questions that people seem reticent to cover. I'm sure you'd love to dismiss anyone asking inconvenient questions as 'trolling', but everyone here has a right to attack or defend positions, and I believe that the clinic sceptics avoid talking about the SKY setup because they know that the deeper they go, the harder it is to rationalise that they set this up as a massive doping operation without SKY and Brailsford's sporting reputations being destroyed by a whistleblower or advance in science, be it in 5, 10 or 20 years.

They don't have 'loads of known dopers' in their ranks. They have people you believe are dopers, and there, yet again, you expose the sceptic mindset even further. Once the spiral begins, even suspicions are treated as absolute truths, like the Landa thing where Walsh said he was sceptical about Astana ergo Landa was doping ergo SKY signed a known doper. Just again, a willingness to make leaps where no firm evidence exists, and once they're made, they're part of the 'Team Sky is doping' canon, to be used and recycled every time Froome wins a stage.

Boasting and bragging is subjective. I find it difficult to warm to Froome or SKY as a team, but again, I just don't know what else they could realistically do. Imagine if they came out and said 'no comment' every time someone mentioned doping. You know for a fact that people in here would leap on that as admission of guilt, so why pretend otherwise?

I hate that the clinic drives me to defend a repulsive company in SKY/Murdoch/News Corp but I can't just sit back and not challenge people on the paranoid ramblings on here.

Totally agree.

If the clinic is right, Sky are one of the more disliked teams. There should be several whistleblowers by now if Sky is as dirty as everyone makes out. It's not like they haven't got rid of any staff/riders and potentially fallen out with them. Sky have dominated the TDF in recent years, I'm sure teams would love to weaken or remove the Sky train. Don't try to use the Murdoch owns the media excuse either, he owns a large proportion yes, but he too is disliked and has rival media companies, who I'm sure would love to bring the team down

Why should there be several whistleblowers? Landis only blew the whistle that led to the downfall of Armstrong because they would not give him a ride?

Can you point to any other rider who has similar cause?

It is also very well documented what happens to whistleblowers?

Sky are rich enough to buy the silence of any potential whistleblowers.

You think Murdoch's partners dont agree with Murdoch and would love to see their Brand exposed as dopers and cheats?

Sorry. But everything Sky has done mirrors doping teams.

Whilst I think what you say is true...I am nevertheless mildly surprised that there hasn't been even a glimmer of a rumour of actual doping events, at least none that have reached the public domain.

I can't believe they are doing what they do without something special, so I surmise that they have learnt well from the Armstrong downfall.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I'm sure you are mate, but it sounds like BS when you try to deflect away from genuine questions that people seem reticent to cover. I'm sure you'd love to dismiss anyone asking inconvenient questions as 'trolling', but everyone here has a right to attack or defend positions, and I believe that the clinic sceptics avoid talking about the SKY setup because they know that the deeper they go, the harder it is to rationalise that they set this up as a massive doping operation without SKY and Brailsford's sporting reputations being destroyed by a whistleblower or advance in science, be it in 5, 10 or 20 years.

They don't have 'loads of known dopers' in their ranks. They have people you believe are dopers, and there, yet again, you expose the sceptic mindset even further. Once the spiral begins, even suspicions are treated as absolute truths, like the Landa thing where Walsh said he was sceptical about Astana ergo Landa was doping ergo SKY signed a known doper. Just again, a willingness to make leaps where no firm evidence exists, and once they're made, they're part of the 'Team Sky is doping' canon, to be used and recycled every time Froome wins a stage.

Boasting and bragging is subjective. I find it difficult to warm to Froome or SKY as a team, but again, I just don't know what else they could realistically do. Imagine if they came out and said 'no comment' every time someone mentioned doping. You know for a fact that people in here would leap on that as admission of guilt, so why pretend otherwise?

I hate that the clinic drives me to defend a repulsive company in SKY/Murdoch/News Corp but I can't just sit back and not challenge people on the paranoid ramblings on here.

Totally agree.

If the clinic is right, Sky are one of the more disliked teams. There should be several whistleblowers by now if Sky is as dirty as everyone makes out. It's not like they haven't got rid of any staff/riders and potentially fallen out with them. Sky have dominated the TDF in recent years, I'm sure teams would love to weaken or remove the Sky train. Don't try to use the Murdoch owns the media excuse either, he owns a large proportion yes, but he too is disliked and has rival media companies, who I'm sure would love to bring the team down

Why should there be several whistleblowers? Landis only blew the whistle that led to the downfall of Armstrong because they would not give him a ride?

Can you point to any other rider who has similar cause?

It is also very well documented what happens to whistleblowers?

Sky are rich enough to buy the silence of any potential whistleblowers.

You think Murdoch's partners dont agree with Murdoch and would love to see their Brand exposed as dopers and cheats?

Sorry. But everything Sky has done mirrors doping teams.

Whilst I think what you say is true...I am nevertheless mildly surprised that there hasn't been even a glimmer of a rumour of actual doping events, at least none that have reached the public domain.

I can't believe they are doing what they do without something special, so I surmise that they have learnt well from the Armstrong downfall.

Sean Yates said that Sky dont do anything different than Tinkoff.

I think a lot of people have learnt well from Armstrong.

TeamGB/Sky have strong allies in ASO/UCI/WADA.

 

[kwikki]

Re:

Lol.

Just heard Froome's comment that because he attacked on the descent, it means he is clean

Lets get this straight. a 13 second gap won on a descent explains a 4 minute gap to 2nd place this year, as well as 2 other tdf wins

My god is he desperate

A four minute gap is not exceptional in the history of the Tour. It's not proof of doping.

But he's not done it clean.

That completely misses the point, which is that Froome was deemed suspicious because he won the Tour thanks to going full genius in MTFs and time trials.

Now, Froome and Brailsford are trying really hard to make it seem like he won the Tour with a descent and a break, when in fact he won it by going full genius in the time trials.

Amazingly, it even seems work on some of their target audience. Never underestimate stupidity.

No, I don't think I've missed the point. Froome's performance is suspicious , not because of the performance but because it was by Froome.

I'm not actually disagreeing with you. It's your hair trigger response getting the better of you again

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

I'm sure you are mate, but it sounds like BS when you try to deflect away from genuine questions that people seem reticent to cover. I'm sure you'd love to dismiss anyone asking inconvenient questions as 'trolling', but everyone here has a right to attack or defend positions, and I believe that the clinic sceptics avoid talking about the SKY setup because they know that the deeper they go, the harder it is to rationalise that they set this up as a massive doping operation without SKY and Brailsford's sporting reputations being destroyed by a whistleblower or advance in science, be it in 5, 10 or 20 years.

They don't have 'loads of known dopers' in their ranks. They have people you believe are dopers, and there, yet again, you expose the sceptic mindset even further. Once the spiral begins, even suspicions are treated as absolute truths, like the Landa thing where Walsh said he was sceptical about Astana ergo Landa was doping ergo SKY signed a known doper. Just again, a willingness to make leaps where no firm evidence exists, and once they're made, they're part of the 'Team Sky is doping' canon, to be used and recycled every time Froome wins a stage.

Boasting and bragging is subjective. I find it difficult to warm to Froome or SKY as a team, but again, I just don't know what else they could realistically do. Imagine if they came out and said 'no comment' every time someone mentioned doping. You know for a fact that people in here would leap on that as admission of guilt, so why pretend otherwise?

I hate that the clinic drives me to defend a repulsive company in SKY/Murdoch/News Corp but I can't just sit back and not challenge people on the paranoid ramblings on here.

Totally agree.

If the clinic is right, Sky are one of the more disliked teams. There should be several whistleblowers by now if Sky is as dirty as everyone makes out. It's not like they haven't got rid of any staff/riders and potentially fallen out with them. Sky have dominated the TDF in recent years, I'm sure teams would love to weaken or remove the Sky train. Don't try to use the Murdoch owns the media excuse either, he owns a large proportion yes, but he too is disliked and has rival media companies, who I'm sure would love to bring the team down

Why should there be several whistleblowers? Landis only blew the whistle that led to the downfall of Armstrong because they would not give him a ride?

Can you point to any other rider who has similar cause?

It is also very well documented what happens to whistleblowers?

Sky are rich enough to buy the silence of any potential whistleblowers.

You think Murdoch's partners dont agree with Murdoch and would love to see their Brand exposed as dopers and cheats?

Sorry. But everything Sky has done mirrors doping teams.

Sean Yates and Bobby Jullich had the opportunity to let things slip if they wanted to a few years back. If SKY are doping I'm sure there are other lower level employees who could easily be persuaded to talk, or raise an eyebrow in a certain way, etc.

 

[thehog]

Lol.

Just heard Froome's comment that because he attacked on the descent, it means he is clean

Lets get this straight. a 13 second gap won on a descent explains a 4 minute gap to 2nd place this year, as well as 2 other tdf wins

My god is he desperate

Yes, decending well is the new doping test. Nibali must be cleans

 

[Arrowfarm]

Re: Re:

I fail to see your question as anything other than baiting What sky does differently has been covered a gazillion times. They boast of new discoveries when in fact they have found norging new. No other teams do that. They brag about their ztp and how clean they are, when in fact they have plenty of known dopers in their ranks. They boast and brag even when they are not asked about these thing. Other teams just answer when asked and keep a low profile at most other times. Done with that subject.

Maybe doping is still common, maybe its not. Either way, I doubt Sky are significantly different to anyone else in terms of how close to the rules they adhere.

What they do have is cash to get hold of the best "raw material" and better focus and clarity on tactics (probably because they pay domestiques more to keep them in line).

One thing is for sure - if the likes of Van Avermaet, Van Garderen or Valverde rode for Sky they'd either be in the train or not at the race at all (and this is no criticism of any of those riders specifically).

To me, talk of some special formula or special protection is fanciful. The answers are a lot more obvious and staring right at us.

Why are you directing this at me? I haven't stated that I think sky are worse cheaters than the others. For the record, I don't. They're all cheating where ever they think they can gain an advatage. Those kinds of marginal gains are real.
Neither have I stated that I think they are protected or are doping in ways others aren't.
Sky are not worse cheaters. They lie more often than other teams and that's why I like them less than the other teams.

Apols - didn't mean to, forgot to remove your quote - was just a general obsevation.

No problem

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I'm sure you are mate, but it sounds like BS when you try to deflect away from genuine questions that people seem reticent to cover. I'm sure you'd love to dismiss anyone asking inconvenient questions as 'trolling', but everyone here has a right to attack or defend positions, and I believe that the clinic sceptics avoid talking about the SKY setup because they know that the deeper they go, the harder it is to rationalise that they set this up as a massive doping operation without SKY and Brailsford's sporting reputations being destroyed by a whistleblower or advance in science, be it in 5, 10 or 20 years.

They don't have 'loads of known dopers' in their ranks. They have people you believe are dopers, and there, yet again, you expose the sceptic mindset even further. Once the spiral begins, even suspicions are treated as absolute truths, like the Landa thing where Walsh said he was sceptical about Astana ergo Landa was doping ergo SKY signed a known doper. Just again, a willingness to make leaps where no firm evidence exists, and once they're made, they're part of the 'Team Sky is doping' canon, to be used and recycled every time Froome wins a stage.

Boasting and bragging is subjective. I find it difficult to warm to Froome or SKY as a team, but again, I just don't know what else they could realistically do. Imagine if they came out and said 'no comment' every time someone mentioned doping. You know for a fact that people in here would leap on that as admission of guilt, so why pretend otherwise?

I hate that the clinic drives me to defend a repulsive company in SKY/Murdoch/News Corp but I can't just sit back and not challenge people on the paranoid ramblings on here.

Totally agree.

If the clinic is right, Sky are one of the more disliked teams. There should be several whistleblowers by now if Sky is as dirty as everyone makes out. It's not like they haven't got rid of any staff/riders and potentially fallen out with them. Sky have dominated the TDF in recent years, I'm sure teams would love to weaken or remove the Sky train. Don't try to use the Murdoch owns the media excuse either, he owns a large proportion yes, but he too is disliked and has rival media companies, who I'm sure would love to bring the team down

Why should there be several whistleblowers? Landis only blew the whistle that led to the downfall of Armstrong because they would not give him a ride?

Can you point to any other rider who has similar cause?

It is also very well documented what happens to whistleblowers?

Sky are rich enough to buy the silence of any potential whistleblowers.

You think Murdoch's partners dont agree with Murdoch and would love to see their Brand exposed as dopers and cheats?

Sorry. But everything Sky has done mirrors doping teams.

Sean Yates and Bobby Jullich had the opportunity to let things slip if they wanted to a few years back. If SKY are doping I'm sure there are other lower level employees who could easily be persuaded to talk, or raise an eyebrow in a certain way, etc.

Why would they?

Yates and Jullich are omerta and continue to enjoy well paid employment in the sport.

Who can afford to better Sky's offers to keep people quiet?

Even when Emma, Betsy and Stephen talked it had no effect on Armstrong! Those in the sport will be fully aware that Sky have the full backing of ASO/UCI/WADA.

 

[Cannibal72]

And those people were genuinely screwed over by Armstrong. Yates and Julich left perfectly amicably (even Julich) to take another job in the industry. Outside cycling, people don't tend to go to the press over how illegal their previous employer was if they've just moved to another company doing the same thing in the same way. Even if Sky didn't have the backing of the UCI, whistleblowing is always rare and would be especially rare in a culture with such engrained criminality and deception.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

I'm sure you are mate, but it sounds like BS when you try to deflect away from genuine questions that people seem reticent to cover. I'm sure you'd love to dismiss anyone asking inconvenient questions as 'trolling', but everyone here has a right to attack or defend positions, and I believe that the clinic sceptics avoid talking about the SKY setup because they know that the deeper they go, the harder it is to rationalise that they set this up as a massive doping operation without SKY and Brailsford's sporting reputations being destroyed by a whistleblower or advance in science, be it in 5, 10 or 20 years.

They don't have 'loads of known dopers' in their ranks. They have people you believe are dopers, and there, yet again, you expose the sceptic mindset even further. Once the spiral begins, even suspicions are treated as absolute truths, like the Landa thing where Walsh said he was sceptical about Astana ergo Landa was doping ergo SKY signed a known doper. Just again, a willingness to make leaps where no firm evidence exists, and once they're made, they're part of the 'Team Sky is doping' canon, to be used and recycled every time Froome wins a stage.

Boasting and bragging is subjective. I find it difficult to warm to Froome or SKY as a team, but again, I just don't know what else they could realistically do. Imagine if they came out and said 'no comment' every time someone mentioned doping. You know for a fact that people in here would leap on that as admission of guilt, so why pretend otherwise?

I hate that the clinic drives me to defend a repulsive company in SKY/Murdoch/News Corp but I can't just sit back and not challenge people on the paranoid ramblings on here.

Totally agree.

If the clinic is right, Sky are one of the more disliked teams. There should be several whistleblowers by now if Sky is as dirty as everyone makes out. It's not like they haven't got rid of any staff/riders and potentially fallen out with them. Sky have dominated the TDF in recent years, I'm sure teams would love to weaken or remove the Sky train. Don't try to use the Murdoch owns the media excuse either, he owns a large proportion yes, but he too is disliked and has rival media companies, who I'm sure would love to bring the team down

Why should there be several whistleblowers? Landis only blew the whistle that led to the downfall of Armstrong because they would not give him a ride?

Can you point to any other rider who has similar cause?

It is also very well documented what happens to whistleblowers?

Sky are rich enough to buy the silence of any potential whistleblowers.

You think Murdoch's partners dont agree with Murdoch and would love to see their Brand exposed as dopers and cheats?

Sorry. But everything Sky has done mirrors doping teams.

Sean Yates and Bobby Jullich had the opportunity to let things slip if they wanted to a few years back. If SKY are doping I'm sure there are other lower level employees who could easily be persuaded to talk, or raise an eyebrow in a certain way, etc.

Why would they?

Yates and Jullich are omerta and continue to enjoy well paid employment in the sport.

Who can afford to better Sky's offers to keep people quiet?

Even when Emma, Betsy and Stephen talked it had no effect on Armstrong! Those in the sport will be fully aware that Sky have the full backing of ASO/UCI/WADA.

Fair point - although I understand Yates was furious that he had to 'retire'. He could easily have tipped the wink on a few things to a journo.

 

[thehog]

Yates didn't retire. He had a very successful coaching business to concentrate on as well as his health.

He also no doubt has to respect the terms of his severance contract from Sky.

Real world, please.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Fair point - although I understand Yates was furious that he had to 'retire'. He could easily have tipped the wink on a few things to a journo.

Nope Yates is omerta through and through.

 

[kwikki]

"Fired for doping 30 years ago, Sean Yates reveals the Ugly Truth behind the success of Team Sky. Read how hypocrisy, lied, and drugs are behind Great Britain's first two Tour winners"

Nah...that wouldn't be enough to sell a book, get TV appearances, and a sports column in the Mirror.

 

[TheSpud]

Yates didn't retire. He had a very successful coaching business to concentrate on as well as his health.

He also no doubt has to respect the terms of his severance contract from Sky.

Real world, please.

When he left Sky it was announced that he had retired - that is in real world news stories. He did of course then end up at Tinkoff - that, I don't doubt.

 

[TheSpud]

Yates didn't retire. He had a very successful coaching business to concentrate on as well as his health.

He also no doubt has to respect the terms of his severance contract from Sky.

Real world, please.

When he left Sky it was announced that he had retired - that is in real world news stories. He did of course then end up at Tinkoff - that, I don't doubt.

Dispute, not doubt