Stop agreeing with me lol! Floyd and his human nature revealed Armstrong's doping when nobody else could, or failed. This is my point. Human nature is so much more powerful than anti-doping, the passport, WADA or UCI.
And still Floyd stayed quiet until Armstrong trampled all over him in his return. Floyd would still be a figure of fun if Armstrong hadn't come back. Armstrong's comeback shone a light on how badly things had gone for Floyd after his ban, and sights like him entering a Caribbean TT event with no team and wearing an unmarked baggy grey T-shirt were just sad. Everybody likes seeing a cheat get their comeuppance (that's why so many of those who think Sky are cheating want Sky to get busted, and why there's a lot of anger in the Clinic at seeing a team who act so suspiciously being so sanctimonious), but nobody likes to watch somebody's life fall apart. Seeing Armstrong returning to the land of milk and honey while simultaneously being blocked by self-same Armstrong from putting his life back on track is what caused Floyd to go thermonuclear. It wasn't Floyd's human nature.samhocking said:Stop agreeing with me lol! Floyd and his human nature revealed Armstrong's doping when nobody else could, or failed. This is my point. Human nature is so much more powerful than anti-doping, the passport, WADA or UCI.
Be careful Chicken you know there is a "chick-fil-a" just around the corner.blackcat said:can you imagine being the communications chief at Sky Pro Cycling. He should ask for a raiseLibertine Seguros said:Michael Rasmussen @MRasmussen1974 Jul 16
Track rider @GeraintThomas86 bringing back colombian climber @NairoQuinCo !
Michael Rasmussen @MRasmussen1974 6m6 minutes ago
@Petekennaugh at the start to me. "Be careful with your tweets (stating) that @GeraintThomas86 is a Track rider" #TDF2015
Hi Hitch thanks. My agenda here is to establish whether Dan Martin consciously avoided BC for old fashioned moral reasons? This is accepting that Martin as a man was determined to limit his exposure to blatant PED abuse.The Hitch said:I don't know why, but financially it seems like it may have been a catastrophic decision. Imagine how fast someone who could actually ride up gradients as a youth could climb Pierre St Martin if put on the same fuel wiggins froome and thomas havebuckle said:Does anyone know why Dan Martin chose RoI over UK? What advantages/disadvantages in respect of G for example?
Probably would find some secret tt skills.
Not true. The met only has 1 knight AFAIK.The Carrot said:Franklin said:Dear dear Samy, as I have already explained that most riders never get exposed, not do most athletes in other sports, why do you keep on believing in your selfmade fantasies?samhocking said:Yes, but Puerto happened, Fuentes happened, Contador happened, Valverde happened, Festina happened, Armstrong happened, Ullrich happened, Pantani happened, Riis happened. For BC & Sky nothing has really happened for 20 years. Having a wonder drug or evading doping violations is actually not much of a story. THe real story is how nothing happens. This is the question that should be asked, not explaining success away making comparisons to cycling's past or timing riders up climbs.
And worse, even those positives, almost none of them exposed other riders or team wide doping. Team wide doping only gets exposed when the police gets involved.
Is it so hard to believe in cold hard facts? Is it so hard to admit that you are flat out wrong here and that the silence from Brittish cyclists is in no way indicative of Sky being clean?
Contrary to your fantasies most cyclists (and lets not talk about other sports) are never exposed at all.
This fact alone should be enough for you to throw out your theroy out of the window.
A good point about team wide doping only being exposed when the police are involved. They wouldn't get involved in Britain though seeing as all senior police officers have knighthoods too.
Human nature refers to the distinguishing human characteristics of thinking about something, feeling emotion and then acting on that emotion.Libertine Seguros said:And still Floyd stayed quiet until Armstrong trampled all over him in his return. Floyd would still be a figure of fun if Armstrong hadn't come back. Armstrong's comeback shone a light on how badly things had gone for Floyd after his ban, and sights like him entering a Caribbean TT event with no team and wearing an unmarked baggy grey T-shirt were just sad. Everybody likes seeing a cheat get their comeuppance (that's why so many of those who think Sky are cheating want Sky to get busted, and why there's a lot of anger in the Clinic at seeing a team who act so suspiciously being so sanctimonious), but nobody likes to watch somebody's life fall apart. Seeing Armstrong returning to the land of milk and honey while simultaneously being blocked by self-same Armstrong from putting his life back on track is what caused Floyd to go thermonuclear. It wasn't Floyd's human nature.samhocking said:Stop agreeing with me lol! Floyd and his human nature revealed Armstrong's doping when nobody else could, or failed. This is my point. Human nature is so much more powerful than anti-doping, the passport, WADA or UCI.
What really brought Armstrong down was being drunk on his own immortality; the cult of infallibility he had brought around himself and his sociopathic personality meant he thought it didn't matter if he continued to trample all over those who knew the truth, and the strength of his media position meant he could continue to kick them while they were down unopposed. And he was wrong. But if he'd stayed retired, he would have been right. He could have slipped Floyd some money without anybody knowing, as a favour to a friend, and that would be that. Any future doping rings would be simply stupid to go about it the Armstrong way because even when, like Sky, you have a strong controlling influence in the press, you need to keep those who know (however few or many) on your side. Armstrong didn't care who he hurt and in fact seemed to take delight in hurting those who knew who crossed him because he could outmuscle them in the press.
It's weird, because Armstrong's comeback is simultaneously one of the best things and worst things for anti-doping. One of the best because it led to his eventual downfall, to Riis' confession, to the closure of the classic EPO era and to the necessity to rehab and rebuild the sport in the public eye. But also one of the worst, because it reinforced the feeling of the sport being a doping haven meaning more need to push on without positives to rehab the public image, and most importantly, it led to the changes at AFLD after the 2008 Tour, which was the cleanest in modern memory, because they actually busted the dopers. The CERA test was kept hidden until people were testing positive for it, and AFLD were target testing the right people (and re-testing after the Tour too!). Lance returned, and internal pressure changed the organization, and the number of positives being obtained suddenly fell through the floor and speeds crept back up until now we're looking at riders flying at Lance's best speeds again.
In which case it was also human nature that led to the doping happening in the first place, and to it being hidden away for years, so you can't really use that as a reason the majority of cheats will be caught, because it's not really viable, and reduces your argument to "the majority of cheats are caught because I hope they are." Human nature is not always driven by a sense of moral obligation, and self-preservation (in this case amongst dopers and also among non-dopers who stand to lose by exposing those dopers due to their stronger presence, such as the many who stayed silent on Armstrong for years but daren't speak up) is a very strong aspect of human nature that helps explain why so many dopers aren't caught.samhocking said:Human nature refers to the distinguishing human characteristics of thinking about something, feeling emotion and then acting on that emotion.
Floyd seeing Armstrong do what he did and acting on it is not human nature? Come-on, that's exactly what it is.
Armstrong being drunk on his own immortality and acting on it with a comeback is also Human nature.
All of the follow-up events that happened were triggered by Human nature in my opinion.
But Sky are only in their sixth year. How many Olympic track medallists have been busted for doping in that timeframe?samhocking said:I've never said the majority of riders are caught because of Human nature. I've said that when other anti-doping measures fail aka with Armstrong, Human nature is just as effective, often more effective.
My whole argument is the majority (75% as proved by previous poster) of Tour de France winners have been revealed to have won or probably won through doping within 10 years and one way or another, caught either by anti-doping, police, governing bodies, self admission or human nature etc.
British Cycling's system (whatever you want to think it is or how it works or what they are up to) has now lasted longer than the average time it has taken for those 75% of past TdeF winners to be caught.
My whole argument is Wiggins, Froome & we assume Thomas's amazing rise to Tour de France winners are likely to become one of the 75% if they are doping in order to win and we'll know either way within 10 years time. 3 Olympic cycles hasn't revealed anything under the BC system. Sky is a continuation of that BC system , simply tweaked for the road.
75%? Did you just pluck that number out of thin air?samhocking said:Franklin said:Oh dear, Sam, did you even read the subject of this thread? Or are your eyes so bloodshot that you throw Wiggo, Froome and Thomas at one heap?samhocking said:Who cares about the Zabels and non GT winners in the peloton?'but if 98% of the peloton are doping, about 80% are never exposed
Okay... I'll play and just look at the TdF. I'm also being generous and give you Sastre and Evans as clean winners. I'm will also point out again that for another 33% of those wins we needed the feds to get it in the open.The facts clearly show, that when you win Tour de France or other GTs, the probability of getting exposed for winning through doping is extremely high and usually within 10 years. If we take say LeMond's win as the beginning of a modern era and end say end 5 years ago, there's hardly a single winner of the GTs that didn't get exposed one way or another or don't have at least some pretty hard evidence of doping, even if never banned.
So you admit there's at least a 25% chance you never get exposed(Indurain)? Without the feds we would have over 50% unexposed. Thanks you for playing Sam
Then again, your claim about big name cyclists and athletes (that one is even more hilarious) has been destroyed utterly by the facts and even with your frantic goal-post shifting you can't deny the chances of someone slipping through are 1 in 4.
And Thomas hasn't even won a monument or GT, so your whole premise is not just flat out wrong, it's also utterly silly as you think he's one of the all time greats.
So Sam, considering you have been shown to be wrong om undeniable facts, perhaps it's time for a retraction? Or are you going to keep on shrilling?
I will help you here, BC is older than ten years, but you desperately try to shift the goalposts to TdF winners. Seems you can't have your cake and eat it too. If we look at all cyclists your premise is destroyed bay facts. If we just look at TdF winners your praised age of BC does not matter anymore.The fact is this hasn't happened in BC/Sky system, but it is older than 10 years.
Soooo... there's a at least 25% chance they won't be found out and we still have many years to go. Sam, what's your point exactly?
My point is it doesn't matter if Wiggins, Froome, Thomas, Sky, BC are doping and it's undetectable, there's a 75% chance they will be found out just like 75% of cyclings's past GT winners has because human nature is not controllable, even by Brailsford, just like it wasn't by Armstrong, just like Bruneel, just like Fuentes, just like Ferrari blah, blah, blah!
Apologies then, if I have misunderstood you. You seem to be saying that most cheats are exposed, which may tell us that lack of exposure is indicative of cleanlinness. I think it tells us nothing.samhocking said:You've just agreed with me pal? you've just said "From that, what can we surmise about Froome's current cleanliness? Nothing, except that probably, he is a cheat like the rest of them.". This is exactly what i'm saying too!
Which is false. A) riis and lance were exposed after 10 years. B) landis, ullrich, Pantani and contador represent less than 10% of all tdf winners, definitely not 75%.samhocking said:I'm saying 75% of Tour de France winners have been exposed for winning it through doping in 10 years on average.
How would you use "they're riding as fast as US Postal in the same style as US Postal while being very secretive and trying to silence the doubters in the press like US Postal" to help argue for cleanliness?samhocking said:If you can doubt cleanliness by looking back at cyclings recent past and the evidence amazing performance was from doping, why can't you use it to help argue for cleanliness too. It the same statistic of recent tour de france history we're all arguing with here.
In regards to Landis being busted, the details of that still dont add up. Landis admits to doping but not with the Testosterone that he got busted for and the levels were huge.Libertine Seguros said:How would you use "they're riding as fast as US Postal in the same style as US Postal while being very secretive and trying to silence the doubters in the press like US Postal" to help argue for cleanliness?samhocking said:If you can doubt cleanliness by looking back at cyclings recent past and the evidence amazing performance was from doping, why can't you use it to help argue for cleanliness too. It the same statistic of recent tour de france history we're all arguing with here.
Because nobody got busted in the track program other than Rob Hayles?
It's a very difficult argument to read because track and road are so different. Again, how many top level track riders have been busted recently? There's been a lot of the riders at the top discredited of late, but how many of them were busted? Riis confessed (over 10 years after his Tour win). Ullrich was busted thanks to the Spanish police (9 years after his Tour win, same team as Riis of course). Armstrong was busted by a US investigation (13 years after his Tour win). Only Landis and Contador have actually been busted.
Also, Team Telekom and US Postal Service had both been running prior to the ten year period you discuss, so taking Team Sky as a continuation of the track program so counting ten years prior to them even starting on the road - or even taking ten years from when they started on the road - is a difficult comparison. Would be better for the point you're wanting to make to say "by 2022" to give us 10 years from Wiggins' hilariously anomalous Tour win. And even then, Lance was mostly caught because of his foolish decision to come back and a sociopathic need to crush others. Not being sociopathic and playing nice with people can get you a long way in keeping things under wraps, just ask Big Mig, who's more or less confessed by omission ("otra pregunta") but who's still beloved and revered despite the races he dominated being pretty limited spectacles and Banesto providing an early blueprint for USPS and Sky's template.