The Hegelian said:
brownbobby said:
gillan1969 said:
@brownbobby
I'll break it down for you...
a traditional cycling nation producing a tour winner with a young protege - no suspicions aroused
a young protege from non-cycling nation winning the tour - no suspicions aroused
a traditional cycling nation producing a our winner with a no-hoper - suspicion aroused
a no-hoper from a non-cycling nation winning the tour - double suspicion
a no-hoper from a non cycling nation winning the Tour straight after the first no-hoper - treble suspicion
two no-hoper GT winners with a number of PED allegations swirling around them and with a history of working with a convicted Dr (who specialised in GT winners) - quadruple suspicion
I could go on...but we're at about ten-fold suspicion for Froome.....
And that's before starting on 'G'...........
I agree with everything here except the significance of the nationalities involved.
In fact, unintentionally I'm sure, you've helped to illustrate my point, by throwing in the references to the Doctors, the Ped allegations...I could throw in many other things that make me suspicious.
So to repeat...the fact that 2 Brits happen to be the beneficiaries of this great doping success, if indeed that's what this is, is way down on the list of things that make
me suspicious.
Maybe you factor it in, but the OP opined it was 'the most suss thing in this whole story for sure.
You're not changing my opinion, my disagreement, on that specifically.
You need to consider the consecutive nature of the GT winners/prospects, alongside the economics of why a team spends money in the first instance, who they're targeting (i.e. which markets), and how they aim to succeed in their marketing aims.
Fact is: Sky had a mission to 'make' the first GB tour winner. Had to be British. Since then they've dominated the tour with Froome, and have Thomas waiting in the wings in case Froome gets popped. In all cases, as a brand they're targeting the general/popular non-cycling British audience, and the only way to do that is to generate interest in the tdf. To achieve this aim, they must have a British rider contending for the win - otherwise, the popular audience will not watch/take interest.
What's suss about it: they've simply gone ahead and made this happen in the same manner as the Chinese government building a bridge "Here's the money, go do it." So let's say for the sake of argument, that it is a fluke of genetics and luck that Wiggins came along, and then Froome came along, and Sky was the beneficiary of these great signings. Well, the fact they can prepare the next British candidate to just 'take his place' and contend for the tdf win, without so much as one year off: it's extraordinary. And extraordinarily implausible that this is not being engineered using whatever means necessary.
I get the Sky suspicion but at the root of this is an obvious question looking from the perspective of the other teams looking at Sky and that is why don't they do the same as Sky? Or even more obvious, surely a doped racehorse can beat a doped Sky donkey? In other words, surely if the dice has all teams on it, the chances of it landing on Sky with a doped donkey are very slim if all the others are doped racehorses? It suggests either all the racehorses are not doping or Sky are doing something the racehorse teams don't currently do yet.
If it comes down to paying UCI money for anti-doping protection, why can only a team less than 10 years old, new to the game pay for it, but teams within the sport for the last 100 years winning, not, just because Sky come along? It's not down to just money. Clearly there is an incentive for UCI to accept all teams money for protection, not just from one or perhaps more lucratively sell it to the highest bidder/brown paper bag and it change more frequently that how long Sky have paid for it. I get the developing British market for sponsors thing, but nobody could argue a French winner of Tour de France against a British Team with a British rider from Kenya would not have a huge ROI assuming such protection is not hundreds of $millions. What was it Pantani earned Mercatone Uno for his 1998 Tour win. I believe their turnover increased over 1000% in the following 3 years due it that win. The company couldn't actually build enough new stores to keep up with demand after Pantani's win, yet before they were relatively small company to three years after. The same would happen for any French company sponsoring a French team winning. ROI for UCI protection and a guaranteed win would be huge.
Undetectable doping of unknown substances and/or unknown methods we'll never know until later if that's the case with Sky. Given the last 100 years, the doping has never been experimental or cutting edge. Undetectable, perhaps, but largely because it wasn't tested for, today that is not so difficult anymore.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram