-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Re:
I suspect that he is using something for weight loss, which is readily available, but which works better on bigger riders. Same reason we are seeing Dumoulin and rise to the top. It might even be one of those grey area things like TUE abuse or sabutamol. Probably not much secret about it - just that you need a certain type of physique to benefit the most. Then having the best doctors and a lot of money to pay for top lawyers to shut down any case against you, ensures you are more or less untouchable.
Because even if the same products are available to everyone, doping isn't and never will be a level playing field. We've seen in the history of cycling - it's not so much about the availability of doping products - it's about having the financial clout and expertise to get away with using them.
No. So the rest of your post is just a pointless straw man rant.samhocking said:
I suspect that he is using something for weight loss, which is readily available, but which works better on bigger riders. Same reason we are seeing Dumoulin and rise to the top. It might even be one of those grey area things like TUE abuse or sabutamol. Probably not much secret about it - just that you need a certain type of physique to benefit the most. Then having the best doctors and a lot of money to pay for top lawyers to shut down any case against you, ensures you are more or less untouchable.
Because even if the same products are available to everyone, doping isn't and never will be a level playing field. We've seen in the history of cycling - it's not so much about the availability of doping products - it's about having the financial clout and expertise to get away with using them.
Well, Movistar are financially 4x bigger than Sky UK. If any company had the access to the most funds to pay for protection for a sponsors ROI, it would be Movistar, assuming UCI sells the best protection to the highest bidder like most rackets do.
Also, I would argue, If was Sky paying for UCI protection, how UCI handled my top rider, I would not be impressed with what I got for my money this year!
Also, I would argue, If was Sky paying for UCI protection, how UCI handled my top rider, I would not be impressed with what I got for my money this year!
Re:
The size of the company is irrelevant. Movistar (or Telefonica) don't commit anywhere near the budget to their cycling team as Sky do to theirs. Sky is by far the biggest budget team and is more than prepared to throw its financial clout around. To get the best return on their investment they want a British winner, and will speculate to accumulate in that respect.
I'm not saying they are paying for protection. I'm saying that they are protected by the amount of money they can throw at defending any case against them. Both what we have seen in the open (Froome's case) and undoubtedly what we haven't seen with maneuverings and threats behind the scenes. And also protected in the amount of money they can pay for expertise (who is the current Leinders on their payroll I wonder) in use of nefarious substances.samhocking said:
The size of the company is irrelevant. Movistar (or Telefonica) don't commit anywhere near the budget to their cycling team as Sky do to theirs. Sky is by far the biggest budget team and is more than prepared to throw its financial clout around. To get the best return on their investment they want a British winner, and will speculate to accumulate in that respect.
I really can't agree that the financial legal ability to fight a theoretical AAF at the point of just a small handful of options to use mildly performance enhancing substances that cross the prohibited and specified/TUE line at some point in the future is the difference between a rider winning and not winning Tour de France. Contador used the same lawyer for example, and is worth $17 million dollars, Froome is currently worth $14.6 million. I can't see that Froome beating Contador was down to more money in order to dope with more impunity than him and Tinkoff for example? There is very little evidence for that being the state of pro cycling today and if the state of winners, is those taking Salbutomol, then that would imply the peloton is significantly cleaner bothering with relatively poor performance enhancers like that.
Re:
Well obviously that's not the only factor in deciding who wins. But it is one of many. Some of them are undoubtedly sporting, and Sky do have some legitimate advantages - i.e. the strength of team, robust training programme, rider motivation and psychology, natural talent. But some of them are not sporting - doping, lawyers covering up scandals, TUE abuse, 'altitude' training camps. And, while Sky don't have a monopoly on any of these, they have the financial clout to execute them better than the rest. Which is why they are almost universally loathed.samhocking said:
Re:
He was cleared and he continued to race in the time leading up to that decision. What is the complaint?
samhocking said:
He was cleared and he continued to race in the time leading up to that decision. What is the complaint?
Re:
it wasn't a theoretical AAF...it was an AAF
anyway....the difference is that one was strict liability and one wasn't...with so many grey areas, that's where the money goes.....pushing every one...as we saw that is exactly what they did...Contador only had one angle...the steak...
samhocking said:
it wasn't a theoretical AAF...it was an AAF
anyway....the difference is that one was strict liability and one wasn't...with so many grey areas, that's where the money goes.....pushing every one...as we saw that is exactly what they did...Contador only had one angle...the steak...
Re: Re:
OK my bad if those are true, I knew that Wiggo was low-mid 80s when pursuiting and just assumed Thomas would be similar as he didnt look Tour winner thin, but well, like a healthy trackie.
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/olympics/bradley-wiggins-gains-over-11kg-as-he-prepares-for-olympic-team-pursuit-205328
simoni said:
OK my bad if those are true, I knew that Wiggo was low-mid 80s when pursuiting and just assumed Thomas would be similar as he didnt look Tour winner thin, but well, like a healthy trackie.
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/olympics/bradley-wiggins-gains-over-11kg-as-he-prepares-for-olympic-team-pursuit-205328
the issue isn't the difference in weight but how it was achieved....whilst making it up I'm pretty sure that those trotted out as being pursuit and GT winners historically pretty much did it concurrently and at the same roughly the same weight...sky seem to have the ability to have their riders yo yo in manner some might call both highly suspicious and unhealthly..............
Edit to add the wise (and still unanswered) words of our great leader:
To illustrate the point, Paul Kimmage asked Brailsford precisely how Peter Kennaugh had managed - by his own admission - to lose five kilograms since he lined up at the Tour de Romandie in late April.
"Through calorie deficit," Brailsford said bluntly, before then expanding slightly on his answer. "Why not speak to Nigel our nutritionist? It's a good question to ask. That is a lot of weight to lose and I totally agree with you. What do we do to get to that kind of weight loss? They're the types of questions that would be legitimate to answer. I don't think there's any great secret in that."
I'm pretty sure that those trotted out as being pursuit and GT winners historically pretty much did it concurrently and at the same roughly the same weight...sky seem to have the ability to have their riders yo yo in manner some might call both highly suspicious and unhealthly..............Edit to add the wise (and still unanswered) words of our great leader:
To illustrate the point, Paul Kimmage asked Brailsford precisely how Peter Kennaugh had managed - by his own admission - to lose five kilograms since he lined up at the Tour de Romandie in late April.
"Through calorie deficit," Brailsford said bluntly, before then expanding slightly on his answer. "Why not speak to Nigel our nutritionist? It's a good question to ask. That is a lot of weight to lose and I totally agree with you. What do we do to get to that kind of weight loss? They're the types of questions that would be legitimate to answer. I don't think there's any great secret in that."
gillan1969 said:
"And believe me, we want to answer. And we will answer. And when we answer, our answer will blow you away. Because he have good answers. The best. Bigly."
Nothing to do with Thomas personality because he seems to be like a good likeable guy. But I think he is IMHO the worst winner in the history of the Tour de France (post war). It lowered the bar too much on requirements of a winner. Thanks UCI.
Re:
Attacked on one stage under 1km to go and another under 5km to go because everyone watched the 4 time champion. It’s literally the most piss weak Champion ever.
He literallyEscarabajo said:
Attacked on one stage under 1km to go and another under 5km to go because everyone watched the 4 time champion. It’s literally the most piss weak Champion ever.
rick james
BANNED
Re: Re:
Feel freee to asterisk his win then.....it seems like it’s the done thing about hereScarponi said:
Re: Re:
So a few weeks ago he was another example of Sky's ridiculous doping programme transforming a trackie into a super strong GT winner....now it's just a case of the bar being set so low that a 'piss weak' trackie can come along and win it.
So was he on Sky's magic programme but still piss weak? Does that mean that Sky's programme wasn't so magic after all? And what happened to Froome...surely he was still on the magic programme but somehow got beat by a piss weak trackie/classics wannabe?
I'm confused
Scarponi said:
So a few weeks ago he was another example of Sky's ridiculous doping programme transforming a trackie into a super strong GT winner....now it's just a case of the bar being set so low that a 'piss weak' trackie can come along and win it.
So was he on Sky's magic programme but still piss weak? Does that mean that Sky's programme wasn't so magic after all? And what happened to Froome...surely he was still on the magic programme but somehow got beat by a piss weak trackie/classics wannabe?
I'm confused
Re:
Floyd?
I have much less problem with Thomas winning than I would have if Froome had won. Thomas raced smartly (unlike, say, Yates in the Giro), TT'd well as you'd expect, and used his classics experience to avoid problems in the cobbles. If it's clinic-related, he's also avoided any direct implication. We may believe Thomas is dirty, and he likely is, and we might detest Sky for very good reasons -- but in the scheme of things he stacks up pretty well against most one-time TdF winners.
Escarabajo said:
Floyd?
I have much less problem with Thomas winning than I would have if Froome had won. Thomas raced smartly (unlike, say, Yates in the Giro), TT'd well as you'd expect, and used his classics experience to avoid problems in the cobbles. If it's clinic-related, he's also avoided any direct implication. We may believe Thomas is dirty, and he likely is, and we might detest Sky for very good reasons -- but in the scheme of things he stacks up pretty well against most one-time TdF winners.
Re: Re:
brownbobby said:Scarponi said:
So a few weeks ago he was another example of Sky's ridiculous doping programme transforming a trackie into a super strong GT winner....now it's just a case of the bar being set so low that a 'piss weak' trackie can come along and win it.
Yeah you are confused alright. He had no business being in that position in the first place
So was he on Sky's magic programme but still piss weak? Does that mean that Sky's programme wasn't so magic after all? And what happened to Froome...surely he was still on the magic programme but somehow got beat by a piss weak trackie/classics wannabe?
I'm confused
Re: Re:
There you go, i've helpfully highlighted the words which you embedded without distinction within the body of my original post....just to avoid further confusing those amongst us who are easily confused
veganrob said:brownbobby said:Scarponi said:
So a few weeks ago he was another example of Sky's ridiculous doping programme transforming a trackie into a super strong GT winner....now it's just a case of the bar being set so low that a 'piss weak' trackie can come along and win it.
Yeah you are confused alright. He had no business being in that position in the first place
So was he on Sky's magic programme but still piss weak? Does that mean that Sky's programme wasn't so magic after all? And what happened to Froome...surely he was still on the magic programme but somehow got beat by a piss weak trackie/classics wannabe?
I'm confused
There you go, i've helpfully highlighted the words which you embedded without distinction within the body of my original post....just to avoid further confusing those amongst us who are easily confused
Singer01
BANNED
weak? thomas is more of an ordinary tour champion. it's not like all previous editions always included someone smashing others uphill. yes, thomas didn't knock out anyone in the mountains, but he's never been even remotely close to showing weakness. that was impressive
so GT not going to the Worlds (neither CF) citing fatigue...fishy, no? specially considering GT didnt race two GTs....or maybe both of them are just out of shape...
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Tour of the Alps 2024 (April 15 - 19)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 359
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Latest posts
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Latest: QueenStagiaire
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram