Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[The Hitch]

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell

Am i also a fool to be certain that contador doped?

No, because he tested p? In that case who are you to decide when people are allowed to be sure of something.

I know for a fact froome and brailsford lied on multiple occasions and in great lengths about the illness froome had and about how he went treatment for it. I know because amongst other things the man he claims was his doctor is on record outright contradicting almost everything froome and db have said about the disease and how to treat it.

I don't live in a fairytale land where I entertain 0.00001% possibilities that a rider already suspected by much of the world of doping on the fairly logical basis that a) clean riders don't ride faster than dopers b) bottle carriers don't transform into gods overnight, riding for a team that has already been caught out lying about the staff they employ, is accidentally saying exactly the wrong things every single time.

I don't live in a fairytale land where the million coincidences that one has to believe for sky to be legit, happen. That the two greatest riders in the history of mankind just happen to come from the same country ride dor the same team are from the same generation and have their potential unlocked at the same time.

In the real world people with such ridiculous performances who happen to have everything go their way, lie as much as that the 2 are not unrelated, never are.

A million coincidences don't happen at once. Theres bigger probabilities on DNA identification getting the wrong man for a crime than the probabikity that the 1 million coincidences that one has to believed happened at the same tine for froome to be clean, happened.

Doesn't matter how many cute quotes you come up with.

 

[thehog]

Again you are an evolution denier. If the evdience you demand is the exact same evidence as was around 15 years ago then you are totally ignorant of the fact that dopers like all criminals learn from the mistakes of the previous generation.

And you may take rhis as an insult and cryy the victim card again but if you really expect that dopers won't ever learn from previous mistakes then you simply know far less about how doping works than many of the posters participating in the discussion.

The flip side of dopers being discovered is that while they won't make the same mistakes as the previous generation, other bits of knowledge open up and it becomes easier to tie new riders to doping from other angles. For example if they ally themselves with and hire people who have been deeply involved with doping.

Originally -2 years ago, sky fans claimed there were no such people. Now their heroes at us postal have fallen. Leinders has been outed as a doping doctor. Michael Barry was found to have doped. Rodgers is known to have worked with Ferrari. There's de jongh and Yates and Sutton.

So there may not be the witnesses that there were for lance (not that they mattered at the time, since they were just dismissed as liars). But in the other hand, there wasn't to hold against lance, the evidence of doping experts and thereby doping continuity that we have with sky.


But of course only the exact same evidence that was used against lance counts. Human beings don't evolve. Nobody does. Everything always remains the same

Bassoons(!), Bassons didn't know USPS were doping. He didn't even call them out for doping. He was annoyed that Armstrong told him to go home and that his own team mates had it ostracized him for not doping.

Where's Sky Bassons?

Didn't Basso make reference to the speed in 2012? At 450w, what can do you? You can't attack only follow.

That's very much the same as what Basson's had said. There've been others as well.

 

[Parker]

0.00001% possibilities
...suspected by much of the world
....transform into gods overnight
....saying exactly the wrong things every single time.
....million coincidences
....the two greatest riders in the history of mankind
....A million coincidences

If you can't make a solid point without this level of exaggeration then you don't have a solid point.

 

[red_flanders]

"none so blind as those that won't see"

What that fails to take into account is that there are many who aren't blind and can see but require a different burden of proof to others. I'm not satisfied that rider X riding quickly is evidence of cheating. Mainly because I'm extrememly uncomfortable with the idea, that many on here seem to believe, that doping is the only determining factor in who wins a bike race.

I can see what's in front of me and I can question it. I might believe to a reasonable level of certainty that rider X is a cheat. I might believe that rider Y is not a cheat. But I don't know this. The reality isn't as black a white as many on here seem to make out (i.e. where winning = cheating). Where the true situation is on the grey spectrum is a moot point and I can't see how anyone can make such a strong judgement in either direction.

I did not say winning = cheating. Did anyone? I said riding faster than any clean athlete ever and as fast or faster than the best dopers ever = doping. Which is true. Winning = Cheating is nonsense.

If you need to alter, twist or reframe things to continue a debate, maybe consider why that might be.

 

[The Hitch]

Personally I find the idea that Froome's doctor told Froome that Bilharzia is an easily treatable disease for which he will need 2 doses of pzq over 1 day and it will never bother him again (which is what he says on his own website) but that Froome understood that as - "it is a deadly lifelong disease, you will need to come back to Africa every 6 months for the rest of your life and undergo horrific weekly treatments" and then proceeded to for 2 years follow what he thought he heard without any doctor on Team SKy (the most scientific team in the world) or anywhere else pointing out to him he was following voices in his head, I find that idea about as realistic as Valverde's claim that the blood wasn't his but that he still doesn't want to take a test to prove it.

Am I not allowed to say Valverde doped, is that foolish as well. Because some sky fans doing extreme exercises with their imaginations can come up with extremely ridiculous and wacky explanations for unexplainable stories like the above, I'm not allowed to express my certainty?

The assertion by some posters on here that they alone can decide what I or anybody else "knows" is extremely arrogant and delusional.

I know Froome is doping. I know people don't make lies like the one above, again and again and again by accident.

You have a vivid imagination and make up nonsensical explanations, that's your issue, don't tell me what I do and don't know.

Edit and of course the above is only one way in which Froome's lied about Bilharzia. There's the enormous discrepancy between the accounts he gives and the dates he gives from 1 Sky book to the other. In 1 book his brother tells him to go to a clinic to search for Bilharzia. In the other book his brother doesn't tell him zilch but he goes for a drug test and the drug doctor by chance discovers Froome has Bilharzia.

Another example of where Froome is clear as day lying. But Im not allowed to say it. Im not allowed to say I know he is lying. Not unless Big Brother Parker and his thought police give me the right to "know".

 

[Digger]

Bassoons(!), Bassons didn't know USPS were doping. He didn't even call them out for doping. He was annoyed that Armstrong told him to go home and that his own team mates had it ostracized him for not doping.

Where's Sky Bassons?

Didn't Basso make reference to the speed in 2012? At 450w, what can do you? You can't attack only follow.

That's very much the same as what Basson's had said. There've been others as well.

fact of the matter is that pro's are talking - one pro in private who raced against froome in Poland and saw what he did in spain knew it was a farce.

 

[thehog]

fact of the matter is that pro's are talking - one pro in private who raced against froome in Poland and saw what he did in spain knew it was a farce.

Yes, I'm aware of that as well. I suspect there are more pro whom are skeptical.

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

Am i also a fool to be certain that contador doped?

No, because he tested p? In that case who are you to decide when people are allowed to be sure of something.

I know for a fact froome and brailsford lied on multiple occasions and in great lengths about the illness froome had and about how he went treatment for it. I know because amongst other things the man he claims was his doctor is on record outright contradicting almost everything froome and db have said about the disease and how to treat it.

I don't live in a fairytale land where I entertain 0.00001% possibilities that a rider already suspected by much of the world of doping on the fairly logical basis that a) clean riders don't ride faster than dopers b) bottle carriers don't transform into gods overnight, riding for a team that has already been caught out lying about the staff they employ, is accidentally saying exactly the wrong things every single time.

I don't live in a fairytale land where the million coincidences that one has to believe for sky to be legit, happen. That the two greatest riders in the history of mankind just happen to come from the same country ride dor the same team are from the same generation and have their potential unlocked at the same time.

In the real world people with such ridiculous performances who happen to have everything go their way, lie as much as that the 2 are not unrelated, never are.

A million coincidences don't happen at once. Theres bigger probabilities on DNA identification getting the wrong man for a crime than the probabikity that the 1 million coincidences that one has to believed happened at the same tine for froome to be clean, happened.

Doesn't matter how many cute quotes you come up with.

I've told you a million times before, stop exaggerating

 

[Benotti69]

"none so blind as those that won't see"

What that fails to take into account is that there are many who aren't blind and can see but require a different burden of proof to others. I'm not satisfied that rider X riding quickly is evidence of cheating. Mainly because I'm extrememly uncomfortable with the idea, that many on here seem to believe, that doping is the only determining factor in who wins a bike race.

I can see what's in front of me and I can question it. I might believe to a reasonable level of certainty that rider X is a cheat. I might believe that rider Y is not a cheat. But I don't know this. The reality isn't as black a white as many on here seem to make out (i.e. where winning = cheating). Where the true situation is on the grey spectrum is a moot point and I can't see how anyone can make such a strong judgement in either direction.

Look at a list of winners from GTs and Monuments and find the clean winners.

 

[Mellow Velo]

fact of the matter is that pro's are talking - one pro in private who raced against froome in Poland and saw what he did in spain knew it was a farce.

Yes, I'm aware of that as well. I suspect there are more pro whom are skeptical.

Aaaaaannnnnnddddd, we are back to exactly where we were 120 posts ago.

 

[Benotti69]

Aaaaaannnnnnddddd, we are back to exactly where we were 120 posts ago.

What do you expect from a forum? The journalists are not asking hard questions of those in the sport, never mind doing any digging looking for doping!

Then you have posters who ignore the culture and history of the sport and also as Hitch has pointed out that the doping evolves as those not caught learn from those caught coupled with anti doping still a joke. Sky and Astana not tested during training on Tenerife proving what a joke it is!

 

[thehog]

Aaaaaannnnnnddddd, we are back to exactly where we were 120 posts ago.

Don't feel bad about being left out. Many are aware what has been said by Pros with relation to Froome.

Even Pat McQuaid has made comment.

That's how obvious the Dawg is. Just like Armstrong, it's starts with people talking.

 

[MatParker117]

Personally I find the idea that Froome's doctor told Froome that Bilharzia is an easily treatable disease for which he will need 2 doses of pzq over 1 day and it will never bother him again (which is what he says on his own website) but that Froome understood that as - "it is a deadly lifelong disease, you will need to come back to Africa every 6 months for the rest of your life and undergo horrific weekly treatments" and then proceeded to for 2 years follow what he thought he heard without any doctor on Team SKy (the most scientific team in the world) or anywhere else pointing out to him he was following voices in his head, I find that idea about as realistic as Valverde's claim that the blood wasn't his but that he still doesn't want to take a test to prove it.

Am I not allowed to say Valverde doped, is that foolish as well. Because some sky fans doing extreme exercises with their imaginations can come up with extremely ridiculous and wacky explanations for unexplainable stories like the above, I'm not allowed to express my certainty?

The assertion by some posters on here that they alone can decide what I or anybody else "knows" is extremely arrogant and delusional.

I know Froome is doping. I know people don't make lies like the one above, again and again and again by accident.

You have a vivid imagination and make up nonsensical explanations, that's your issue, don't tell me what I do and don't know.

Edit and of course the above is only one way in which Froome's lied about Bilharzia. There's the enormous discrepancy between the accounts he gives and the dates he gives from 1 Sky book to the other. In 1 book his brother tells him to go to a clinic to search for Bilharzia. In the other book his brother doesn't tell him zilch but he goes for a drug test and the drug doctor by chance discovers Froome has Bilharzia.

Another example of where Froome is clear as day lying. But Im not allowed to say it. Im not allowed to say I know he is lying. Not unless Big Brother Parker and his thought police give me the right to "know".

All we want is some strong evidence if you know Froome is doping prove it. Until you or someone else can show me clear indisputable evidence that Froome is on the juice, I am going to continue to give him the benefit of the doubt as I did with Armstrong.

 

[sniper]

As are most analogies. It would be more convincing if you explained how instead of just declaring it so, but the point is that it establishes that the quote doesn't apply in all situations, which any fool can see.

I think it's a great quote and contains a ton of truth. I also think the same of But I'll bet many won't think that applies to them, in this case, eh?

good post.

All we want is some strong evidence if you know Froome is doping prove it. Until you or someone else can show me clear indisputable evidence that Froome is on the juice, I am going to continue to give him the benefit of the doubt as I did with Armstrong.

in all seriousness, i appreciate this honesty.

The average Skybot would generally deny he/she was naive wrt Armstrong, which makes their naivity wrt Sky all the more inexplicable, to the point of pointing towards an agenda.

So I appreciate your honesty in this matter. Suggests that you're not driven by an agenda, even though I don't share your opinion on the matter.

 

[Netserk]

All we want is some strong evidence if you know Froome is doping prove it. Until you or someone else can show me clear indisputable evidence that Froome is on the juice, I am going to continue to give him the benefit of the doubt as I did with Armstrong.

Can you prove everything you know? I can't. Or rather, I know more than I can prove. I think the same is the case with you.

I've told you a million times before, stop exaggerating

The irony is strong with this one

 

[Benotti69]

All we want is some strong evidence if you know Froome is doping prove it. Until you or someone else can show me clear indisputable evidence that Froome is on the juice, I am going to continue to give him the benefit of the doubt as I did with Armstrong.

Dont invest in anything Froomey

 

[The Hitch]

I've told you a million times before, stop exaggerating

So how many improbable coincidences is it then. If you consider the word "a million" to be an exaggeration care to give a more direct figure. I know it's at least a dozen, including some incredibly incredibly improbable ones like the idea that froome straight up lying about bilharzia has nothing to do with doping, or the idea that sky lying about the impact of marginal gains and it being a novelty has nothing to do with doping or the idea that both Wiggins and froome always had climbing talent but for unknown reasons kept it hidden all their careers.

You Start adding them together and I dont see that my -0.0001% figure would be so far off.
It's like believing an airplane had assembled itself by a gust of wind blowing through a scrapyard.

 

[ebandit]

So how many improbable coincidences is it then. If you consider the word "a million" to be an exaggeration care to give a more direct figure. I know it's at least a dozen, including some incredibly incredibly improbable ones like the idea that froome straight up lying about bilharzia has nothing to do with doping, or the idea that sky lying about the impact of marginal gains and it being a novelty has nothing to do with doping or the idea that both Wiggins and froome always had climbing talent but for unknown reasons kept it hidden all their careers.

You Start adding them together and I dont see that my -0.0001% figure would be so far off.
It's like believing an airplane had assembled itself by a gust of wind blowing through a scrapyard.

Your problem is you treat assumptions as certainties.....and then you build arguments on them.....you use the word 'lying' many times....you seem blind to the possibility that there are many other possible explanations other than 'lying'....to give one succinct example is your claim that Sky are 'lying' about marginal gains......I just treat the whole marginal gains schtick as the same sort of PR trick all sorts of sports teams pull to both try and give themselves a psychological advantage as well as help sell ***......you know....like the sort of stuff sponsors sell ....that is after all the name of the game as far as the sponsors are concerned

Mark L

 

[TailWindHome]

fact of the matter is that pro's are talking - one pro in private who raced against froome in Poland and saw what he did in spain knew it was a farce.

Omerta
Say nothing

 

[red_flanders]

Your problem is you treat assumptions as certainties.....and then you build arguments on them.....you use the word 'lying' many times....you seem blind to the possibility that there are many other possible explanations other than 'lying'....to give one succinct example is your claim that Sky are 'lying' about marginal gains......I just treat the whole marginal gains schtick as the same sort of PR trick all sorts of sports teams pull to both try and give themselves a psychological advantage as well as help sell ***......you know....like the sort of stuff sponsors sell ....that is after all the name of the game as far as the sponsors are concerned

Mark L

So is it fair to say you don't buy that Sky are doing anything radically different or that would make a big difference in performance with "marginal gains"?

If it's just PR, on which we all agree, how have they produced two Tour winners out of pack riders?

The thing is, they are using it to explain the performance gains. They have made it the core of the explanations on how they're able to do so well. If it's just PR, they are in fact lying about what is giving them performance gains. If not, what explanation is left?

 

[Nick C.]

I'm not trying to be funny but what could they do different. Monitor diet? OK. Work on 10 or 20 or 40 minute (or whatever) sustained thresholds? OK Aero gear. OK All these things are not real unique. Am I missing something?

 

[Benotti69]

I'm not trying to be funny but what could they do different. Monitor diet? OK. Work on 10 or 20 or 40 minute (or whatever) sustained thresholds? OK Aero gear. OK All these things are not real unique. Am I missing something?

You are missing the doping. It is obvious. No it really is obvious.

 

[thehog]

Omerta
Say nothing

Maybe Bassooons will say something?

 

[Nick C.]

You are missing the doping. It is obvious. No it really is obvious.

You mean like in Paris Nice 2013 or the five guys up the last climb in a group of 15 ...
I was just trying to inquire about the non-elephant in the room sort of explanations. What about those elliptical chain rings? Though I also recall it being said by the US commentators (Gogolski and the other guy) they were Wiggins' bane on the super steep pitches of the Angrilu when he was being dropped in 2011.

 

[The Hitch]

Your problem is you treat assumptions as certainties.....and then you build arguments on them.....you use the word 'lying' many times....you seem blind to the possibility that there are many other possible explanations other than 'lying'....to give one succinct example is your claim that Sky are 'lying' about marginal gains......I just treat the whole marginal gains schtick as the same sort of PR trick all sorts of sports teams pull to both try and give themselves a psychological advantage as well as help sell ***......you know....like the sort of stuff sponsors sell ....that is after all the name of the game as far as the sponsors are concerned

Mark L

And your problem is that you don't know much about doping (you think dopers won't learn from the mistakes that got their friends caught) you don't know enough about cycling (yo thought that distance has no relevance to the difficulty of a stage) and you either don't know or pretend not to know much about froome and brailsford and sky, ignoring all the extremely suspicious things they have done, acting like none of it happened and making out like we here were just making it all up.

Feel free to play the victim card all you like like you always resort to, but it's clear in many debates some people just don't know enough about the subject matter and you are presently filling that role.