Bratam said:C'mon Jimmy, you can do better than this.
As can you. Start by making a point, rather than some throw away remark.
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!
Bratam said:C'mon Jimmy, you can do better than this.
veganrob said:At the pro level, If you are not cheating you are not trying to win. Simple. That extends to lower levels also unfortunately. The war will always be fought on the doping front. There will be the occasional "truce", but they will always be looking for better ways to circumvent the rules and testing. IMO Sky is winning that war now.
Bratam said:Careful now. 7-10kg's is an enormous amount to lose when you are under 70kg's. However I wouldn't bet against him losing 3-5kg's in that period.
DirtyWorks said:But, the federation's role in doping cannot be ignored.
JimmyFingers said:That wasn't my point at all, not even close. My point was in response to Chewie saying Sky started an arms race, and I pointed out that if Sky are doping it would be to compete with the dopers, like it's always been. I'm saying Sky didn't start this, unless you, like Chewie, think the sport was clean when Sky started?
It's a theoretical model, not necessarily representative of my beliefs or opinions, but rather exploring possibilities. It's cheap to misrepresent what people say, try not to in future.
Netserk said:Ofc others doped before Sky, but IMO Sky took it to the next level forcing others to step up too, if they'd want to compete.
I agree with you that it seems like Sky gets a lot of the Lance hate. But it's not very surprising considering all the similarities IMO.JimmyFingers said:But then we end up at some weird chicken-and-egg scenario. Personally I think its part of the whole 'demonise Sky at all costs' movement, that somehow their hypothetical (in my opinion) doping is more morally reprehensible than the rest of the peloton's.
This is because they are viewed as the inheritor's of the Armstrong mantle, the most aggressive and prolific dopers in a field of dopers. nd this mainly because everyone is doping and Sky are winning (although I do believe claims of dominance are an exaggeration on results so far this season). I also believes thjat results in a transference of feelings, from LA to Sky, so I do think Sky are paying for a lot of the sins and excessess of Lance.
And so we have this mysterious 'next level' of doping, because if everyone is doping, how are Sky dominating? So they have some special sauce, some secret stuff no-one else has access to, perhaps developed in the bowels of a BC velodrome.
I just think there are huge holes in all of that, plus this raging against Sky for doping when everyone else is doping is odd, because people are angry for them being a bit more corrupt than everyone else in a sport that is corrupt already, and has been for decades?
Ferminal said:Clean riders have form swings too.
the sceptic said:I thought clean riders could peak all year round
JimPanzen said:The way he popped today is somewhat suspicious. Maybe he was on the wrong "diet"
...maybe he just has the ****s...who knows.
I was interested to read comments last week from my fellow Tasmanian, Cameron Wurf about how there was almost a predictability about the way Sky race. It's not the first time it's been mentioned but it should be noted that Froomie attacked in Tirreno, I attacked in Paris-Nice, Froomie attacked in Criterium - it's not totally predictable. People say that. Cycling's changed, people want to see exciting racing from 10 years ago or whatever but I'm sorry, that just doesn't happen now. We've copped a lot of flack for riding off SRMs but if Romandie was predictable then that has nothing to do with the use of an SRM because what people don't realise is that when you've got all those cameras around, all the interference off them cuts the data from the SRM. At the end of the day we rode Romandie without an SRM. So maybe that does make us predictable?
thehog said:He's not the sharpest tool is he?
But what's he talking about here? It's literally makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/richie-porte/the-giro-wiggins-and-why-you-cant-rule-out-evans