• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Sky/Froome Talk Only (No Way Sky Are Cleans?)

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I'm assuming this post was made in response to recent performances, so here is my take.

Sky did an extremely aggressive attack at the end of yesterdays stage, were flat out, working together and, by my reckoning, that last 8 kms was still around 2 minutes slower than Heras in 2002 despite it being a team time trial (approximately 23.5 minutes compared to 21.5 minutes (if what I read in another thread was accurate)).

Today Wiggins gained less time than anticipated on many of his rivals, including Nibali, and faded badly towards the end in a mini-collapse that has probably cost him a shot at this title. Not entirely Armstrong-esque.

Froome only just turned 26, has a history of climbing well, was tipped to Time Trial decently and wasn't up against any great Time Trialists out of the GC contenders (apart from his teammate and Menchov who didn't do well). Who were you anticipating Froome to lose out to exactly? Plus and I'm not sure about the Kenyan & South African culture of systematic doping programmes that might have corrupted him at a young age. Plus Fuglsang would likely have been the red jersey if he hadn't had a chain malfunction.

Other riders like Cobo, Kessiakoff and Rodriguez the slipstream king were more worthy of a closer look today. I'm not suggesting that they are up to anything (apart from Rodriguez, heck, is getting two stage finishes tailor made for you not enough home court advantage?) but I think Sky have been far from the most 'unbelievable' performers of the last couple of days.

I detest everything about the company Sky, but I'm not overly suspicious of their cycling team doping.
 
Feb 22, 2011
495
0
0
This forum really is a giggle!

I just love the way that every "unexplainable" result ends up here. It's wonderfully ironic that an attempt by a sport to counter doping should result in a myriad of speculation about.....doping. Far better to sweep it under the carpet :)

There was a time when the essence of sport was the fact that it was so unpredictable. But what I fail to understand is why you should give any more credence to a series of 'great endeavours' rather than just one or two.

It's the former that would raise my eyebrows.

Still. Carry on speculating - it's hilarious.....
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Larry Finnegan said:
If this is so why aren't the guys who have been caught in the past, served their time, the Basso's etc. wiping the floor with the likes of Dan Martin, Voeckler etc? I'm no doping apologist, but it weakens the anti doping position by blanketing everyone as juiced. I recently read a post on here relating Voeckler's riding style to testosterone abuse! I'm still not sure if this was a wind up! But making associations like this are ridiculous and deflect from the analytical examination of 'real' evidence of doping.
Maybe i'm just a silly optimist!

cycladianpirate said:
This forum really is a giggle!

I just love the way that every "unexplainable" result ends up here. It's wonderfully ironic that an attempt by a sport to counter doping should result in a myriad of speculation about.....doping. Far better to sweep it under the carpet :)

There was a time when the essence of sport was the fact that it was so unpredictable. But what I fail to understand is why you should give any more credence to a series of 'great endeavours' rather than just one or two.

It's the former that would raise my eyebrows.

Still. Carry on speculating - it's hilarious.....

The history of the sport makes most of it the same old same old. Just because there are no positive tests doesn't mean the sport has changed unless you know better.
 
Fergoose said:
(...)
Plus and I'm not sure about the Kenyan & South African culture of systematic doping programmes that might have corrupted him at a young age. (...)
Other riders like Cobo, Kessiakoff and Rodriguez the slipstream king were more worthy of a closer look today. I'm not suggesting that they are up to anything (apart from Rodriguez, heck, is getting two stage finishes tailor made for you not enough home court advantage?) but I think Sky have been far from the most 'unbelievable' performers of the last couple of days.
(...)
I'm speechless.
 
May 6, 2009
8,314
0
0
Fergoose said:
I'm assuming this post was made in response to recent performances, so here is my take.

Sky did an extremely aggressive attack at the end of yesterdays stage, were flat out, working together and, by my reckoning, that last 8 kms was still around 2 minutes slower than Heras in 2002 despite it being a team time trial (approximately 23.5 minutes compared to 21.5 minutes (if what I read in another thread was accurate)).

Today Wiggins gained less time than anticipated on many of his rivals, including Nibali, and faded badly towards the end in a mini-collapse that has probably cost him a shot at this title. Not entirely Armstrong-esque.

Froome only just turned 26, has a history of climbing well, was tipped to Time Trial decently and wasn't up against any great Time Trialists out of the GC contenders (apart from his teammate and Menchov who didn't do well). Who were you anticipating Froome to lose out to exactly? Plus and I'm not sure about the Kenyan & South African culture of systematic doping programmes that might have corrupted him at a young age. Plus Fuglsang would likely have been the red jersey if he hadn't had a chain malfunction.

Other riders like Cobo, Kessiakoff and Rodriguez the slipstream king were more worthy of a closer look today. I'm not suggesting that they are up to anything (apart from Rodriguez, heck, is getting two stage finishes tailor made for you not enough home court advantage?) but I think Sky have been far from the most 'unbelievable' performers of the last couple of days.

I detest everything about the company Sky, but I'm not overly suspicious of their cycling team doping.
In true nerd thread fashion:

 
Nov 11, 2010
2,665
0
0
cycladianpirate said:
This forum really is a giggle!

I just love the way that every "unexplainable" result ends up here. It's wonderfully ironic that an attempt by a sport to counter doping should result in a myriad of speculation about.....doping. Far better to sweep it under the carpet :)

There was a time when the essence of sport was the fact that it was so unpredictable. But what I fail to understand is why you should give any more credence to a series of 'great endeavours' rather than just one or two.

It's the former that would raise my eyebrows.

Still. Carry on speculating - it's hilarious.....
I know what you mean. I'm adding this one on top of the Gilbert, Evans, and Zabriskie one. I'm sure there are more "There is no way ________ is clean" threads. Just can't seem to recall.
 
Jul 24, 2010
1,787
0
0
Was Wiggins' TT ride "unbelievable"? Were he and Froome unbelievable when they were losing time to just about every GC rider on the previous uphill finishes?

They were both great on La Covatilla, but even so they came to the finish with the likes of Martin, Mollema, and Cobo, and seconds ahead of riders like Taaramae, Poels, Kessiakoff, Zubeldia, and Seeldraeyers. More questions should be asked about the non-performances of Rodriguez, Anton, Scarponi.
 
Sep 4, 2010
41
0
0
Benotti69 said:
The history of the sport makes most of it the same old same old. Just because there are no positive tests doesn't mean the sport has changed unless you know better.
I know about as much as you i'd guess. I prefer to presume innocence until proven guilty. This doesn't mean I have my head buried in the sand on the issue. The history of the sport is well documented, but it is history, you can't judge modern performances as corrupt because previous riders were juiced to the gills! I prefer to look at wattage outputs stage times, weather conditions on the day etc. and compare the results with the acknowledged era of serious drug abuse then make a call on it. Nature can't be fooled! Lemond has written extensively about this and imo is the only way to rid a great sport of cheats.
 
Sep 4, 2010
41
0
0
Eric8-A said:
I know what you mean. I'm adding this one on top of the Gilbert, Evans, and Zabriskie one. I'm sure there are more "There is no way ________ is clean" threads. Just can't seem to recall.
Precisely! I'd say if you throw your leg over a bike your assumed to be guilty on here.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,325
0
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
Discuss.

Some 'unbelievable' performances from Sky this weekend.

Wiggins climbing like the second coming of Armstrong. Froome's ITT. A British USP?

Or is it all down to weight loss and good positioning on the bike?
another one of these stupid threads....it is really just sad.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Larry Finnegan said:
Precisely! I'd say if you throw your leg over a bike your assumed to be guilty on here.
as your post illustrates, it's mostly apologists who make generalizations.
 
Jun 9, 2011
66
0
0
Its clear what happened

Purito and Moreno were 1th and 2nd in GC, but before covatilla stage... Sky stole his doping products and they are using it, and katusha is riding clean now :D
 
Sep 4, 2010
41
0
0
sniper said:
as your post illustrates, it's mostly apologists who make generalizations.[/QUOTE

Spot on sir! I made a generalisation to fit in here! Thats a joke by the way. Maybe not a good one, but an attempt.
An apologist no.
 
May 3, 2010
2,239
0
0
I do love that some people fancy themselves as the forum thought police. I'm sorry ACF are we only allowed to post threads that you and others approve of? I'll remember next time your control freak tendencies kick in to PM you with my thoughts just to make sure that you approve of them.

So tell me, under what conditions are we 'allowed' to post a discussion asking if a team is dirty or not?

I'm loathed to explain the thread but seeing as it has gone over the heads of several of you it obviously needs to be done. i) The thread is posed as a question/discussion, not a statement that Sky are dirty. See that thing on the end of the title - it's called a question mark, you put them at the end of sentences when you are asking a question to which you don't know the answer. ii) In the opening post I stated both sides of the argument - that the performances are unbelievable and alternative view that it's really down to Wiggins losing weight etc.

Anyway, you guys keep on complaining about the thread and keep on moving it up to the top :)

Back to the topic in hand - Sky have moved away from their hardline no doping position? - their handling of Possoni being implicated and hiring Sean Yates doesn't inspire much confidence.

Or in the words of Zhou Enlai is it 'too early to tell' and if Wiggins and Froome start crossing the line together like Vino and Kash in 2006 or Horner and Bottle in TOC then we need to start worrying but not just yet.
 
May 8, 2009
767
0
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
I do love that some people fancy themselves as the forum thought police. I'm sorry ACF are we only allowed to post threads that you and others approve of. I'll remember next time your control freak tendencies kick in to PM you with my thoughts just to make sure that you approve of them.

So tell me, under what conditions are we 'allowed' to post a discussion asking if a team is dirty or not?

I'm loathed to explain the thread but seeing as it has gone over the heads of several of you it obviously needs to be done. i) The thread is posed as a question/discussion not a statement that Sky are dirty. See that thing on the end of the title - it's called a question mark, you put them at the end of sentences when you are asking a question to which you don't know the answer. ii) In the opening post I stated both sides of the argument - that the performances are unbelievable and alternative view that it's really down to Wiggins losing weight etc.

Anyway, you guys keep on complaining about the thread and keep on moving it up to the top :)

Back to the topic in hand - Sky have moved away from their hardline no doping position - their handling of Possoni being implicated and hiring Sean Yates doesn't inspire much confidence.

Or in the words of Zhou Enlai is it 'too early to tell' and if Wiggins and Froome start crossing the line together like Vino and Kash in 2006 or Horner and Bottle in TOC then we need to start worrying but not just yet.
I think I agree with the latter paragraph. Ok Froome is having a break-out performance and that is definitely suspicious (the 90s/00s mean any unexpected great performance is suspicious). Counter points however, no one did this thread whilst Froome was climbing with the best before the TT, Wiggins isn't significantly better than at the dauphine.

For me the the fact that the long climbs so far have not split it up much (Angliru will be different since no slip stream at those speeds) and climbers TTing like climbers (not like pantani or sastre 08) suggests a much cleaner peloton. I honestly think if Froome was a no talent who had heavily doped to give the performances he is doing now he would get found out. However, it is reasonable to think some doping is still going on, adjusting parameters within the margins allowed by the bio-passport, and if that's the case it's logical to think Froome is doing the same as everyone else.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Larry Finnegan said:
Spot on sir! I made a generalisation to fit in here! Thats a joke by the way. Maybe not a good one, but an attempt.
An apologist no.
In the absence of other factors, one is more likely to be correct assuming a given pro-cyclist is dirty than assuming he's clean.
Cycling history has shown this and it can easily be presented as a regular statistical pattern, so if you claim otherwise (i.e. if you presume innocence and criticize those who don't), the burden of the proof is yours.
 
May 3, 2010
2,239
0
0
Bumeington said:
I think I agree with the latter paragraph. Ok Froome is having a break-out performance and that is definitely suspicious (the 90s/00s mean any unexpected great performance is suspicious). Counter points however, no one did this thread whilst Froome was climbing with the best before the TT, Wiggins isn't significantly better than at the dauphine.

For me the the fact that the long climbs so far have not split it up much (Angliru will be different since no slip stream at those speeds) and climbers TTing like climbers (not like pantani or sastre 08) suggests a much cleaner peloton. I honestly think if Froome was a no talent who had heavily doped to give the performances he is doing now he would get found out. However, it is reasonable to think some doping is still going on, adjusting parameters within the margins allowed by the bio-passport, and if that's the case it's logical to think Froome is doing the same as everyone else.
I tend to agree that it is too early to tell. And I certainly don't think McQuaid is correct to talk about a sea-change in the attitude of the peloton towards doping.

I find the climbers TTing like climbers bit interesting, the other side is TTers outclimbing the specialist climbers, and not losing anything in their ITT.
 
Sep 4, 2010
41
0
0
sniper said:
In the absence of other factors, one is more likely to be correct assuming a given pro-cyclist is dirty than assuming he's clean.
Cycling history has shown this and it can easily be presented as a regular statistical pattern, so if you claim otherwise (i.e. if you presume innocence and criticize those who don't), the burden of the proof is yours.
What if your assumption is wrong? 'More likely' isn't good enough. Definitive proof is the excepted norm. Statistics also produce outliers, something, someone that is outside the norm. I think its fair to say that Greg Lemond, who I happen to believe had a clean career (can't prove it), would fall into this category. I'd bet my last cent that Lemond would be lambasted on this site as a doper had it existed in '89. The presumption being he couldn't have a year like that and be clean. He did struggle desperately in the Giro, except for a glimmer of form in the last TT, then goes on to win the Tour and Worlds.
I can't prove any rider, Lemond included, was/is clean.
 
Larry Finnegan said:
Whats unbelieveable about it? Have you compared the time with something Armstrong has done? Is Dan Martin on the juice too? Is it not indicative of less doping that the likes of Martin are actually now winning stages at this level?
Sometimes (a lot of the time) this forum and its contributors don't know what they're talking about, always the sceptic. If evidence is available show it. Seems to me no matter who wins a lot of guys on here believe dope is involved.
Dan Martin did not put as good TT anyway. So the comparison is not aplicable here.

Remember that climbers usually suck at TT to then kill everybody in the mountain. Some energy saving taking place here. Not the case for Froome.

BTW, I am not suspicious yet.

It is the third week when I become suspicious of riders. It is hard to tell now IMHO.
 
Ferminal said:
Finished in this group on the Monte Grappa stage last year:

17. [ITA] CATALDO Dario QST 04'46" 0
18. [ESP] MORENO FERNANDEZ Daniel OLO 04'46" 0
19. [NED] KRUIJSWIJK Steven RAB 04'46" 0
20. [FRA] VOECKLER Thomas BTL 04'46" 0
21. [ITA] BISOLTI Alessandro COG 04'46" 0
22. [RUS] KARPETS Vladimir KAT 04'46" 0
23. [GBR] FROOME Chris SKY 04'46" 0
24. [AUS] PORTE Richie SAX 04'46" 0
25. [FRA] GADRET John ALM 04'46" 0
26. [COL] ARDILA CANO Mauricio Alberto RAB 04'46" 0
27. [CRO] KISERLOVSKI Robert LIQ 04'46" 0
28. [RUS] TROFIMOV Yury BTL 04'46" 0
29. [DEN] SÖRENSEN Chris Anker SAX 04'46" 0
30. [ITA] CARUSO Giampaolo KAT 04'46" 0

I do not remember his position over the top of the climb though, don't have the footage on me either to check. Most of them are reasonable climbers without being exceptional. The next day on Zoncolan he was nowhere. I will be surprised (and a little concerned) if he stays at this level for 3 weeks.
That's it.

...................
 
Fergoose said:
I'm assuming this post was made in response to recent performances, so here is my take.

Sky did an extremely aggressive attack at the end of yesterdays stage, were flat out, working together and, by my reckoning, that last 8 kms was still around 2 minutes slower than Heras in 2002 despite it being a team time trial (approximately 23.5 minutes compared to 21.5 minutes (if what I read in another thread was accurate)).

Today Wiggins gained less time than anticipated on many of his rivals, including Nibali, and faded badly towards the end in a mini-collapse that has probably cost him a shot at this title. Not entirely Armstrong-esque.

Froome only just turned 26, has a history of climbing well, was tipped to Time Trial decently and wasn't up against any great Time Trialists out of the GC contenders (apart from his teammate and Menchov who didn't do well). Who were you anticipating Froome to lose out to exactly? Plus and I'm not sure about the Kenyan & South African culture of systematic doping programmes that might have corrupted him at a young age. Plus Fuglsang would likely have been the red jersey if he hadn't had a chain malfunction.

Other riders like Cobo, Kessiakoff and Rodriguez the slipstream king were more worthy of a closer look today. I'm not suggesting that they are up to anything (apart from Rodriguez, heck, is getting two stage finishes tailor made for you not enough home court advantage?) but I think Sky have been far from the most 'unbelievable' performers of the last couple of days.

I detest everything about the company Sky, but I'm not overly suspicious of their cycling team doping.
How can this be true? What does coming from Kenya has to do with someone cheating in a race?? just because there is no culture of doping in a country then its athletes can be considered clean as a whistle? what kind of logic is that? The culture of doping in cycling is what is going to corrupt him anyway. Look what the Mennonite background did for Landis. Nothing.
 
cycladianpirate said:
This forum really is a giggle!

I just love the way that every "unexplainable" result ends up here. It's wonderfully ironic that an attempt by a sport to counter doping should result in a myriad of speculation about.....doping. Far better to sweep it under the carpet :)

There was a time when the essence of sport was the fact that it was so unpredictable. But what I fail to understand is why you should give any more credence to a series of 'great endeavours' rather than just one or two.

It's the former that would raise my eyebrows.

Still. Carry on speculating - it's hilarious.....
This assessment is questionable. It is actually predictable from the natural stand point of view. This is one of the biggest criteria methods used for the doping crusaders as Lemond and other scientists: Natural talent shows at an early age. So results should show early in their life unless everybody stated doping early in their life. But usually the very talented show results early in their life, if not for a 3 week GT, at least for 1 week races where a clean rider has a better shot at winning.

The unpredictability aspect of the sport started to show up in the early 90's.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M The Clinic 34
Similar threads
Tour de Cleans?

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts