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

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

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 4, 2010
41
0
0
Escarabajo said:
This part is completely not 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 omish background did for Landis. Nothing.
Dead right. It was a Mennonite background!
 
Sep 4, 2010
41
0
0
Escarabajo said:
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.
Of course it's applicable, Armstrong also rode the mountain stages did he not?
 
Feb 23, 2010
2,022
0
0
Escarabajo said:
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.
So true. As MJM suggests above, "sea change" is just Fat-speak (for the stats tell us that these things are cyclical), but equally I wouldn't rule out the possibility of there being subtle changes (less or different?) happening in 2011. Marginal gains, even. :D
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
You guys spend a lot of time debating a question which can be answered in one statement.
There is no way anybody at the "pointy end" (Phil Liggett's words, not mine) of a GT is clean.

As Thoreau said "Simplify, simplify", athough it has been pointed out other places that he could have simplified by only saying it once. But I digress.
 
Wiggins got the same ranking as Kolobnev, Vinokurov and Contador on the pre Tour 2010 doping list at a level of almost certainly doping, while Thomas and Rogers were both on certainly doping levels.

That's enough for me to take everyone of their results with a massive pinch of salt.
 
hrotha said:
I'm speechless.
Okay, okay, so I saw clenbuterol has hit South African cycling (the poor lad pled guilty and received a three year ban, we can but hope...) and we know the history of Barloworld, so I'll withdraw that admittedly throwaway remark without a care.

With regards to my other point about other riders being closer to "unbelievable" than the Sky riders, I found this article written after my post that left you so dumbfounded.

http://www.itv.com/lavuelta/2011/news/matt-rendell-stage-10-review/

In it Cobo is described as having “over-performed” in the Time Trial (he only lost 1 minute forty to Wiggins) and Kessiakoff is described as “the surprise of the tour so far” alongside Froome.

To be honest, I’m kind of speechless myself that a seasoned cycling commentator could be in such agreement with my interpretation of results and sound judgement. :p
 
Sep 4, 2010
41
0
0
mb2612 said:
Wiggins got the same ranking as Kolobnev, Vinokurov and Contador on the pre Tour 2010 doping list at a level of almost certainly doping, while Thomas and Rogers were both on certainly doping levels.

That's enough for me to take everyone of their results with a massive pinch of salt.
Oh yeah this is a list compiled by an organisation that has discredited itself by accepting a donation from a rider subject to its own rules. Real believeable stuff alright. It also stated that 156 of the 198 riders on the list showed little or no risk of doping. What to believe????
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,827
0
0
TeamSkyFans said:
remember as well, that Froome is riding to try and get himself a contract for next season. As it stands he does not have a team for 2012.
Are you saying not having a contract is a reason NOT to dope?
There are ample examples of just the opposite you know.

And why does he not HAVE a contract yet?
Negotiating for bigger bucks?

But all that aside, I do like his tweet of "There are no shortcuts".
I like the sound of that. Inspiring.
And True
No secrets, it takes hard work. Hard hard work.
Busting your ***.
Hopefully, Mr Froome is a very hard worker.
 
Larry Finnegan said:
Oh yeah this is a list compiled by an organisation that has discredited itself by accepting a donation from a rider subject to its own rules. Real believeable stuff alright. It also stated that 156 of the 198 riders on the list showed little or no risk of doping. What to believe????
That the riders they point out as suspicious are almost certainly doping?
 
Sep 4, 2010
41
0
0
mb2612 said:
That the riders they point out as suspicious are almost certainly doping?
See theres that old nearly thing again. Almost certainly, most likely, nearly certain. No definites! Adopt scientific parameters for certain efforts (crossing VO2 max levels with actual outputs), that'll for sure point out the dopers. Its the whole reason i'd have for believeing Lemond was clean, his results were credible when matched to his physical limitations, simples!
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,310
0
0
Larry Finnegan said:
Oh yeah this is a list compiled by an organisation that has discredited itself by accepting a donation from a rider subject to its own rules. Real believeable stuff alright. It also stated that 156 of the 198 riders on the list showed little or no risk of doping. What to believe????
There are generally two rules to consider:

1. Values on the list which agree with your preconceived prejudices are indisputably correct evidence. Those that don't are evidence of UCI corruption.

2. The values can only be used to suggest that someone is doping, and under no circumstances to suggest someone is clean


(A better idea is to ignore that list altogether as we have no idea how it was drawn up).
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Larry Finnegan said:
See theres that old nearly thing again. Almost certainly, most likely, nearly certain. No definites! Adopt scientific parameters for certain efforts (crossing VO2 max levels with actual outputs), that'll for sure point out the dopers. Its the whole reason i'd have for believeing Lemond was clean, his results were credible when matched to his physical limitations, simples!
as I said, the 'nearly' thing is your problem, the apologist's problem, nobody else's problem.
if you prefer naivity over common sense, be my guest, but don't blame others for doing the reverse.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,310
0
0
sniper said:
as I said, the 'nearly' thing is your problem, the apologist's problem, nobody else's problem.
if you prefer naivity over common sense, be my guest, but don't blame others for doing the reverse.

As a very smart man once said, "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

Adjust the age figure a little and the same applies to cycling 'common sense'.
 
Sep 4, 2010
41
0
0
sniper said:
as I said, the 'nearly' thing is your problem, the apologist's problem, nobody else's problem.
if you prefer naivity over common sense, be my guest, but don't blame others for doing the reverse.
I'm not blaming anyone for anything mate. A court of law demands irrefutable evidence. If it's good enough for most legal systems its good enough for me. Too many people have had reputations destroyed by alleged common sense. You seem to be under the impression that I am an apologist for cheats? Or am I reading this wrong? I want dope out of the sport as much as you do, I think we may differ on the method of achieving that goal. I find it repugnant that a guy can work his *** off to compete clean and have some drug cheat come along and take the palmares. Be under no illusion I am not advocating that they're all clean, far from it, is that clear to you? You seem to be mixing things up a little.
 
Sep 4, 2010
41
0
0
Mambo95 said:
There are generally two rules to consider:

1. Values on the list which agree with your preconceived prejudices are indisputably correct evidence. Those that don't are evidence of UCI corruption.

2. The values can only be used to suggest that someone is doping, and under no circumstances to suggest someone is clean


(A better idea is to ignore that list altogether as we have no idea how it was drawn up).
Totally agree.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
Mambo95 said:
There are generally two rules to consider:

1. Values on the list which agree with your preconceived prejudices are indisputably correct evidence. Those that don't are evidence of UCI corruption.

2. The values can only be used to suggest that someone is doping, and under no circumstances to suggest someone is clean


(A better idea is to ignore that list altogether as we have no idea how it was drawn up).
As someone who often complains about the standard (and generalizes) about The Clinic - I am amazed that you then suggest to ignore a document then to take it for what it is.

It is a suspicion index - 10 means very suspicious, 0 means none - while we may not know the reasons on how to accumulate those scores it is what it is, the UCI's very own list of suspicious riders.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
Larry Finnegan said:
I'm not blaming anyone for anything mate. A court of law demands irrefutable evidence. If it's good enough for most legal systems its good enough for me. Too many people have had reputations destroyed by alleged common sense. You seem to be under the impression that I am an apologist for cheats? Or am I reading this wrong? I want dope out of the sport as much as you do, I think we may differ on the method of achieving that goal. I find it repugnant that a guy can work his *** off to compete clean and have some drug cheat come along and take the palmares. Be under no illusion I am not advocating that they're all clean, far from it, is that clear to you? You seem to be mixing things up a little.
Fine - if that's the standard that's suits you.
But it is not the standard that anyone else has to uphold.

Even you have questions about the UCI impartiality - which is the heart of cyclings problems - no-one trusts the authority in charge of the sport.

That is why I (& I am sure others) use more criteria to form an opinion then just passing a drug test.
 
Sep 4, 2010
41
0
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
Can you give some examples of cyclists who have had their reputations destroyed unfairly?
Greg Lemond?!
It has to refer to cyclists? Is that a forum rule? I was using the court of law analogy, as it happens with regard to miscarriages of justice where individuals and groups of people have been convicted because of ethnicity for example, oh they're Irish they must have planted the bomb, read he had an amazing day in the saddle he must be doping. If it's a rule that I can't make an analogy I withdraw it.
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,827
0
0
Larry Finnegan said:
By the by Lance was at level 4 on that list! WTF! How credible is that!
You are about the fourth or fifth guy that has compared Wiggans to Lance.
You guys cannot be serious!

Ping me when Brad has won 5 Tours IN A ROW and we can talk.
Only then can we even BEGIN to compare.
Only then can he be considered NEARLY as awesome as Lance.

Until then, lol.
 
Sep 4, 2010
41
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Fine - if that's the standard that's suits you.
But it is not the standard that anyone else has to uphold.

Even you have questions about the UCI impartiality - which is the heart of cyclings problems - no-one trusts the authority in charge of the sport.

That is why I (& I am sure others) use more criteria to form an opinion then just passing a drug test.
Hey I agree that passing a test is no indication of a clean rider, runner whatever. I mean Marion Jones never failed a test. However not one person has given an opinion on the scientific aspects of testing a rider on his physical ability compared with their results. For me this is the way to rid the sport of cheats. As for the UCI well its not so long since McQuaid said that cycling hadn't a drug problem! UCI = follow the money.
 
Sep 4, 2010
41
0
0
Polish said:
You are about the fourth or fifth guy that has compared Wiggans to Lance.
You guys cannot be serious!

Ping me when Brad has won 5 Tours IN A ROW and we can talk.
Only then can we even BEGIN to compare.
Only then can he be considered NEARLY as awesome as Lance.

Until then, lol.
Ping you? Please explain.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M The Clinic 34
Similar threads
Tour de Cleans?

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts