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

[Mambo95]

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.

I do generalize about the Clinic a bit, but I'm generally criticising the more extreme reactionary posters who tend to dominate a little. It always seems to be you that picks me up on it despite me think you very reasonable and often seeing you saying some of the same sort of things.

As for 'suspicious'. It all really depends on what that really means and how suspicions are raised. Often in life suspicions arise through lack of information or bad information. It would be interesting to see how the 2011 differed.

Before the actual list was actually published, I said that it would be used only to condemn riders. You see posters saying 'he was a 4, the same as Kolobnev', as above, but never "Cancellara, Horner, Rolland, EBH, Voeckler - all zeros, look how well they're doing".

 

[Hugh Januss]

Ping you? Please explain.

 

[Polish]

Ping you? Please explain.

Its slang for "contact me" or "call me" or "bump this thread/post"

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ping+me

 

[Eric8-A]

Precisely! I'd say if you throw your leg over a bike your assumed to be guilty on here.

Yup. Might as well do a Tony Martin, Marcel Kittel, Peter Sagan, Tejay Van Garderen thread to go along with the collection.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

And here lies the problem with the sport.

What scientific information do we have to go on? And then where has the information come from?
We cannot trust the UCI - the teams and riders are hardly a neutral source.

That basically leaves two choices - to ignore the doping and enjoy the sport (and I completely understand those who do that) or to look past the PR and spin and judge the sport for what it shows, not what is reported.

I do generalize about the Clinic a bit, but I'm generally criticising the more extreme reactionary posters who tend to dominate a little. It always seems to be you that picks me up on it despite me think you very reasonable and often seeing you saying some of the same sort of things.

As for 'suspicious'. It all really depends on what that really means and how suspicions are raised. Often in life suspicions arise through lack of information or bad information. It would be interesting to see how the 2011 differed.

Before the actual list was actually published, I said that it would be used only to condemn riders. You see posters saying 'he was a 4, the same as Kolobnev', as above, but never "Cancellara, Horner, Rolland, EBH, Voeckler - all zeros, look how well they're doing".

No - you are not.
By not being specific your "general" comments are 'generally' for everyone associated with The Clinic - you are guilty of doing what you are giving out to The forum for doing.
That is why I respond to your posts - you are the one making the claim, then you are the one I post to, anything else is what you accuse the Clinic of doing.

As for suspicion - 10 was suspicious, 0 wasn't, that was the way they drew it up.
As for your other point - well, I believe that was a 'general' comment so...

 

[Larry Finnegan]

Its slang for "contact me" or "call me" or "bump this thread/post"

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ping+me

Why would I want to contact you? You just talk rubbish ALL the time! No interest in you or your messed up thinking.

 

[Larry Finnegan]

I think it would be a waste of a good driver!

 

[Larry Finnegan]

And here lies the problem with the sport.

What scientific information do we have to go on? And then where has the information come from?
We cannot trust the UCI - the teams and riders are hardly a neutral source.

That basically leaves two choices - to ignore the doping and enjoy the sport (and I completely understand those who do that) or to look past the PR and spin and judge the sport for what it shows, not what is reported.


No - you are not.
By not being specific your "general" comments are 'generally' for everyone associated with The Clinic - you are guilty of doing what you are giving out to The forum for doing.
That is why I respond to your posts - you are the one making the claim, then you are the one I post to, anything else is what you accuse the Clinic of doing.

As for suspicion - 10 was suspicious, 0 wasn't, that was the way they drew it up.
As for your other point - well, I believe that was a 'general' comment so...

I think the metabolism of oxygen by the body is well studied. Here's a statring point.

 

[Larry Finnegan]

And here lies the problem with the sport.

What scientific information do we have to go on? And then where has the information come from?
We cannot trust the UCI - the teams and riders are hardly a neutral source.

That basically leaves two choices - to ignore the doping and enjoy the sport (and I completely understand those who do that) or to look past the PR and spin and judge the sport for what it shows, not what is reported.


No - you are not.
By not being specific your "general" comments are 'generally' for everyone associated with The Clinic - you are guilty of doing what you are giving out to The forum for doing.
That is why I respond to your posts - you are the one making the claim, then you are the one I post to, anything else is what you accuse the Clinic of doing.

As for suspicion - 10 was suspicious, 0 wasn't, that was the way they drew it up.
As for your other point - well, I believe that was a 'general' comment so...

I think the metabolism of oxygen by the body is well studied. Here's a starting point.

 

[mb2612]

I do generalize about the Clinic a bit, but I'm generally criticising the more extreme reactionary posters who tend to dominate a little. It always seems to be you that picks me up on it despite me think you very reasonable and often seeing you saying some of the same sort of things.

As for 'suspicious'. It all really depends on what that really means and how suspicions are raised. Often in life suspicions arise through lack of information or bad information. It would be interesting to see how the 2011 differed.

Before the actual list was actually published, I said that it would be used only to condemn riders. You see posters saying 'he was a 4, the same as Kolobnev', as above, but never "Cancellara, Horner, Rolland, EBH, Voeckler - all zeros, look how well they're doing".

Kolobnev was a low blow from me, fair enough. But when the UCI official position on a secret list is that 6+ means overwhelming evidence of doping, while at the same time they have consistently underestimated the amount of doping going on, in public anyway, then I don't see why I should disagree with them.

It's certainly a better metric of assessing guilt than just deciding a performance is really good and therefore the rider must be doped.

As far as the court of law goes, if one biological passport case gets overturned then the whole system fails. If I get it wrong once, I feel slightly bad. I can afford to believe things that a probably true rather than things that are certainly true.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think the metabolism of oxygen by the body is well studied. Here's a starting point.

Great,
and which riders do we know values of? Exactly, none.

 

[Mambo95]

As far as the court of law goes, if one biological passport case gets overturned then the whole system fails. If I get it wrong once, I feel slightly bad. I can afford to believe things that a probably true rather than things that are certainly true.

I'm not sure that the bit in bold is true. The BP has already been shown to be legally sound. Any case has to be treated on it's own individual merits.

In much more serious criminal law, lots of rape prosecutions fail. But people still go to to jail for rape.

 

[Larry Finnegan]

Great,
and which riders do we know values of? Exactly, none.

The body metabilises at a certain rate, if that ratio is exceeded there's something amiss. Riding up a mountain giving a wattage output in the mid 500's for 40 minutes is physiolgically impossible as it exceeds the metabolic rate. Lemond has written well about this check him out.

 

[mb2612]

I'm not sure that the bit in bold is true. The BP has already been shown to be legally sound. Any case has to be treated on it's own individual merits.

In much more serious criminal law, lots of rape prosecutions fail. But people still go to to jail for rape.

Maybe down the line, but a system which is purely done on correlation is very susceptible to being discredited by a single failure. Especially if it occurs in the first few prosecutions.

The difference with rape is that the UCI can give up on the passport, the government can't give up on rape trials.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The body metabilises at a certain rate, if that ratio is exceeded there's something amiss. Riding up a mountain giving a wattage output in the mid 500's for 40 minutes is physiolgically impossible as it exceeds the metabolic rate. Lemond has written well about this check him out.

Nothing wrong with the theory - but as long as we don't have accurate and verifiable numbers then that's all it is, a theory.

As for LeMond - he is an ex-pro, not a scientist, so I doubt LeMond has "written about it".

 

[cycladianpirate]

And here lies the problem with the sport.

What scientific information do we have to go on? And then where has the information come from?
We cannot trust the UCI - the teams and riders are hardly a neutral source.

And this is why I find your stance so objectionable. You really believe that only cycling has a problem??????

But there is method in your *******

If the peloton were prepared to submit to truly rigorous testing - every man jack of them - only then would the evidence exist with which mere conjecture could be replaced by genuine analysis.

It ain't going to happen and so conjecture and hypothesis will go on and on.

As Edmund Blackadder said "for you, the Renaissance is just something that happened to other people".

 

[Larry Finnegan]

Nothing wrong with the theory - but as long as we don't have accurate and verifiable numbers then that's all it is, a theory.

As for LeMond - he is an ex-pro, not a scientist, so I doubt LeMond has "written about it".

Hey mate i'm not your researcher, look a little harder, I would expect that an ex elite athlete of his calibre knows more about it than the average scientist considering his success was built around him knowing his body and how it functions. Google is wonderful use it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Hey mate i'm not your researcher, look a little harder, I would expect that an ex elite athlete of his calibre knows more about it than the average scientist considering his success was built around him knowing his body and how it functions. Google is wonderful use it.

You brought up the point, mate - not me.

You can back it up, withdraw it, ignore it - I don't care, it is theory that cannot be applied as we do not have the data to work with.
It is no better (or worse) than many other theories that are brought up here that you object to.

 

[mb2612]

I would expect that an ex elite athlete of his calibre knows more about it than the average scientist considering his success was built around him knowing his body and how it functions.

I can't understand why this would be. Someone who is really good at riding a bike is probably worse at sports science than someone who has spent 20 years studying the science.

 

[kielbasa]

Hey mate i'm not your researcher, look a little harder, I would expect that an ex elite athlete of his calibre knows more about it than the average scientist considering his success was built around him knowing his body and how it functions. Google is wonderful use it.

LeMond knows his body based on what scientists (who study many subjects) have told him about it.

 

[Je ne sais quoi]

Merde. I had no interest in posting in this clinic topic, and am happy to celebrate a break-out performance by a young rider. Now in the first article I read about him he describes a mysterious blood ailment requiring red-blood cell therapy after the Tour de Suisse:

"Froome’s season was knocked off course by the parasite which he picked during a visit to Kenya. It cost him a ride at this year’s Tour de France but he is now confident he has overcome the problem.
“It feeds off red blood cells which is obviously not ideal for an athlete,” he said. “But after undergoing some treatment following the Tour of Switzerland in June, I think where I am now shows I’ve finally got the better of it.”

Clipped from http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-hopes-to-keep-vuelta-lead-as-long-as-possible

 

[thehog]

That's got dodgy blood bag written all over it!

Merde. I had no interest in posting in this clinic topic, and am happy to celebrate a break-out performance by a young rider. Now in the first article I read about him he describes a mysterious blood ailment requiring red-blood cell therapy after the Tour de Suisse:

"Froome’s season was knocked off course by the parasite which he picked during a visit to Kenya. It cost him a ride at this year’s Tour de France but he is now confident he has overcome the problem.
“It feeds off red blood cells which is obviously not ideal for an athlete,” he said. “But after undergoing some treatment following the Tour of Switzerland in June, I think where I am now shows I’ve finally got the better of it.”

Clipped from http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-hopes-to-keep-vuelta-lead-as-long-as-possible

 

[daveinzambia]

That's got dodgy blood bag written all over it!

Doubtful

bilharzia is a water borne parasite that is very common across Africa. Can get it swimming in (or very often going to toilet in) any fairly still fresh water. Loads of people get it on holiday and have no idea til months later when you feel tired and start peeing blood.

is not the sort of thing you pick up from a dodgy blood bag. Anyone considering having a blood transfusion in Africa has not been in an African hospital.

Not saying this proves he has done nothing wrong but would not read anything into that illness

 

[blackcat]

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?

#channels_dimspace

#APB_out_4_TeamSKyFanz

I say weight loss, cadence, and the testicles of turtle. Aint that usually the one ingredient all the Chinese start athletes drink from?

#turtle_testicles

 

[blackcat]

Wiggins doesn't stand out to me because I'm used to him now, but Froome's performance is weird indeed.

actually Froome is not a surprise. Came second to a very high calibre Chinese chrono rider MA Haijun in the B worlds in about 2005 or 06. Rode two very good chronos in the 2008 Tour, or might have been 2009. Was the final Barlo tour.

Came top 20 in both.

There is an ignorance about Wiggins tt ability. They call him a specialist. But even when he was a trackie, even riding chronos in u23, he never was on a worlds podium, never winning. He has won some 2.1 French chronos, like Dunkirk or something. Wiggins was never a chrono rider. He could not even beat Kloden in the 8km tt in London Tour prologue. Canc put about 20 seconds into him.

Go back and see Froome's first Tour de France. Manifest ability and potential.

Dare say if he rode the u23 World tt, that year, think he was only 22, he would have podiumed, or perhaps won, pending the cours.e

Guy can ride a chrono if u know your race results for the past decade. Aus pundits like Keenan and McKenzie dont know. Keeno easily best Anglophone knowledge, but he would not be au fait with Frroomes first Tour, even tho he probably was working then for the Tour. Think Froome came top 20 in both chronos. I had researched it years back.

Apart from all the Wiggins propaganda. Brailsford has two hopes, perhaps 3 for GC, cos he has seeen and knows by ROTE their ergo results, and blood results for lactic etc.

Dimspace wont know this.

It is not the Kennaugh bro elder. But he is my third option above.

It is Froome and G.

Thomas and Frrome. See about 3 years back, when Froome wanted to change his nationality for UCI purposes to GB.

See Brailsford's comments. He said words to the effect of GC Tour.

And I know a coach of a rider on Sky. He said ALL EYES TO G.

Thomas and Froome are the riders. Kennaugh is the option at the end of this decade.

Tour is won on the nub of the needle. Even seeing what Papp writes, and saying Rumsas was SOOOO talented in grandfondos. Sure. They ALL are that talented. But the doctor and the alchemist make a rider into a Tour winner.

Evans always had the talent, and was one of the few riders in the peloton with that natural ability of pro peloton bell curve end. But. He had to up his program, and roll the dice. Finally.

G Thomas.
Froome.
6 years Kennaugh.

Dont go to Dimspace. He does not have the inside mail from Brailsord. This is their commercial inconfidence planning. I dont know it. I only used a few tenuous bites to piece it together.