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

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

Page 60 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 11, 2009
4,043
0
0
You were pointing out facts that a newspaper could publish, but obviously that would be to prove that Sky of being dopers, right, why bother if not? So in essence you believe that your 4 points above are enough for a serious newspaper to spew innuendo on an otherwise untainted entity, what world do you live in? Oh right, the clinic world where anything goes. Don't believe me? Just look up who made that post I quoted above...

Don't you think Kimmage or Walsh would have made it a point to set Sky straight if they had any serious doubts? Are they part of the Omerta too now?

Anyway, time to catch the coverage of the Romandie ITT...I'm afraid it's going to give you guys another chance to work on your ulcer...
 
May 26, 2009
2,614
0
0
webvan said:
You were pointing out facts that a newspaper could publish, but obviously that would be to prove that Sky of being dopers, right, why bother if not? So in essence you believe that your 4 points above are enough for a serious newspaper to spew innuendo on an otherwise untainted entity, what world do you live in?
It seems you couldn't find a post of me claiming they 100% doped huh? Boy oh boy, isn't it a ***** when the facts are flat out against you? Webvan, congratulations for letting me tear down your strawman. Next time it helps if you check before you claim something, as this only shows you have no interest in the viewpoint of someone else.

As for why I would like to have real journalism instead of sycophancy?

To expose the rot at cycling which is still there?

But oh my, why would I care about cycling when I can shove all the probems under the carpet like a fanboy?

I'm seriously wondering how you can even suggest that reporting on facts is a bad thing.

Oh right, the clinic world where anything goes. Don't believe me? Just look up who made that post I quoted above...

Don't you think Kimmage or Walsh would have made it a point to set Sky straight if they had any serious doubts? Are they part of the Omerta too now?
Okay, it takes a bit of effort not to ignore you after this part.

I suggest you try to read a bit how Kimmage is dressing down Sky.

Anyway, time to catch the coverage of the Romandie ITT...I'm afraid it's going to give you guys another chance to work on your ulcer...
Good luck being a fanboy! I mean critical thinking can be dispensed for the warm fuzzy feeling of being a fan. It also pardons sloppy journalism it seems, so excuse me for not following your mindless example and aiming for a tad higher intelectual standing.

RAHRAHRAH for your team!
 
Franklin said:
Actually I'm not. You can disagree with me, but there is no strawman to see here. I advice you to look up what a strawman is.
Oh yeah? How about this ****?

Spalco, your view of how a journalist should act are truly scary. You dismiss fact seeking and honest reporting. You only want to read about it if there is a court decision. Lance Armstrong really agrees from the debt of his heart.
You were constantly putting words in my mouth.

which concrete evidence are you talking about?
Maybe you should start reading up on some cycling history before you play the condescending know-it-all in this forum, hm? Let's start with the cortisone positives in '99, his testo TUEs and the L'Equipe stories in 2005. Then maybe at some point we'll get to L.A. Confidentiel.
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
Pentacycle said:
She's bragging about weight, 69 kgs is wrong according to her.

An when everyone likes to know what the real numbers are, she disappears. Or she says Froome'll post the files when retires.

Strange...
She earlier said he weighs 68kg - a few days ago. But the thing is, drop the weight and max power goes down, but W/kg won't change much, if at all, as it's relative power, not absolute power.

Still struggling to think of a reason why a power file from a race already run would be of ANY benefit to other teams / riders / DSs. You have your own power file from the race and Froome beat them by some margin - it's a pretty easy calculation to determine his power in terms of W/kg... :confused:
 
May 26, 2009
2,614
0
0
spalco said:
You were constantly putting words in my mouth.
Actually that is exactly what you said. let me quote:

spalco said:
A newspaper that would print stories calling people criminals who've never been convicted or even legally accused of having done anything wrong, is not one that I would read or respect.
So we can only see articles about the problems at Sky when there is a legal accusation. :rolleyes:

Sorry for going back to your exact words, but I'm very tired of strawmen and people who gladly play lose and fast with the things they said just a few posts ago. :rolleyes:

Maybe you should start reading up on some cycling history before you play the condescending know-it-all in this forum, hm? Let's start with the cortisone positives in '99, his testo TUEs and the L'Equipe stories in 2005. Then maybe at some point we'll get to L.A. Confidentiel.
Perhaps you could check out how many years after his first win these stories surfaced? And then you can come back to me and tell me how long it is ago that Sky won the TdF.

I do warn you that it will make you look a little bit silly :rolleyes:
 
Franklin said:
Actually that is exactly what you said. let me quote:


So we can only see articles about the problems at Sky when there is a legal accusation. :rolleyes:

Sorry for going back to your exact words, but I'm very tired of strawmen and people who gladly play lose and fast with the things they said just a few posts ago. :rolleyes:
Let's see "or even legally accused of having done anything wrong". What could I possibly have meant with that?

I mean, it's the complete opposite of what you accused me of having said, but who cares, right? As long as you can misrepresent my argument in a way that fits your narrative and you can use your extensive wikipedia knowledge of "logical fallacies" everything's fair I suppose.

Perhaps you could check out how many years after his first win these stories surfaced? And then you can come back to me and tell me how long it is ago that Sky won the TdF.

I do warn you that it will make you look a little bit silly :rolleyes:
Hm. Armstrong "won" his first Tour in 1999, the cortisone thing was revealed in 1999. I'm not that good at counting, maybe you could tell me how long that is, professor?
 
Aug 18, 2009
4,621
0
0
Franklin said:
Bleh, we have Fleur for Berti and Auscyclefan for Cadel, but the vast, vast majority have been dismissing them for being dopers. The only defence on par with what we see here has been the Lance drama.

The sad part is that even the Sky fans realize this truth but really don't want to face that truth as it shows the weakness of their position.

hence we see these lies about Sky being singled out. They know they are lieing as the evidence on this forum is crushing against this allegation, but they simply can't stand the truth that they are a carbon copy of the Lance fans.

And no, that has nothing to do with the supposed guilt of Sky, it just shows that the mindset of the fans is exactly the same.
+1 good points
 
Apr 20, 2012
4,238
0
0
This is shear magic:

Michelle Cound ‏@michellecound
@JonetHernandez @digger_forum the only thing Leinders did for him was misdiagnose his skin condition #clueless

[no need to say the tweet was removed]
 
spalco said:
This is true, and it's legitimate to mention it every time Froome wins a race, but the discussion hasn't made any progress since page 1 of this thread, or since august 2011, which makes it really tiring to follow.

You won't be able to convince anyone who doesn't agree already the suspicions against Sky are warranted without some finding some new information.
Sure it has. On page 1 everyone said it was a 1 off performance from a guy who had raced it like a 1 week race and would struggle to finish the rest of the vuelta. The idea that he would end up best rider in the race was not even entertained by his fans.
 
Franklin said:
This is not a court of law. Nor is a journalist a judge. A journalist is free to interpret facts and evidence. A journalist can post contrarian views.

And to drive this one home with a huge sledgehammer: There is no definite proof, but a mountain of circumstantial evidence around those last 5 winners. And the problem is that this evidence is indisputable.



Nonsense. You can post the facts without any fear.



Up till 2012 lance was never implicated in doping. And if we look at the list of last four tour winners there are very definite links to doping beyond positive tests.

1. Sastre: His team allegiance is very murky. It's not without reason Wiggins revealed his peers don't think he was clean.
2. Schleck: Team Allegiance, circumstances about his brother.
3. Evans: rode for Telekom, he rides for BMC, has Rominger as a manager.
4. Wiggins: Leinders, his DS is buddies with Mr. Motoman, the team manager keeps on lieing about anything doperelated;

These facts are indisputable. There is simply no reason to suggest that a journalist would be in hot water pointing this out.
Evans- rides for Landis's team. Sougneiur caught with products at the tour he won. Ferrari client. Hasnt got the message about lance. Was at the top during the super doping generation.
 
Pentacycle said:
This discussion has never been a real one in the first place. There are still three sides on this; 1: The stubborn deniers(who deny Froome has any kind of talent, Froome's just a super responder), 2: The outright Froome believers(he's clean and he has always been talented like that, he was just ill and he wasted lots of energy on the bike) and 3: the Pragmatists(the most popular group, who combine both 1 and 2 to a varied extent)

The sides 1 and 2 won't ever be able to agree, that's impossible. But they're only small. The only valid discussion takes place inside of group 3, because they're not a real unity. They are divided into sub-groups by their view on what proportion of Froome's performances nowadays can be explained by dope and to what degree his talent can explain his results.

But even there, only small concessions are made. The same arguments, that are being recycled for the umpteenth time, are tiring everyone out. Lack of new input kills the thread. The only ways out are:

> Froome gets a wake up call from the UCI, his watts plummit
> Froome gets caught(least plausible option)
> Sky openly post the mysterious Aigle numbers, on which Froome's talent is based
> Sky post all numbers they have, including 'the graph', for everyone to see
> Froome grows stronger everyday, he starts feeding on his opponents, gets picked up to voyage to his next host planet
You only joined this discussion recently which obviously impedes your ability to analyze it. This is evident throughout the 2 waste of time minutes it took to read it. It also shows all the usual flaws demonstrated by people who havent lived through any real doping scandals (except the very small frank schleck one) But even taking into account inexperience, your inability to identify the themes and sides of the discussion, is not suggestive of an intelligent person. They seem beyond you. The clearly unfunny attempt at humour at the end only adds to this interpretation.

My analysis on you, btw, and maybe it's as full of **** as your post, but I'll give it a try anyway, is that since you only started watching cycling very recently (something you confessed to) you are trying to hide your inexperience and gaps in knowledge, by constantly arguing for the sake of arguing. Especially evident in the wild and often contradictory positions you take pro racing section.

And that's all right in pro racing section where its never that serious and usually just banter. But here in the vipers pit, people feel lied to, they feel like their heroes are being slandered, they feel like their sport is being hijacked. You come in here, unprepared and looking for a game, your gonna get your nose bloody.
 
May 28, 2012
2,284
0
0
The Hitch said:
You only joined this discussion recently which obviously impedes your ability to analyze it. This is evident throughout the 2 waste of time minutes it took to read it. It also shows all the usual flaws demonstrated by people who havent lived through any real doping scandals (except the very small frank schleck one) But even taking into account inexperience, your inability to identify the themes and sides of the discussion, is not suggestive of an intelligent person. They seem beyond you. The clearly unfunny attempt at humour at the end only adds to this interpretation.

My analysis on you, btw, and maybe it's as full of **** as your post, but I'll give it a try anyway, is that since you only started watching cycling very recently (something you confessed to) you are trying to hide your inexperience and gaps in knowledge, by constantly arguing for the sake of arguing. Especially evident in the wild and often contradictory positions you take pro racing section.

And that's all right in pro racing section where its never that serious and usually just banter. But here in the vipers pit, people feel lied to, they feel like their heroes are being slandered, they feel like their sport is being hijacked. You come in here, unprepared and looking for a game, your gonna get your nose bloody.
Thank you for saving time for some constructive criticism. The Clinic is not a nice place to post, that's someting I'm getting used to, but to some extent my posts lack some nuance in them. Still I hope you're not thinking I'm posting 100% rubbish all the time, or that I'm only watching cycling since May 2012 or something, you're overreacting a little with the Schleck comment.
 
Am I a 'stubborn denier' because I think that Froome has less talent than Riis? (natural that is. Being a super-responder doesn't count)

Note that I don't say he is without any talent. Just less than what Riis had.

I think it's more stubborn to say that he'd shown more before his 26th birthday than Riis had before his.
 
May 28, 2012
2,284
0
0
Netserk said:
Am I a 'stubborn denier' because I think that Froome has less talent than Riis? (natural that is. Being a super-responder doesn't count)

Note that I don't say he is without any talent. Just less than what Riis had.

I think it's more stubborn to say that he'd shown more before his 26th birthday than Riis had before his.
How does Riis compare to other well-known riders in the current peloton, according to you?
 
The Hitch said:
That says far more about you than it does about froome.
Yeah, really. You're short on cogent argument. Not really worthy of the name The Hitch.

So, onward. Walsh thinks that Kerrison is ethically sound and, unlike most of us in here, he has spent time in his company. He hasn't seen anything with Sky on Teide to suggest that doping is going on.
Of course, this doesn't make Sky clean but it doesn make you wonder how and where they are performing their witchcraft.
 
May 28, 2012
2,284
0
0
Netserk said:
I'm asking you to name which riders I should compare to Riis.
My original intention was to ask you which current rider has the same amount of talent Riis had.

But ok, Michael Rogers?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M The Clinic 34
Similar threads
Tour de Cleans?

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS