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

[burning]

We don't know. Many people thought that Froome wasn't much stronger than Wiggins on the climbs in the Tour. So it is possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=EZY69ANlE0Y#t=1777s

Let's enjoy the Dawg show at its infant stages

 

[The Hitch]

Really?

I can see how that's a comfortable statement to make but, really, LOADS of them NO scandals?

We have definitive proof that Mercx doped, Kelly doped, Acquetil, Armstrong, Landis, Ullrich, Riis, Pantani, Indurain, Delgado, Contador, Heras. We have close as damn it proof (eye witness testiony) on Roche. Fignon and Hinault both admitted, if memory serves to uses of chemicals ("hormone rebalancing?"). Coppi openly admitted it. And that is purely off the top of my head, no google, no foul.

Take a look at the top ten list for the tour the last ten years - the vast majority have either pinged, confessed or been explicitly accused by eye witnesses.

The number of riders who have appeared in that top 10 more than once and not had a specific allegation is tiny, and even some of those are damned here for their 'aquaintances' (among them Evans, Wiggins and perhaps most of all Sastre).

Lemond alone seems to be accepted as a clean rider, in a clean team, with a number of 'clean' people round him.

But you cannot sensibly, I suggest hold two opposing views at one and the same time - that most of the peleton were clearly tainted, and Loads got away without taint. The former is incompatible with the latter.

Kelly doped? well his commentary partner was just last month calling him the last clean Paris Nice winner till Wiggins.

Roche doped? well he hasnt lost anything. Pundit on Eurosport. Invited as honorary guest on itv last year. Does interviews worldwide during the Tour.

Indurain doped? Well Wiggins still looks up to Indurain. Indurain still gets VIP treatment at any cycling even in the world. He still has those 5 Tours. He still has those 2 Giros. The date commonly given in the world press for when the TDF should stop being taken seriouysly is not 1991, but 1996.

Mercx doped? Worldwide lifetime ambassador for cycling. In the same token we can say Beckanbauer doped. No one knows or cares about either (outside the clinic)

Fignon doped?

All these people are tainted in the clinic. Outside of it they are untainted. They keep all their results and no one questions them. They have as much prestige as they had when they won those events if not more.

And these are all gt winners. With the exception of Kelly, TDF winners. The people who's results get scrutanized the most.

Its before we get to all the people who almost certainly doped but are cited as examples of clean sport outside of the clinic. People like 3 time world champion Michael Rogers.Like World and TDF champion Cadel Evans. Like 1 day racing god Philppe Gilbert. Like one of the all time great time trial and cobble specialists Fabian Cancellara. Paris Roubaix record holder Tom Boonen. Like 3 time Giro Lombarida winner and 1 time Giro ditalia winner Damiano Cunego. 1 could go on and on. Even if 1 or 2 of these individuals by some miracle were clean, the chances that they were all clean is 0. Some of them doped, and are getting away with it. Because people do get away with it. Just like not all corrupt politicians are caught, not all drug dealers are caught, not all robbers are caught, not all cyclists are caught. And in some countries and situations impunity can be quite high.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

The best thing Nibali has ever done in his career was 2010 Giro (I think he could have won the Giro if he left Basso at Mortirolo)

I think he's just a bit worse than these days, maybe he's been more careful with doping since 2010 Giro as he's on spotlight since then

Have you seen Basso's numbers at Zoncolan for that year? Team Sky would be laughing at those.

Makes one wonder.

 

[burning]

Have you seen Basso's numbers at Zoncolan for that year? Team Sky would be laughing at those.

Makes one wonder.

Well, I was laughing at Wiggins that day

 

[airstream]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=EZY69ANlE0Y#t=1777s

Let's enjoy the Dawg show at its infant stages

I mean generally. Losing 30 sec in one stage doesn't mean being much weaker.

Defensive style confuses people. Though I don't see a principal difference between Wiggins and say Evans going uphill.

 

[burning]

I mean generally. Losing 30 sec in one stage doesn't mean being much weaker.

He could have lost quite a lot in La Toussuire if the Dawg wasn't there. (That was one of the most ridiculous performance from the Dawg I think, he suddenly went crazy after dropped from the group)

 

[airstream]

He could have lost quite a lot in La Toussuire if the Dawg wasn't there. (That was one of the most ridiculous performance from the Dawg I think, he suddenly went crazy after dropped from the group)

a lot at 5% sections while being in that monstrous tt form? it was completely impossible.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Really?

I can see how that's a comfortable statement to make but, really, LOADS of them NO scandals?

We have definitive proof that Mercx doped, Kelly doped, Acquetil, Armstrong, Landis, Ullrich, Riis, Pantani, Indurain, Delgado, Contador, Heras. We have close as damn it proof (eye witness testiony) on Roche. Fignon and Hinault both admitted, if memory serves to uses of chemicals ("hormone rebalancing?"). Coppi openly admitted it. And that is purely off the top of my head, no google, no foul.

Take a look at the top ten list for the tour the last ten years - the vast majority have either pinged, confessed or been explicitly accused by eye witnesses.

The number of riders who have appeared in that top 10 more than once and not had a specific allegation is tiny, and even some of those are damned here for their 'aquaintances' (among them Evans, Wiggins and perhaps most of all Sastre).

Lemond alone seems to be accepted as a clean rider, in a clean team, with a number of 'clean' people round him.

But you cannot sensibly, I suggest hold two opposing views at one and the same time - that most of the peleton were clearly tainted, and Loads got away without taint. The former is incompatible with the latter.

I don't think that point functions in the way you want it to.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

But you cannot sensibly, I suggest hold two opposing views at one and the same time

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/sport/cycling/article1251540.ece

Wiggins' children are proof that he isn't a doper?!?

He forgot to swear on Tugboat's life. That would have covered all the bases for me to believe him 100%.

 

[airstream]

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.

I disagree. Hostility to Sky is ideological, not anti-doping. Strictly speaking 'I don't like them period'. If it had related purely to doping, there wouldn't have been most of the posters in this thread.

Who and how many years follows is irrelevant by and large. I see people following for many years who compare Evans' and Froome's CQ graphs as though it means something, so...

 

[The Hitch]

Hotch's pinion, not fact.

Wiggins, at least, is clean.

Now THAT, is a contradiction. Wiggins, a pursuit rider, cannot both be the same level as the doped greatest gt rider of all time (numbers wise) AND clean.

Its one or the other. But some of Contador's performances were already beyond human limites, so if Wiggins who only started taking gts seriously a couple of years ago and is not even a natural climber, is at Contador's level, - what you believe, then he can't be clean.

Oh and ps. even walsh, who you cite all the time, says he believes wiggins is clean because hes not the same level as contador.

 

[burning]

a lot at 5% sections while being in that monstrous tt form? it was completely impossible.

He went from "Ok guys, I got it covered" to "Much thanks Dawg" to "Wtf are you doing Dawg"

And one man vs 4-5 guys in %5 graident is not good for one man usually

 

[armchairclimber]

Now THAT, is a contradiction. Wiggins, a pursuit rider, cannot both be the same level as the doped greatest gt rider of all time (numbers wise) AND clean.

Its one or the other. But some of Contador's performances were already beyond human limites, so if Wiggins who only started taking gts seriously a couple of years ago and is not even a natural climber, is at Contador's level, - what you believe, then he can't be clean.

Oh and ps. even walsh, who you cite all the time, says he believes wiggins is clean because hes not the same level as contador.

Where does he say that he believes Wiggins is clean because he's not at the same level as Contador? I'd like to see that quote.

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

What I was referring to was your lack of cogent argument to the contrary...ie. that Froome IS head and shoulders above everyone else in the peloton. I did counter, earlier in the thread, that Froome has been beaten by Nibali already this season. I could also have pointed out that he was hardly "head and shoulders" above Contador in Oman. Better? Maybe.
As Froome has yet to win a GT, whereas Wiggins has, I'd be interested to know how you come to the conclusion that he is head and shoulders above his team-mate.

Froome has been able to take on the entire peloton this year almost single-handed in stage races . For the odd stage here, or event there, other riders have been able to get their nose out in front of Froome by a bit, but by and large Froome has either hammered them, or has taken everything they have thrown at him and barely been pipped in the grand scheme of things.

The most damning part is that the next day, or next week, they're spent and Dawg just keeps hammering away on the next challenger in line, and so on. Froome is not only the best rider in the peloton, for practical purposes he's as good as, or better than the entire peloton combined.

 

[airstream]

He went from "Ok guys, I got it covered" to "Much thanks Dawg" to "Wtf are you doing Dawg"

And one man vs 4-5 guys in %5 graident is not good for one man usually

Objectively there could be 3 guys: Pinot, Nibali and Van Den Broeck. I don't get how they could gain a lot if there was minimum of unity because Pinot had zero necessity to work on the front. Wiggins comfortably sitting on Froome's wheel... and Wiggins allegedly dropping back instantly without Froome... Something decays in your thesis. There was a little moment of weakness when Wiggins hang up a bit in 20 meters behind. Nibali had to attack quickly. He didn't do that hence he couldn't.

 

[roundabout]

He went from "Ok guys, I got it covered" to "Much thanks Dawg" to "Wtf are you doing Dawg"

And one man vs 4-5 guys in %5 graident is not good for one man usually

it certainly would be interesting to see Wiggins perform without being shackled to the best climber in the race.

 

[burning]

Objectively there could be 3 guys: Pinot, Nibali and Van Den Broeck. I don't get how they could gain a lot if there was minimum of unity because Pinot had zero necessity to work on the front. Wiggins comfortably sitting on Froome's wheel... and Wiggins allegedly dropping back instantly without Froome... Something decays in your thesis. There was a little moment of weakness when Wiggins hang up a bit in 20 meters behind. Nibali had to attack quickly. He didn't do that hence he couldn't.

I thought somebody else was there with that trio, I was wrong and just I was thinking Froome as a rival instead of Wiggins' Dawg, that's I wrote 4-5 riders (I should have written 3-4 riders, thats for sure)

 

[The Hitch]

Where does he say that he believes Wiggins is clean because he's not at the same level as Contador? I'd like to see that quote.

In the pre season interview with gcn he said that he believes in wiggins because vaughters says so and because wiggins won a tour that didnt have contador or schleck.

 

[Franklin]

Let's see "or even legally accused of having done anything wrong". What could I possibly have meant with that?

Well, I can only take it at face value. So you sy only after they are legally accused there can be articles. Of course perhaps you have an ultra secret message here, but hey!

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.

Odd that consider it is a direct quote.

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?

Professor Spalco, what is a TUE? ~Oh right... he had a perfectly legal excuse for cortisone, so it's not "solid evidence".

Professor Spalco, When became clear that the TUE was a mask for doping? Oh right... that became clear much later. (It was collaborated in 2012...)

Professor Spalco, was the amount of cortisteroids even enough for a positive? No it wasn't.

But as you said, you are not that good at counting, so let me spell this one out for you dear colleague. There was years between his first win and substantial allegations. I'm always happy to point out the clear facts colleague. And counting is a very good skill when trying to discuss, makes it a bit less embarassing

 

[martinvickers]

I don't think that point functions in the way you want it to.

I think you rather misunderstand the point then. I certainly don't deny the tour has been dope filled for years, and that a large number of the current peleton are, at best, ex-dopers. Never have, actually.

My point is really rather simple. Most of the top dopers eventually, if history is any guide, do fall foul of SPECIFIC allegations based on eye witness evidence or ACTUAL pings. Mere 'associations' are pretty thin gruel by compare.

Sometime, and i'm not accusing Hitch of this, cos he's a solid poster, the idea that loads dope and sail away without a stain of any sort - and i'm not talking official sanction, i made that clear - that idea appears to my eyes to be, well, convenient, allowing claims to continue to be made regardless of, you know, actual proper evidence. When historically, we seem to find out for certain more often than not, if the tour is anything to go by...

i'm not claiming anyone is clean, or dirty, because i don't know. I expressed my hunches elsewhere, and won't repeat them because they are precisely the uninfomred nonsense I find so unfulfilling in this place. Those hunches are probably not what you assume about me, mind.

What I want to nip in the bud is the slightly perverse idea that a lack of real evidence of doping is actually somehow evidence of doping!

It's just puerile. It allows people to cast aspertions without any proper evidence, and scream fanboi or other juvenile crap if challenged. I've no respect for that, sorry.

24 people contacted Cycling Ireland prior to Mcquaid getting his renomination. 24. I'm pretty sure I'm one of them. I have no doubts what side of the line i'm on. I want harsher punishments than many of the 12; I've readily accepted the failures of my 'national heroes', Roche and Kelly. Mcquaid can't go quick enough for my likeing. I want Sky tested to kingdom come.

But on some fundamental level, I care about truth, and truth cuts both ways. Sometimes you get the impression in here that its a competition to see who can be the most cynical , and thus the most 'authentic'. Clinicians may be a minority of cycling fans, or sports fans, but in this little forum they've created a little 'den', 'hangout' where their voice is the prevailing one, and it's a unrelentingly cynical voice.

I don't find cycnicism authentic. It's naivite in a leather jacket. Same foolishness, same gullbility, but trying to 'act' harder, be part of the 'cool' gang. I wrote in another post, what comes across is the anger, but also the embarressment. That having been 'fooled' once before, we won't be fooled again; even if that means accusing nearly everybody. Better cynical than gullible. Better a sneer than a fool. Fools ain't cool. Hell, we've all had our heart's broken, and it's natural to build walls. But at some stage, the only person walled up is yourself.

I'm nearly 40. I wasn't cool when I was 20, and I'm not going to change now. But I've always cared about the truth. That's not going to change. And if that means that I like a rider, e.g. Dan Martin, and get burned, well, that's ok. If he's a doper, he's the cheat, the b*stard, not me. And I'll get over it.

But I'll call it as I see it, expect a bit more than innuendo to take on any sportsperson, fight doping in any practical way that I can - I'm getting into sports law at the moment for precisely that reason.

And if I ever get that cynical, where I just see hate and cheats everywhere, I'll walk away from the sport, or all sport, and not look back. I'm here for a good time, not a long time.

And life's too short to spend it all sneering. However cool it seems among our gang.

 

[thehog]

Wiggins is not in the same league as Contador and Froome.

Pinot is the most talented rider I've seen since Contador.

He'd win the Tour if it wasn't for Sky.

 

[Franklin]

My point is really rather simple. Most of the top dopers eventually, if history is any guide, do fall foul of SPECIFIC allegations based on eye witness evidence or ACTUAL pings. Mere 'associations' are pretty thin gruel by compare.

I really don't think there are many disagreeing with the gist of what you posted, but this one deserves attention.

I'm a historian and have been watching cycling for 33 years now. Even with the slaughter of Purerto and the fallout from Lance I'm not sure this is true. So unless you have evidence, someone who is less lazy than me should check this out. You could very well be right, but as I said, I'm not yet sold on this one.

Also, I assume SPECIFIC allegations are direct testimonies or positive tests. Riding for a dirty team is specific allegation (unless the whole team is being shown to be so irrevokable dirty that denial is beyond any reason). If you mean something else with specific allegation please say so

Of course, what really helps your case is the past record of TdF winners in the Epo era. They all are directly tainted, besides Indurain, Sastre, Evans and Wiggo. Of these we are pretty much certain Mig was a charger. Sastre and Evans really have odd team choices for clean riders. Wiggo is probably the best chance for being clean. I'm to lazy to do Vuelta or Giro winners, but I'm sure that will have a similar roll call (that said, I think a few more escaped scrutiny in those races)

My gut says the classics have more escapees, but that's just gut feeling and not based on research.

Anyay, it's an interesting statement in a good post

 

[armchairclimber]

In the pre season interview with gcn he said that he believes in wiggins because vaughters says so and because wiggins won a tour that didnt have contador or schleck.

In other words, he didn't.

 

[martinvickers]

I really don't think there are many disagreeing with the gist of what you posted, but this one deserves attention.

I'm a historian and have been watching cycling for 33 years now. Even with the slaughter of Purerto and the fallout from Lance I'm not sure this is true. So unless you have evidence, someone who is less lazy than me should check this out. You could very well be right, but as I said, I'm not yet sold on this one.

Also, I assume SPECIFIC allegations are direct testimonies or positive tests. Riding for a dirty team is specific allegation (unless the whole team is being shown to be so irrevokable dirty that denial is beyond any reason). If you mean something else with specific allegation please say so

Of course, what really helps your case is the past record of TdF winners in the Epo era. They all are directly tainted, besides Indurain, Sastre, Evans and Wiggo. Of these we are pretty much certain Mig was a charger. Sastre and Evans really have odd team choices for clean riders. Wiggo is probably the best chance for being clean. I'm to lazy to do Vuelta or Giro winners, but I'm sure that will have a similar roll call (that said, I think a few more escaped scrutiny in those races)

My gut says the classics have more escapees, but that's just gut feeling and not based on research.

Anyay, it's an interesting statement in a good post

Thanks Franklin, that's kind of you.

Wikipedia had a useful thing, it shows the wasteland of the early '00 very clearly.

It's one of those things we don't, as we get worked up in here, notice. Yes, lots of riders were saved by the statute of limitations, sadly, or were given light punishments. But almost all the superstars were pinged. Armstrong actually got away longer than most - he was the exception, not the rule. - Traceable, in my view, to the pool of corruption that was Verbruggen.

As bad as mcquaid is...and jesus wept, but he's bad...i don't actually think he's as corrupt as Verbruggen - but then we're debating whether the Yorkshire ripper was worse then Jeffrey Daemler...