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

[The Hitch]

In other words, he didn't.

ummm yes he did. He said that wiggins is believable becuase he didnt beat the best riders. If he started to beat Contador that would go totally out of the window.

 

[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

And on your main point. I have absolutely ZERO problem saying that Sky's rise is deeply suspicious, and Leinders appointment is disastrous. None at all.

Equally I have no problem stating Froome's rise justifies him getting 4 blood tests a day! Test him to kingdom come, please, seriously.

I love watching contador in his pomp. But he was a cheat, and I was glad he was busted. If froome's a cheat, well he's funnier to wtahc than constafor, but I'll be delighted if he's busted. Wiggins too. all cheats out. no exceptions.

BUT, all that said - there is still a difference between suspicion and evidence - and no amount of suspicion or innuendo alone is as good as one Emma O'Reilly, or one Betsy Andreau. Which is why Walsh's comment's are interesting - on some level, he believes them, as a team at least, and he seems to be believing them more, not less, as time goes on. And Walsh's record is pretty good on this. Not infallible. But undeniably good.

He may be right to believe them. He may be wrong to. but it's interesting, no?

My 2c

 

[Franklin]

But almost all the superstars were pinged. Armstrong actually got away longer than most - he was the exception, not the rule.

This one is actually easy to verify. I'm verifying while I type, so bear with me

Indurain: 5 wins
Sastre, Evans, wiggo, 3 wins.
Now we add Lance; 7 wins

That's 15 wins in 22 years. So Lance was not the exception. Lance won so many TdF's that he is a tipping point either way.

I guess the sample is a bit too small if we just focus on TdF winners (not my or your fault , just an observation).

 

[martinvickers]

This one is actually easy to verify. I'm verifying while I type, so bear with me

Indurain: 5 wins
Sastre, Evans, wiggo, 3 wins.
Now we add Lance; 7 wins

That's 15 wins in 22 years. So Lance was not the exception. Lance won so many TdF's that he is a tipping point either way.

I guess the sample is a bit too small if we just focus on TdF winners (not my or your fault , just an observation).

I think Indurain is your standout here - those before him bar Lemond - bang to rights - Delgado, Roche - everyone after him before Armstrong - bang to rights, Pantani, Riis, Ullrich.

But I note In May, 1994, tested positive at the Tour de L'Oise for salbutamol, an asthma drug. And I remember Contador. And I wonder did Big Mig receive Armstrong-esque protection. But he sure failed a test -and the UCI/IOC let him off.

Of course the ******s got off. But the proof is there in actual positives, or actual eyewitness evidence. The Mig included.

As I've said time out of number, If the question is what if Armstrong had been decent, humble and non-sociopathic, and still doped to the gills, the answer is indurain.

So if we go from the first tour I ever sniffed around the full list of winners -

Hinault; as memory serves, admitted 'hormone rebalancing'
Lemond
Roche - exposed by Italian Court (they don't forget in italy, no sir!)
Delgado - probenecid
Big Mig - Salbuemol
Riis - self admitted
Ullrich - Puerto
Pantani - Conconi files + 50% violation
Armstrong - the works
Landis - testosterone
Sastre
Contador - Clenbuterol
Evans
Wiggins

What is noticible is that from Ullrich onwards the punishments once doping established become significantly stronger - let's make em stronger still, shall we?

 

[Franklin]

But I note In May, 1994, tested positive at the Tour de L'Oise for salbutamol, an asthma drug. And I remember Contador. And I wonder did Big Mig receive Armstrong-esque protection. But he sure failed a test -and the UCI/IOC let him off.

That one is actually a tad more complicated. The IOC and UCI had no isue for it on TUE's, but the French did. Now of course nobody believes Mig really had a TUE for the right reasons, but he did have the TUE. As you are into the legal side I hope you will agree on this.

Again, I haven't got a shred of doubt about Miguel, but a tue on an inhaler is not exactly SPECIFIC evidence on dope abuse. Especially when I think Epo and hormones are where he crossed the line. Even disregarding the TUE, Salbutamol is currently not even seen as doping (unless you really pig out on it).

So in my eyes the evidence on Indurain is actually absent.

On the others:
- Hinault was pretty vague about it (I have no illusions), so not really specific.
- Roche: Spot on

- Delgado: Probenecid.The mitigating factor would be it's absense on the UCI list (it was on the IOC list) and that the rules clearly stated that one was the one that would be followed. I guess legally that one can fly, but as there is not a remotely legitimate excuse for probenecid (something which could be constructed for Salbutamol) I definitely would put it into the SPECIFIC allegation category.

- Fignon: Quite open on his drug use.
- Lemond: Squeaky clean.

Again, I think we should cast a bit bigger net to see if your assertion stands. So far I must admit that it looks pretty good, even though I wouldn't agree that there are specific things against Hinault and Indurain.

 

[Big Doopie]

ummm yes he did. He said that wiggins is believable becuase he didnt beat the best riders. If he started to beat Contador that would go totally out of the window.

I simply cannot fathom why contador (and schlecklet to a lesser degree) are constantly put up as "the standard". There is plenty of evidence that their entire careers and every single result of note is due to blood doping.

It truly boggles the mind. Clentadope as far as we know has no more talent than chiappucci.

 

[del1962]

Here is a list of all cyclists that finished within 10 minutes of Lance (1999-2005)

Alex Zulle - Pre 1999 EPO admission
Jan Ulrich (5) - Puerto Implication / Stromgly Tarred
Joseba Beloki (2) - Impicated in Puerto / Though Cleared
Andrei Kivilev (RIP) also only just inside 10 minutes
Raimondas Rusmas - Drug Supplier
Alexandre Vinoukarov - Sanctioned
Tyler Hamilton - Sanctioned
Hamair Zubeldia
Iban Mayo - Sanctioned
Andreas Kloden - Impicated in Freiberg but escaped sanction
Ivan Basso (2) - Sanctioned

If we ignore Kivilev who had a tragic accident.

Zubeldia has no evidence against him.

Otherwise Kloden and Beloki have escaped sanction but have huge clouds hanging over them.

I think this puts to rest the theory that you are likely to escape without some serious evidence against you.

 

[BYOP88]

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

Let's enjoy the Dawg show at its infant stages

What I love about that clip, is how much time a stop-starting Froome takes out of Valverde and how easily he could've bridged up to and flown past Piti with no problem.

 

[The Hitch]

Indurain of course basically admited to doping when he answered a "did you dope" question on an interview with "otra pregunta".

But thanks for the info on the 94 positive. Didn't know about the details behind it.

 

[The Hitch]

Here is a list of all cyclists that finished within 10 minutes of Lance (1999-2005)

Alex Zulle - Pre 1999 EPO admission
Jan Ulrich (5) - Puerto Implication / Stromgly Tarred
Joseba Beloki (2) - Impicated in Puerto / Though Cleared
Andrei Kivilev (RIP) also only just inside 10 minutes
Raimondas Rusmas - Drug Supplier
Alexandre Vinoukarov - Sanctioned
Tyler Hamilton - Sanctioned
Hamair Zubeldia
Iban Mayo - Sanctioned
Andreas Kloden - Impicated in Freiberg but escaped sanction
Ivan Basso (2) - Sanctioned

If we ignore Kivilev who had a tragic accident.

Zubeldia has no evidence against him.

Otherwise Kloden and Beloki have escaped sanction but have huge clouds hanging over them.

I think this puts to rest the theory that you are likely to escape without some serious evidence against you.

Michael Rogers, Damiano Cunego, Alessandro Ballan, Denis Menchov. All heavily linked to doping and havent had a days racing voided between them.

I think that puts to rest the theory that you have put to rest the theory that there is no impunity in cycling because a couple of names from a couple editions of 1 race back when everyone did their doping in the open on buses and bragged about it afterwards, eventually got caught.

 

[Franklin]

I simply cannot fathom why contador (and schlecklet to a lesser degree) are constantly put up as "the standard". There is plenty of evidence that their entire careers and every single result of note is due to blood doping.

Oh really? I never heard of that compelling evidence...

I'm not having any naive dreams, but the evidence on Contador is actually really thin. To drive that one home: the Clenbuterol defense recently got researched due to the problems in Mexico and indeed it was absolutely true that contaminated meat can (and does) cause these positives. And yeah, considering the meat scandals we are struck with lately, I don't dare to claim there is no Clenbuterol in European meat (or much much worse).

Even then, a rider is responsible for his own food, so contamination is not a way out, but it certainly casts legitimate doubt on "he took it to further his performance".

let me stress again I have no illusions about AC, but the amount of hard evidence against him is pretty much absent. He also got of clean in the USADA case, which is surprising.

So we have Clenbuterol which could be contamination (indeed it's rather likely) and the initials AC on the Puerto list. It's not much.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

So in my eyes the evidence on Indurain is actually absent.

Well, I beg to differ:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tFM7wcMiPdI#t=3101s

Notttt, normalllllll.

Guilty as charged.

 

[Franklin]

But thanks for the info on the 94 positive. Didn't know about the details behind it.

Well, I would say it was like catching Al Capone on littering instead of tax evasion.

Salbutamol is no a big deal (it's not on the list anymore) and he had a Tue. I don't think it would be right if they had taken him down on that one. Riders should be granted some rights...

 

[thehog]

What I love about that clip, is how much time a stop-starting Froome takes out of Valverde and how easily he could've bridged up to and flown past Piti with no problem.

The Dawg wanted to get off the leash.

When I watch the clip I can see Wiggins wanting to make it look somewhat real holding the Dawg back.

I love the Dawg so the finger twirl at Wiggins. Riding one hand on the bar.

Too easy.

 

[Franklin]

Well, I beg to differ:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tFM7wcMiPdI#t=3101s

Notttt, normalllllll.

Guilty as charged.

Good luck in a court of law...

I don't mind pointing out suspicious performance, indeed I think it can really help getting a good picture of the problem, but I would vehemently protest if we start banning riders on that ground.

 

[The Hitch]

I simply cannot fathom why contador (and schlecklet to a lesser degree) are constantly put up as "the standard". There is plenty of evidence that their entire careers and every single result of note is due to blood doping.

It truly boggles the mind. Clentadope as far as we know has no more talent than chiappucci.

Remind me, what do you have on schlecklet that you don't have on wiggins and froome?

 

[Big Doopie]

Oh really? I never heard of that compelling evidence...

I'm not having any naive dreams, but the evidence on Contador is actually really thin. To drive that one home: the Clenbuterol defense recently got researched due to the problems in Mexico and indeed it was absolutely true that contaminated meat can (and does) cause these positives. And yeah, considering the meat scandals we are struck with lately, I don't dare to claim there is no Clenbuterol in European meat (or much much worse).

Even then, a rider is responsible for his own food, so contamination is not a way out, but it certainly casts legitimate doubt on "he took it to further his performance".

let me stress again I have no illusions about AC, but the amount of hard evidence against him is pretty much absent. He also got of clean in the USADA case, which is surprising.

So we have Clenbuterol which could be contamination (indeed it's rather likely) and the initials AC on the Puerto list. It's not much.

Roflmao.

Hopeless. Truly hopeless.

Plasterizer test. Every team he has been on ran an organized doping program with an ex-doper as ds. Successive extended 600+ watt attacks dueling with super doped chicken -- unachievable without major doping...and it goes on, and on....and on.

Clentadopucci is a gigantic fraud and every single one of his wins has been fueled by blood doping. Sorry to break it to you.

 

[thehog]

Good luck in a court of law...

I don't mind pointing out suspicious performance, indeed I think it can really help getting a good picture of the problem, but I would vehemently protest if we start banning riders on that ground.

You'd have to ban the entire pro peloton on that basis.

You can only pick out the ones the UCI wants to take down..

 

[Franklin]

Roflmao.

Hopeless. Truly hopeless.

I have to admit, that really is a terrific show of evidence which will further this discussion.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I don't know why people call them the Skyborg, clearly on the basis of this they are Transformers....

I thank you

 

[del1962]

Michael Rogers, Damiano Cunego, Alessandro Ballan, Denis Menchov. All heavily linked to doping and havent had a days racing voided between them.

I think that puts to rest the theory that you have put to rest the theory that there is no impunity in cycling because a couple of names from a couple editions of 1 race back when everyone did their doping in the open on buses and bragged about it afterwards, eventually got caught.

When did 7 become a couple? When did the biggest race just become one race, when did 11 riders become a couple?

I have given over a 7 year period everyone who finished the tour (the giggest race in cycling) within 10 minutes of Lance, not a couple of riders, most have had a sanction and half the remaining 4 are heavily implicated in the press.

 

[Big Doopie]

I have to admit, that really is a terrific show of evidence which will further this discussion.

But it seemed so pointless when dealing with someone so willfully blind.

I've added to my post just for you, my poor dear.

 

[The Hitch]

When did 7 become a couple? When did the biggest race just become one race, when did 11 riders become a couple?

I have given over a 7 year period everyone who finished the tour (the giggest race in cycling) within 10 minutes of Lance, not a couple of riders, most have had a sanction and half the remaining 4 are heavily implicated in the press.

you claimed to "disprove the theory" that riders ever get away with doping. 7 Tours or 2, that sample was nowhere near big enough and way too out of date to disprove that theory.

 

[Franklin]

But it seemed so pointless when dealing with someone so willfully blind.

I've added to my post just for you, my poor dear.

Let see how that holds as irrefutable evidence, now shall we?

Plasterizer test.

Generally a lot of people would test positive on that without having transfusions.

Every team he has been on ran an organized doping program with an ex-doper as ds. Successive extended 600+ watt attacks dueling with super doped chicken -- unachievable without major doping...and it goes on, and on....and on.

I do not disagree that this is really a bad indicator (I have no illusions about Contador, it's funny that even though I stressed that a few times you think I do), but good luck calling that decisive irrefutable evidence.

Clentadopucci is a gigantic fraud and every single one of his wins has been fueled by blood doping. Sorry to break it to you.

Humor me, where did I claim it isn't?
Humor me again, come up with the clear and irrefutable evidence.
Humor me thrice and come with a similar analysis on Little Schleck.

Somehow you seem to blur the line between "believing someone is dirty" and "enough evidence to know beyond any doubt".

 

[Miburo]

I don't know why people call them the Skyborg, clearly on the basis of this they are Transformers....

I thank you

Well didn't they transform?