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

[DirtyWorks]

I thought I saw a book cover with them on together, but then Wiggans has gone on the record that he 'never raced against Lance'.

2009 Tour de France, Wiggo as a Garmin rider gets fourth to Lance's third place. 2010 Tour de France, Wiggo as a Sky rider finishes 4 seconds slower on GC to Wonderboy at 23rd place.


Wiggo was making stuff up at the time of the quote.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Froome won't go full *** on the next climb, btw. He will tone it right down. My guess is that he will ride in with Contador.

IMHO, he doesn't have the confidence in his own abilities to restrain himself. He couldn't ride it in with Quintana on Ventoux, so I don't think he can keep it bottled up, as he should.

He'll go alien at the TT given the weather might play a role in the next few days. He'll go alien at least once more after that.

 

[JustinReynolds]

2009 Tour de France, Wiggo as a Garmin rider gets fourth to Lance's third place. 2010 Tour de France, Wiggo as a Sky rider finishes 4 seconds slower on GC to Wonderboy at 23rd place.


Wiggo was making stuff up at the time of the quote.

Correct - although Wiggins was technically 3rd, maybe even second if Berty was eating dodgy steak that year as well.

 

[leon7766]

Oh yeah. The WADA proposal is going no where.

It's like the mob issueing a statement that they'll send their accounts to the IRS for their review.

I mean for the mob there's the accounts. Then there is "the accounts".

This post sums it all up .To the crazed conspirators nothing will be good enough and goalposts will be moved accordingly .

 

[Bobito]

This post will no doubt put the cat among them / annoy people / etc.

I firmly believe SKY are clean

I suspect a lot (the majority?) of anti-SKY posters here are not British. The reason I say this is because it is important, the history of British Cycling is important.

Brailsford and Sutton ran the GB Track Cycling Teams and had huge success with the 'marginal gains' approach : 'skinny bikes', special TT suits, Chris Boardman as an advisor, even to the point of having the allen bolt holding the seat pin in place in a certain position because it was more aerodynamic. Thats their way - thats what they believe in and have been very successful with.

They publicly announced a few years back their aim to win the TdF clean and with a British Rider. Wiggins has been a fervent anti-doper all his career - he despises cheats / dopers. The other problem Wiggins has is that he dislikes being in the public eye / being a celebrity. For a number of years he often went off the rails for months at a time (after Beijing 2008, etc.) until Brailsford and Sutton pulled him back in line. Thats why his performances dipped for a while before they got him (and kept him) focused. Add to that the fact that the 2012 TdF was very much a 'flat' route, a number of big players were missing and it all came together (thats not to take it away from him).

So now to Froome. So many people here say that because he pulled away from Contador, cracked Valverde, and others that he must be doping. Why? 2 of those named have served doping bans and they are not named Froome - perhaps now we are seeing clean Cont & Valv and they are good but not brilliant and so he beats them. And what of other 'big' riders from years gone by - Schleck, Kloden, and others. All now spat out of the back of a peloton that is riding slower than previously (or only faster mainly due to tail winds) - were they previously doping and now clean since the testing regime has improved? And what of Quintana - he accelerates away and no-one says a thing (he's young and needs to learn some tactics), surely if Froome is doping so is Quitnana?

Brailsford had his eye on Froome from 2006 onwards after the Commonwealth Games, and I'm of the view that he could have quite easily won last years tour but wasn't allowed to.

The comparison with USP. Yes they train on the same mountain in Tenerife but that is no justification for accusing them - thats like saying I'm an armed robber because I drive the same car as one (a Jaguar Mk2)! Its common knowledge they train there - if I know about it then you can be assured WADA, etc. do as well and will test them! Yes they ride in a similar fashion - to be honest I'm surprised the other teams haven't done this aswell, its not rocket science. There are no rumours / hearsay of doping like there was with LA / USP - people seem to forget that fact. No disgruntled soigneurs, personal assistants, former team mates getting popped (and there were quite a few with USP) to spill any beans.

My view is there is no proof but I DO understand why people ask the questions and draw the comparisons. I believe SKY are clean - here endeth the lesson. And if Wiggins / Froome is not then I will give £250 to charity.

Well I still believe that US Postal Service were clean. I don't believe Lance Armstrong on the matter because he is a bitter liar and cheat.

 

[taiwan]

So what about Cadel?

A rider I like and never really questioned until recently but as I say it would be unrealistic to call him clean. Still like the guy, it would be nice if it turned out he was somehow more credible than others but I wouldn't claim that until it was truly confirmed.

I like Rodriguez as well FWIW.

Whoa just noticed the similarity in the top 5 between the second TT in 2011 and the first one this year. Funny (not implying anything other than Evans doing something on the bike that Froome got suspected for).

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Oh yeah. The WADA proposal is going no where.

It's like the mob issueing a statement that they'll send their accounts to the IRS for their review.

I mean for the mob there's the accounts. Then there is "the accounts".

First of all, what would WADA do with powernumbers? Or is Brailsford saying power equals doping? Well, that was Twiggo's line last year.

 

[kaffenback]

Justin, you're entitled to your opinion but I believe it to be rather flawed.
As a British skeptic of Froome/Sky's cleanliness, I've commented on just a few of your points.

Brailsford and Sutton ran the GB Track Cycling Teams and had huge success with the 'marginal gains' approach : 'skinny bikes', special TT suits, Chris Boardman as an advisor, even to the point of having the allen bolt holding the seat pin in place in a certain position because it was more aerodynamic. Thats their way - thats what they believe in and have been very successful with.

Other teams of course are clueless in this regard. No experts, poor equipment, outdated training methods etc. Come on!
Based upon the level of investment and commitment towards 2012 and the incredible success of BC on the track, I think to simply assume that BC has been 100% clean during the last 10 years would be very naïve.
Domination on that scale and at the speed it has happened is highly questionable. Likewise on the road/TDF.

They publicly announced a few years back their aim to win the TdF clean and with a British Rider.

Hey presto! Ahead of schedule too!

Wiggins has been a fervent anti-doper all his career - he despises cheats / dopers.

And the alternative is what? To be openly pro-doping?
Anyway, he has said some rather odd things at times which certainly haven't been of the "fervent anti-doping" variety.

The other problem Wiggins has is that he dislikes being in the public eye / being a celebrity.

Problem how? Why? He seemed to lap it up last year.

So now to Froome. So many people here say that because he pulled away from Contador, cracked Valverde, and others that he must be doping. Why?

Because he is performing at an incredible level and doing things on the bike that based on history are impossible without PEDs. Kimmage said yesterday that what he watched on Sunday was "shock and awe" and based on it (if clean) Froome must be the greatest rider in history.
Does this really stack up? Has his career indicated this might happen?
Of course, Kimmage (myself and others) do not believe this.

2 of those named have served doping bans and they are not named Froome - perhaps now we are seeing clean Cont & Valv and they are good but not brilliant and so he beats them. And what of other 'big' riders from years gone by - Schleck, Kloden, and others. All now spat out of the back of a peloton that is riding slower than previously (or only faster mainly due to tail winds) - were they previously doping and now clean since the testing regime has improved? And what of Quintana - he accelerates away and no-one says a thing (he's young and needs to learn some tactics), surely if Froome is doping so is Quitnana?

Hmm, plenty of poor logic above.
And definitely some question marks about Quintana.

There are no rumours / hearsay of doping like there was with LA / USP - people seem to forget that fact. No disgruntled soigneurs, personal assistants, former team mates getting popped (and there were quite a few with USP) to spill any beans.

1) There is plenty of distrust circulating. Have you not picked up on this yet?
2) It is early days in terms of 'bean spilling'

It is one thing to disagree with the anti-sky opinions here and complain about the lack of evidence etc. but just use your noggin a little bit. Open your eyes, take what you have watched, then judge it against previously known doping results and events and then mix in the growing number of doubters in the professional cycling world and ask yourself if you truly believe Froome (and/or Sky) are racing clean.

With the best will in the world, I just don't see how you can assume and believe that he is.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Brailsford and Sutton ran the GB Track Cycling Teams and had huge success with the 'marginal gains' approach : 'skinny bikes', special TT suits, Chris Boardman as an advisor, even to the point of having the allen bolt holding the seat pin in place in a certain position because it was more aerodynamic. Thats their way - thats what they believe in and have been very successful with.

Your post did not throw the cat among the pidgeons at all. Any more than a child calling an adult a big poopy head would upset them.

IMO, your entire post is misguided, but I will only draw out the factually broken components of this one paragraph as I have other things to do.

* The nationality of Sky pro road team and GB track coaching staff is anything but British. Shane Sutton is Australian, Brit riders are in the minority in team Sky, German HP coach Heiko Salzwedel has had arguably the same impact on GB track team as Shane Sutton.
* Professional athletes derive income from performances. Dopng enhances performance. Sky riders are professional athletes. Therefore, in all likelihood, Sky riders dope.
* People who have not followed pro cycling much before 2012 when Wiggins won the Tour - like yourself - are easily duped when Brailsford cites his marginal gains claptrap. Warming down, washing your hands and mood lighting are either already done by most everyone else, and offer no advantage, or are smoke and mirrors, offering no advantage.
* An example of a marginal gain - specifically the allen bolt placement - I would wager would make no difference whatsoever, given the accuracy of a wind tunnel in filtering out the effect of that one item on the bike. But people like you lap it up like it's a delicacy of British superiority.

In 2008, a GB cyclist who had been racing for many years without a high Hct exemption form was refused entry to the World track championships due to high Hct.

The best riders in the world on the road do not race track. The fact that GB does well on the track is due to the lack of depth of competition as much as or more so than any GB track coaching phenomenon.

 

[42x16ss]

I fully believe it is

Please, feel free to explain why.

And please, do not trot out the old "Who are you going to believe? A lifelong cycling fan, or an Englishman?" line.

 

[42x16ss]

So what about Cadel?

Former Ferrari client, rode for T-Mobile and Mapei who both had systemic doping systems.

Next.

 

[42x16ss]

I'm not sure which time period you're talking about but late 2011 he was being offered mucho $ by most of the other teams so dont know if this is the about to be released story.

That was AFTER the Vuelta, where Froome mysteriously started smashing established climbers into oblivion and finished second.

Prior to this he was the guy who nearly got booted from the Giro for holding on to cars to make the time cut.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

That was AFTER the Vuelta, where Froome mysteriously started smashing established climbers into oblivion and finished second.

http://www.procycling.de/de/vorschau/104/1
''Aber gleichzeitig haben viele von uns, wenn wir uns seine Verstimmung vorgestellt haben, vielleicht übersehen, dass Froome Gründe hat, mit seiner diesjährigen Tour sehr zufrieden zu sein. Als zwölf Monate zuvor sein Zwei-Jahres-Vertrag mit Sky ausgelaufen war, hatte er wenig Erfolge auf dem Konto, einen geringen Marktwert und nur zwei bescheidene Angebote für die kommende Saison auf dem Tisch. Sein Agent Alex Carera erinnert sich: „Wir hatten konkrete Angebote von Garmin und Cofidis. Ich fragte Chris vor der Vuelta, was er denkt, wie er fahren würde, und er sagte, er fühle sich gut, also warteten wir ab. Damals sprach Sky auch von einer Verlängerung des Vertrags - aber nur für rund 100.000 Euro. So, wie die Vuelta sich entwickelte, waren wir in der Tat sehr froh, gewartet zu haben.“

But hey, dont let that be a bummer for the fans.

 

[Eshnar]

That was AFTER the Vuelta, where Froome mysteriously started smashing established climbers into oblivion and finished second.

Prior to this he was the guy who nearly got booted from the Giro for holding on to cars to make the time cut.

nearly? He did get booted from the Giro.

 

[42x16ss]

nearly? He did get booted from the Giro.

Ok, couldn't remember if he was booted or just fined

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

nearly? He did get booted from the Giro.

Uh uh, he was hanging on the motorbike on the Mortirolo so he could get in the Sky car because he was withdrawing.

Why not going downhill to Aprica?

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

* The nationality of Sky pro road team and GB track coaching staff is anything but British. Shane Sutton is Australian, Brit riders are in the minority in team Sky, German HP coach Heiko Salzwedel has had arguably the same impact on GB track team as Shane Sutton.

So the BC staff is not exclusively British. Your point is?

* Professional athletes derive income from performances. Dopng enhances performance. Sky riders are professional athletes. Therefore, in all likelihood, Sky riders dope.

If that were true all professional athletes would dope. (I know there are some on here that believe that to be true)

* People who have not followed pro cycling much before 2012 when Wiggins won the Tour - like yourself - are easily duped when Brailsford cites his marginal gains claptrap. Warming down, washing your hands and mood lighting are either already done by most everyone else, and offer no advantage, or are smoke and mirrors, offering no advantage.

Presumably you have evidence that all the "marginal gains" are either done by everybody else or have no effect

* An example of a marginal gain - specifically the allen bolt placement - I would wager would make no difference whatsoever, given the accuracy of a wind tunnel in filtering out the effect of that one item on the bike. But people like you lap it up like it's a delicacy of British superiority.

You may well be right, but unless you've seen the wind tunnel results how would you know?

In 2008, a GB cyclist who had been racing for many years without a high Hct exemption form was refused entry to the World track championships due to high Hct.

The best riders in the world on the road do not race track. The fact that GB does well on the track is due to the lack of depth of competition as much as or more so than any GB track coaching phenomenon.[/

Hayles is the only rider under the control of BC or Sky in over ten years who has come close to being popped. Either Brailsford is brilliant at hiding doping, very lucky or the riders are clean.

What is a verifiable fact is the BC and/or Sky are doing something that other teams are not. Just look at the results. Whether it is the "marginal gains claptrap" or doping I just don't know. But the longer it is without any form of positive, eye witness account or other evidence that can be used to sanction them the more the former becomes likely.

 

[lemoogle]

The best riders in the world on the road do not race track. The fact that GB does well on the track is due to the lack of depth of competition as much as or more so than any GB track coaching phenomenon.

And that's why they beat everyone else during the 4 years between each olympics? oh wait they don't

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

There's a difference between marginal gains to win a few hundredths of a second for a track event
And gaining 1:30 on average on your nearest rival in each mountain finish or time trial in the Tour de France

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So the BC staff is not exclusively British. Your point is?

Context, context, context. When you've read the post to which I was responding, come back and apologise.

 

[ebandit]

bs rules aok

This guy here. Pushing the other guy is the greatest cyclist of all time. Has a higher vo2 max than LeMond

one must admire a loyal team mate

if valverde was to give up his wheel and push quintana would that make valverde a donkey?

since when was froome even close to 'the greatest' ..........do you know his vo2 max v lemond?

Mark L

 

[lemoogle]

one must admire a loyal team mate

if valverde was to give up his wheel and push quintana would that make valverde a donkey?

since when was froome even close to 'the greatest' ..........do you know his vo2 max v lemond?

Mark L

Pretty sure this is all based on people like Fred Grappe's estimation that froome's performance are "humanly possible" if for example he had an insanely high Vo2Max ( between 85 and 90 , in this case higher than lemond's I believe ).

While some skyfans are using the fact that an expert like Grappe believes that froome may be legit assuming certain factors like Vo2 Max etc. We are all skeptical that if froome had such a high Vo2 Max, he would have shown it much much earlier.

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

Context, context, context. When you've read the post to which I was responding, come back and apologise.

I read the post before replying. No reason to apologise.

 

[ebandit]

Pretty sure this is all based on people like Fred Grappe's estimation that froome's performance are "humanly possible" if for example he had an insanely high Vo2Max ( between 85 and 90 , in this case higher than lemond's I believe ).

While some skyfans are using the fact that an expert like Grappe believes that froome may be legit assuming certain factors like Vo2 Max etc. We are all skeptical that if froome had such a high Vo2 Max, he would have shown it much much earlier.

but 'our friend' states has a higher vo2 max than lemond not if......sorry!
my bad i even expected context of event depicted in picture to be
considered

i should remember it's the clinic forum

Mark L

 

[BYOP88]

That was AFTER the Vuelta, where Froome mysteriously started smashing established climbers into oblivion and finished second.

Prior to this he was the guy who nearly got booted from the Giro for holding on to cars to make the time cut.

No he did get booted for holding on to cars and bikes on a climb.