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

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

Page 90 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
the sceptic said:
rule #1 of cycling if you want to dope successfully must be to never **** off the UCI. Since Froome is so arrogant, even more so than Armstrong I would say, he either has better protection, or he is just stupid.. Im leaning towards the latter. I dont think Froome will last as long as Lance. One more year at most.
Oh, I so hope you are wrong. We are already long past ridiculous at this point and I'm just hoping there's so much more comedy gold to come.

We need another book in 2014. Maybe "How I won the 2015 TdF" published just in time for end-of-year holiday gift giving.

"I stared at my stem and decided to turn a pedal in anger when my power meter registered 666 as I was passing Contador."

"I felt sorry for Brad after I beat him at the 40K ITT by 5 minutes and Tony Martin by 5:30 on my way to winning the stage."

"Brailsford discouraged me from staring at my power meter. But I ignored his advice because I know I gained 30 Watts doing it."

"Sudden onset asthma is a disease I feel strongly about. I set up a non-profit in my name to raise awareness of this debilitating disease and the great drugs that fix it."

Maybe a long chapter on the science of dropping his stem. I'm sure Ed Coyle is available to dream up some ridiculous physical anomaly.
 
the sceptic said:
rule #1 of cycling if you want to dope successfully must be to never **** off the UCI. Since Froome is so arrogant, even more so than Armstrong I would say, he either has better protection, or he is just stupid.. Im leaning towards the latter. I dont think Froome will last as long as Lance. One more year at most.
Porte will be the next Wiggins. He'll get jack of this soon. He's actually more talented than Froome but is too thick to work that out.

Once something goes wrong Porte will jump ship or get popped or just get hacked off and start talking.
 
thehog said:
Porte will be the next Wiggins. He'll get jack of this soon. He's actually more talented than Froome but is too thick to work that out.

Once something goes wrong Porte will jump ship or get popped or just get hacked off and start talking.
I agree Porte is more talented than Froome but he can't take the amount of drugs Dawg can. Froomes days are numbered though. And it is a low number.
 
Feb 10, 2014
518
0
0
thehog said:
Porte will be the next Wiggins. He'll get jack of this soon. He's actually more talented than Froome but is too thick to work that out.

Once something goes wrong Porte will jump ship or get popped or just get hacked off and start talking.
When do you think that the Sky will fall? 2015? 2020? 2023 is the year of the rabbit in the Chinese zodiac. ;)
 
Fzotrlool said:
When do you think that the Sky will fall? 2015? 2020? 2023 is the year of the rabbit in the Chinese zodiac. ;)
Sky have already fallen....... This is their "anyus horribilos" to misquote hrh
One Brit in the tour team, and all the best riders elsewhere. Froome injured, ill and reliant on tue's

"They think it's all over, it is now"
 
Jun 22, 2014
7
0
0
Hi. New here so apologies for long post. Just jumping in to the general thread title train of thought.

I've been thinking about all the talk of 'when are they going to get popped etc'...and stepping back from it all a wee bit...

Do I really believe Sky (as a team-ignoring the ever present possibility of individuals taking risks) would be stupid enough to be doing illegal stuff in this day and age? No I don't because you would never be able to 100% guarantee that sh!t wouldn't hit the fan at some point, and Brailsford et al do not strike me as the sort of guys that would take that risk. Look back to the success of the GB track squad, the marginal gains thing is laughed at now, but it could be said that they kinda pioneered the idea of looking at the details and leaving nothing to chance. Which seemed to work (assuming that was all clean). Whilst the testing is clearly by no means perfect, people are still being caught and ergo, doping must still be considered a risk. And not the relative free for all it was back before the EPO test.

And yeah, the whole marginal gains thing has been poo-poo'd a lot (and with reason in some cases ie apparent bizarre lack of wind tunnel testing), but has anyone considered that it might extend to seeking out legal forms of performance enhancement that other teams for whatever reason are not using? With a budget as large as Sky's is it beyond imagination to consider using the services of pharma companies for bespoke legal enhancement? Or big budget going towards research etc? We don't know what they do with all that extra money the other teams don't have...has to go somewhere.

All the posturing and PR stuff, again, these guys are not stupid. If they're sticking their necks out and saying things like 'a yellow jersey that will stand the test of time' it must be because they are 99.9999% sure that as things stand today and in terms of what they are doing today, they're safe. I'd say that's just basic business sense. Would the sponsor like it if you make BIG noise about how clean you are then get rumbled? Doubt it. Would make them look stupid. And this is after all, one big business.

I would not be at all surprised if samples are tested in the future (in light of new banned lists/tests etc) and come back positive...but for stuff that is not currently illegal. Then they'd be in the sh!t perhaps from some angles in an ethical sense (unfair advantages etc), but would always be able to go 'well what we said was true-it was completely above board'. And at the end of the day, does it not have to come down to what you define as 'clean'? Someone who doesn't add anything else to their body outside basic food, eg: protein shakes and upwards? And is someone that uses legal supplements such as Caffeine, Beta Alanine, Sodium Bicarbonate, dare I say it...Salbutamol (within the boundaries) clean? They have to be. If they do not use banned products then what else can you call them if not clean? I consider myself a clean rider-but I use legal supplements to enhance my performance! Just like I use legal advantages such as a disc wheel for time trialling.

Nutshell: sneaky stuff. But above board. Morally questionable perhaps. Can't wait to find out what it is :D
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
GearFiddler said:
Do I really believe Sky (as a team-ignoring the ever present possibility of individuals taking risks) would be stupid enough to be doing illegal stuff in this day and age? No I don't because you would never be able to 100% guarantee that sh!t wouldn't hit the fan at some point
You need to revisit the many meanings of "never tested positive" and the number of times it has been used as a quote by career-long dopers.

Also review the IOC's stance on doping going back to the Spanish guy that ran it giving speeches supporting doping. And then there are those positives the UCI hasn't enforced. And the one that got through anyway. (Contador)

Here's a nice summary of a snapshot in time that really hasn't changed much in 25 years. http://www.theouterline.com/nineteen-eighty-three/
 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
Do I really believe Sky (as a team-ignoring the ever present possibility of individuals taking risks) would be stupid enough to be doing illegal stuff in this day and age? No I don't because you would never be able to 100% guarantee that sh!t wouldn't hit the fan at some point, and Brailsford et al do not strike me as the sort of guys that would take that risk
Couldnt you say this about pretty much any doper over the years?
 
GearFiddler said:
With a budget as large as Sky's is it beyond imagination to consider using the services of pharma companies for bespoke legal enhancement? Or big budget going towards research etc? We don't know what they do with all that extra money the other teams don't have...has to go somewhere.
To this, no. For one I have no idea what you mean bespoke enhancement but anything that might come from Pharma companies is banned already and, quite honestly, Sky don't have the money and Pharma would not be interested.

If you're actually talking about supplements then there's really nothing others couldn't do.

It is worthwhile knowing that almost all drugs used to dope have come about through research into medicine (designer steroids are the only thing that were specifically developed as doping products but even the chemistry and knowledge of these comes from medical research). The possible risk/benefit to any pharma company caught developing doping products is massively skewed towards the risk side, there is basically no benefit (unless it's individuals supplying products companies make, but that's only a benefit to that individual), it's just not worth their while.

All the posturing and PR stuff, again, these guys are not stupid. If they're sticking their necks out and saying things like 'a yellow jersey that will stand the test of time' it must be because they are 99.9999% sure that as things stand today and in terms of what they are doing today, they're safe. I'd say that's just basic business sense. Would the sponsor like it if you make BIG noise about how clean you are then get rumbled? Doubt it. Would make them look stupid. And this is after all, one big business.
Lance Armstrong. Enough said.

I would not be at all surprised if samples are tested in the future (in light of new banned lists/tests etc) and come back positive...but for stuff that is not currently illegal.
You need to define this but anything not currently licensed for human use is banned as are attempts to manipulate red blood cell production etc. The WADA code is pretty tight, this has been discussed many times before.

Then they'd be in the sh!t perhaps from some angles in an ethical sense (unfair advantages etc), but would always be able to go 'well what we said was true-it was completely above board'. And at the end of the day, does it not have to come down to what you define as 'clean'? Someone who doesn't add anything else to their body outside basic food, eg: protein shakes and upwards? And is someone that uses legal supplements such as Caffeine, Beta Alanine, Sodium Bicarbonate, dare I say it...Salbutamol (within the boundaries) clean? They have to be. If they do not use banned products then what else can you call them if not clean? I consider myself a clean rider-but I use legal supplements to enhance my performance! Just like I use legal advantages such as a disc wheel for time trialling.
If it's legal they are clean, trying to define grey areas is never going to end well. There are people like me who won't even use protein shakes and then there are guys at the other end of the spectrum who will fill themselves full of everything they can get hold of.

Nutshell: sneaky stuff. But above board. Morally questionable perhaps. Can't wait to find out what it is :D
I have no problem with them doing anything that is not banned, I don't think it's either sneaky or morally questionable (there are no morals in sport, business etc.) and while I think that the huge amounts of money invested in GB track cycling did help produce the massively successful teams (and the lack of decent competition) I don't think this can be extended to Sky on the road.


Welcome to the forum :)
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
King Boonen said:
To this, no. For one I have no idea what you mean bespoke enhancement but anything that might come from Pharma companies is banned already and, quite honestly, Sky don't have the money and Pharma would not be interested.
This notion that effective doping is expensive needs to die. Weekend warriors are being popped for the good stuff in the U.S. (Test, EPO, probably some HGH use too) Compared to $10,000 in gear, and coaches, even EPO is not that expensive.

Another notion that needs to die is the idea that dopers on podiums are on something different or special than others. History doesn't quite prove that. It doesn't entirely disprove it either. But, it seems like some riders are permitted to go full-gas and not get sanctioned. Rasmussen's final TdF performance is a very good example.

Finally, we know, for a fact, it wasn't even 12 months after the introduction of EPO it was already being used. So, the dope can be expensive too.
 
Apr 22, 2014
611
0
0
Which specific parts of that excerpt are lies and what evidence do you have to demonstrate that they are?
 
Jun 22, 2014
7
0
0
King Boonen said:
Lance Armstrong. Enough said.
I can see this is going to be an interesting place to keep an eye on. You guys are sharp. Rest of that post cleared up a few things I wasn't sure about/didn't know!

The Lance saga is pretty much the crux I guess. Learn from history, and don't make the same mistakes twice...makes for interesting discussion and dialogue at least.
 
Aug 31, 2012
5,221
0
0
GearFiddler said:
I can see this is going to be an interesting place to keep an eye on. You guys are sharp. Rest of that post cleared up a few things I wasn't sure about/didn't know!

The Lance saga is pretty much the crux I guess. Learn from history, and don't make the same mistakes twice...makes for interesting discussion and dialogue at least.
Lance successfully sued fairly powerful organisations for money because they implied he was doping!

But Lance wasn't even wrong to consider the risk very small. Him being exposed as the fraud he is wasn't some inevitability, in the end he was very unfortunate though his abrasive personality contributed. I don't think Sky are going to be caught. If Froome makes the some mistakes Armstrong made, (and there are some indications he's about as nice a person) and ****es absolutely everyone off, he might, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
DirtyWorks said:
This notion that effective doping is expensive needs to die. Weekend warriors are being popped for the good stuff in the U.S. (Test, EPO, probably some HGH use too) Compared to $10,000 in gear, and coaches, even EPO is not that expensive.

Another notion that needs to die is the idea that dopers on podiums are on something different or special than others. History doesn't quite prove that. It doesn't entirely disprove it either. But, it seems like some riders are permitted to go full-gas and not get sanctioned. Rasmussen's final TdF performance is a very good example.

Finally, we know, for a fact, it wasn't even 12 months after the introduction of EPO it was already being used. So, the dope can be expensive too.
Not sure if you quoted me just to continue the conversation but I didn't mean doping is expensive in its current form, I meant that contacting a pharma company to develop bespoke doping products would be ridiculously expensive and well beyond the buget of any cycling team.
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
SeriousSam said:
Lance successfully sued fairly powerful organisations for money because they implied he was doping!

But Lance wasn't even wrong to consider the risk very small. Him being exposed as the fraud he is wasn't some inevitability, in the end he was very unfortunate though his abrasive personality contributed. I don't think Sky are going to be caught. If Froome makes the some mistakes Armstrong made, (and there are some indications he's about as nice a person) and ****es absolutely everyone off, he might, but I'm not holding my breath.
Rasmussen never learned the "be nice to people on the way up because you'll see them on the way down." lesson too.

I'm genuinely hoping Froome hasn't reached "Jump the Shark" episodes yet. Huffing an inhaler is close, but he seems completely oblivious.
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
King Boonen said:
Not sure if you quoted me just to continue the conversation but I didn't mean doping is expensive in its current form, I meant that contacting a pharma company to develop bespoke doping products would be ridiculously expensive and well beyond the buget of any cycling team.
Fair enough. I'm probably a little too vigilant.
 
Interesting comments from Contador about the Dawg:

Contador was very impressed by Froome’s attack on the Dauphine’s first mountain top finish, where he felt he was stronger than at the 2013 Tour.

“I’ve never seen anybody ever do that. It was way stronger than what he did on the Ventoux last year,” said Contador. “It was very tough and sustained, 35 seconds flat out. That gives you something to respect, although not to fear.”
 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
Ripper said:
Nothing wild about 120 rpm out of the saddle accelerations followed by in the saddle 800 watt anaerobic intervals with FTP as recovery. :rolleyes:
I guess the tailwind was even stronger than on the ventoux? :rolleyes:
 
the sceptic said:
I guess the tailwind was even stronger than on the ventoux? :rolleyes:
Exactly ... there was some magical cross tailwind that pushed Froome the whole way up. Although this is a funny comment for Bert to make ... makes me wonder where he actually ranks Froome's climbing compared to others, perhaps folks from the 2007 TdF?
 
Apr 19, 2010
935
0
0
Can a mod change the title of this thread? It contains a pretty obvious typo. It should read: (No Way Sky Are Cleans?)
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M The Clinic 34
Similar threads
Tour de Cleans?

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts