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

[No_Balls]

It's pretty obvious the game that Sky and Brailsford are playing. Pretend that you're willing to give over your information for independent review, but never actually give it to anyone. Insist you are clean and the results are due training techniques that are superior to everyone else. Can't release the techniques because then everyone would know and SKY would lose their advantage. Etc etc ...

Comes from the same playbook that USPS used.

The game from Sky goes like this:

A) Tell them you are clean. Use the word "clean" as much as you can in order to hammer it down.

B) Hide the scientific data that could prove otherwise and go have a slugfest with media after every "surrealistic" performance.

C) Tell them a lie and a challenge (cooperation with Wada) so that you give yourself an image that goes with the selfproclaimed cleanliness. Hope that this doesnt occur and WADA refuses the challenge.

D) Roll the ball over to others to prove Skys cleanliness while stile hiding with uncomfortable data. Despite promises as "cooperation", "openness" and so on.

The only real difference from USPS is that Sky is a bit more aggressive in their "cleanliness"-approach.

 

[leon7766]

Sky have done too much good for too many in cycling?

See its taken you a month to find an answer to my total good sense

 

[leon7766]

The game from Sky goes like this:

A) Tell them you are clean. Use the word "clean" as much as you can in order to hammer it down.

B) Hide the scientific data that could prove otherwise and go have a slugfest with media after every "surrealistic" performance.

C) Tell them a lie and a challenge (cooperation with Wada) so that you give yourself an image that goes with the selfproclaimed cleanliness. Hope that this doesnt occur and WADA refuses the challenge.

D) Roll the ball over to others to prove Skys cleanliness while stile hiding with uncomfortable data. Despite promises as "cooperation", "openness" and so on.

The only real difference from USPS is that Sky is a bit more aggressive in their "cleanliness"-approach.

Or the real reason and that is they are telling the truth and its all they can say

 

[DirtyWorks]

Or the real reason and that is they are telling the truth and its all they can say

Except, we have 20 years of cyclists claiming they are clean only to discover they were doping. We've also had 20 years of zero-to-hero performances as a result of doping they swore wasn't happening. We've had decades of sports federations protecting their favored athletes.

This time it's different?

 

[thehog]

The game from Sky goes like this:

A) Tell them you are clean. Use the word "clean" as much as you can in order to hammer it down.

B) Hide the scientific data that could prove otherwise and go have a slugfest with media after every "surrealistic" performance.

C) Tell them a lie and a challenge (cooperation with Wada) so that you give yourself an image that goes with the selfproclaimed cleanliness. Hope that this doesnt occur and WADA refuses the challenge.

D) Roll the ball over to others to prove Skys cleanliness while stile hiding with uncomfortable data. Despite promises as "cooperation", "openness" and so on.

The only real difference from USPS is that Sky is a bit more aggressive in their "cleanliness"-approach.

Reminds me of the infamous “Catlin” program for Armstrong.

Make the big announcement. Soft land back into cycling. Keep up the proclamations of being clean and that you can be tested “night and day”.

Tell the world that all will be published to the internet. Once the belief becomes ingrained quietly allow the proposal to disappear.

 

[bewildered]

Or the real reason and that is they are telling the truth and its all they can say

This is where I think Sky and their fans are completely wrong and it's not necessarily their fault. It's more the fault of LA, the UCI and all the other rampant dopers over the last 20+ years.

20+ years cycling fans have witnessed these superhuman performances and been lied to again and again and every one of them I believe has been a total and utter sham. 13 years we all had to wait to finally get concrete proof that LA was a fraud, despite the fact that it may have been obvious to most way before then.

Now we have VERY similar superhuman performances and a similar/more remarkable rise from relative mediocrity in an amazingly short space of time and I think cycling fans deserve more than the usual 'I'm not a cheat, end of story' response to very reasonable suspicions/questions.

So, IMO it is no longer enough to say that Froome is innocent until proven guilty when we are incapable of adducing proof and where they are in a position to either prove innocence or at least allay a lot of our suspicions, regardless of whether it may reveal a competitive advantage (and I'm sceptical about whether it would).

Even if Sky reveal their data and training methods, it is not as if other riders/teams are going to fund & put all of that in place and immediately close the gap. Can anyone see any other rider closing the gap on Froome by next year or the year after, if he is clean and Sky finally become transparent.

I'm sure I speak for a lot of people on here and fans in general when I say that I am sick of being lied to and told 'innocent until proven guilty, deal with it' and I am also sick of hearing Sky's transparency BS they have been peddling for 4 years now without putting it into action in any way.

They are the only ones in a position to make the doping allegations/questions go away and given the history over the last 20+ years it is simply not good enough for them not to at this stage.

 

[Benotti69]

Or the real reason and that is they are telling the truth and its all they can say

But they have been caught lying so many times and each excuse doesn't stand up.

But you know all this and are only here to obfuscate.

 

[Benotti69]

This is where I think Sky and their fans are completely wrong and it's not necessarily their fault. It's more the fault of LA, the UCI and all the other rampant dopers over the last 20+ years.

20+ years cycling fans have witnessed these superhuman performances and been lied to again and again and every one of them I believe has been a total and utter sham. 13 years we all had to wait to finally get concrete proof that LA was a fraud, despite the fact that it may have been obvious to most way before then.

Now we have VERY similar superhuman performances and a similar/more remarkable rise from relative mediocrity in an amazingly short space of time and I think cycling fans deserve more than the usual 'I'm not a cheat, end of story' response to very reasonable suspicions/questions.

So, IMO it is no longer enough to say that Froome is innocent until proven guilty when we are incapable of adducing proof and where they are in a position to either prove innocence or at least allay a lot of our suspicions, regardless of whether it may reveal a competitive advantage (and I'm sceptical about whether it would).

Even if Sky reveal their data and training methods, it is not as if other riders/teams are going to fund & put all of that in place and immediately close the gap. Can anyone see any other rider closing the gap on Froome by next year or the year after, if he is clean and Sky finally become transparent.

I'm sure I speak for a lot of people on here and fans in general when I say that I am sick of being lied to and told 'innocent until proven guilty, deal with it' and I am also sick of hearing Sky's transparency BS they have been peddling for 4 years now without putting it into action in any way.

They are the only ones in a position to make the doping allegations/questions go away and given the history over the last 20+ years it is simply not good enough for them not to at this stage.

If he is clean he will be simply the one of the greatest cyclists ever, that never showed that kind of potential till his team hired a doping doctor and his contract was becoming worthless!

 

[bewildered]

If he is clean he will be simply the one of the greatest cyclists ever, that never showed that kind of potential till his team hired a doping doctor and his contract was becoming worthless!

yeah I'm aware of that and i did hint at that in my post. the parallels with the LA story are uncanny and you can only be even more sceptical of Froome's story when you consider that he has admitted undergoing a medical procedure at least once a year which must involve the manipulation of his blood values

 

[LesDiablesRouges]

Or the real reason and that is they are telling the truth and its all they can say

Then why bother saying anything at all? Sky is doping and you'd be a naif to believe otherwise.

The Vo2 max tells all and I've never seen anywhere that Froome has a Vo2 max anywhere near Lemond.

 

[thehog]

If he is clean he will be simply the one of the greatest cyclists ever, that never showed that kind of potential till his team hired a doping doctor and his contract was becoming worthless!

This. He basically is the greatest living cyclist in history. He has able to wipe out every dirty performance over 20 years and replace it with even better and stronger performances, clean. That’s amazing. If I were Sky, I’d be releasing all the data to the general public to show what a phenomenon he is. Marginal gains can only go so far. This guy is all natural talent. Up mountains and on the flat – he is a true marvel. Better than Armstrong. Just about as fast as Pantani on the climbs and stronger than Martin and Cancellera in the ITTs. He is the new Cannibal. He has won just about every race he has been in this year. I believe in Chris Froome.

 

[silverrocket]

I am not convinced by the "training advances" argument, because there are countless other teams out there all trying to do the same thing, all with access to the same published research, and most with enough money to do it. It also seems unlikely that a team could hide any dramatic new training practices: can you imagine them doing something like plyometrics or underwater training and keeping it a secret for 2 years?

Looking back at the history of sport I struggle to recollect any time training advances were a game-changer for a single athlete or team. The greatest advancements have usually come from technology (eg. aero-bars) or doping. Training advances have always been much more incremental.

 

[mewmewmew13]

agree with hoggie ^^^^

also..If he is such a specimen then it won't change a thing if they release all his data will it...

if no one can come close to touching him then even if everyone knows his numbers they will still be powerless...

 

[BYOP88]

I am not convinced by the "training advances" argument, because there are countless other teams out there all trying to do the same thing, all with access to the same published research, and most with enough money to do it. It also seems unlikely that a team could hide any dramatic new training practices: can you imagine them doing something like plyometrics or underwater training and keeping it a secret for 2 years?

Looking back at the history of sport I struggle to recollect any time training advances were a game-changer for a single athlete or team. The greatest advancements have usually come from technology (eg. aero-bars) or doping. Training advances have always been much more incremental.

Exactly, I mean they've had guys leave the team in the last 2 years and I'd guess the new teams asked the ex-Sky riders for info regarding training etc.

 

[tyfius]

If they are doping they are doing the same thing as the others. We learned from the USADA report that USPS did not have access to anything is competitors did not have access too, so yes, their advantage was in their training methods and their marginal gains.

So I believe we must take these training methods into account. But it would not be easy to just change your entire team's program and way of functioning during winter. Time and budget wise.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Then why bother saying anything at all? Sky is doping and you'd be a naif to believe otherwise.

The Vo2 max tells all and I've never seen anywhere that Froome has a Vo2 max anywhere near Lemond.

And, understand that a VO2 max near Lemond's would be the first thing said before Froome walked into a room, onto a sign-in podium, anywhere. After he destroyed everyone at lower-ranked races they'd be saying it before he stepped onto the podium too.

But, no. Somehow, it wasn't important.

 

[thehog]

And, understand that a VO2 max near Lemond's would be the first thing said before Froome walked into a room, onto a sign-in podium, anywhere. After he destroyed everyone at lower-ranked races they'd be saying it before he stepped onto the podium too.

But, no. Somehow, it wasn't important.

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

 

[BYOP88]

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

He just needs to lose a little weight and BOOOOM!!

 

[Dude17]

I am not convinced by the "training advances" argument, because there are countless other teams out there all trying to do the same thing, all with access to the same published research, and most with enough money to do it. It also seems unlikely that a team could hide any dramatic new training practices: can you imagine them doing something like plyometrics or underwater training and keeping it a secret for 2 years?

Looking back at the history of sport I struggle to recollect any time training advances were a game-changer for a single athlete or team. The greatest advancements have usually come from technology (eg. aero-bars) or doping. Training advances have always been much more incremental.

Completely agree. I remember Armstrong's "advanced traing methods" argument as well.

I would like to believe that Froome is riding clean, but I can't bring myself to do it until I see him actually have a really bad day on the bike. We've seen Contador crack as well as Schleck. First thing that comes to my mind with them is, "well, they're probably riding clean." Day-after-day of great rides and you're not doping? You're an amazing athlete. Release the data to prove it and stop hiding behind the "well, you prove that I am doping" BS.

 

[Granville57]

OK, so Sky has the Top Secret, newly discovered, highly financed, game-changing doping scheme.

How many people would be involved? Three? More?

Brailsford?
Kerrison?
Froome?

How many would have first-hand knowledge of that?

 

[Pulpstar]

Perhaps not even Froome himself. It would be the ultimate way to ensure a rider believes he is completely clean. I truly believe Sky have great training - this explains how the rest of them are top notch doms setting up Froome and stuff.

But the voodoo is perhaps only known to Brailsford and Kerrison. Maybe Froome himself doesn't even know about it...

If its only Froome, well I'd hate to play poker against the guy...

Its certainly an inner circle thing, perhaps Wiggo knows too. One lesson people would have learnt from US Postal is that the more people you have in the know, the more people there are to spill the beans...

 

[webvan]

This is getting pretty ugly...I should have taped that France 2 DB grilling, all these journos who've been privy to doping for years, Godard, Holtz, Adam all of a sudden challenging DB saying that seeing Froome sprinting on Ventoux was completely unbelievable...to which DB could only answer "I know but I think he could have gone faster!". Something's going to happen earlier rather than later I think...

Could it be that Froome is doing stuff and DB is not aware of it? I mean why would Sir DB take such risks with Froome when he doesn't need it? Is it a case of "gone too far to stop"?

 

[No_Balls]

Reminds me of the infamous “Catlin” program for Armstrong.

Make the big announcement. Soft land back into cycling. Keep up the proclamations of being clean and that you can be tested “night and day”.

Tell the world that all will be published to the internet. Once the belief becomes ingrained quietly allow the proposal to disappear.

Yeah. Sounds just as right.

As for the bolded part. It is the distant promise (with cooperation) that satisfies the masses when it is more about buying themselvs time to disappear. People are in general very comfortable with promises and not so much the end result.

The longer the time the better.

 

[Pulpstar]

If you were to go by character then if you had a win-lose, no dope = draw bet you'd stick your house on Brailsford to be in command of EVERYTHING.

Froome is just such a nice guy it is difficult to countenance that he would be doing it without Brailsford. (He appears to be a nice guy but also prepared to do whatever DB says).

But it could be him, appearances can be deceptive. The only people that know for sure are D Brailsford and C Froome.

Lance Armstrong raised alot of cash for charity, didn't mean he was clean (Or actually a nice person) !

 

[AICA ribonucleotide]

This is getting pretty ugly...I should have taped that France 2 DB grilling, all these journos who've been privy to doping for years, Godard, Holtz, Adam all of a sudden challenging DB saying that seeing Froome sprinting on Ventoux was completely unbelievable...to which DB could only answer "I know but I think he could have gone faster!". Something's going to happen earlier rather than later I think...

Could it be that Froome is doing stuff and DB is not aware of it? I mean why would Sir DB take such risks with Froome when he doesn't need it? Is it a case of "gone too far to stop"?

Brailsford is so clueless about doping that he wouldn't know a doper if he was doping on his own team. First Millar and now Froome.
I mean even after Festina went down and he still though Millar was clean up until he got busted in 2004. He probably though Armstrong was clean until Millar spilled the beans.