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

[JustinReynolds]

I believe SKY are clean ...

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.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Define anti-sky?

 

[BYOP88]

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.

You sure about that? Wiggins pre-2008 seemed anti-doping but since then he hasn't. Remember his 'if any team has a Doctor that there's 1% doubt about, that team shouldn't be allowed to ride the TdF'. Yet he had no problem when Sky hired good old Geert and wasn't demanding that Sky pull out of the last years Tour.
Also wasn;t he a BIG BIG BIG fan of Lance? What happened with Lance?

 

[Zam_Olyas]

You sure about that? Wiggins pre-2008 seemed anti-doping but since then he hasn't. Remember his 'if any team has a Doctor that there's 1% doubt about, that team shouldn't be allowed to ride the TdF'. Yet he had no problem when Sky hired good old Geert and wasn't demanding that Sky pull out of the last years Tour.
Also wasn;t he a BIG BIG BIG fan of Lance? What happened with Lance?

Dude, I think that was a myth.

 

[bewildered]

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.

How do you explain equalling/beating the ascent times of rampant dopers on AX3 and Ventoux and the fact that CF has gone from a mediocre rider who Sky were about to release to the greatest rider in the history of the sport (assuming he is clean and basing his greatness on his ascent times this year, which no clean rider has ever come even close to) in the space of 3-4 years?

these are the main reasons for people's suspicions on here and you haven't addressed either of them

 

[fruit bars with eyes]

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.

Lol
Froome was lapped in the xc race - why did Brailsford not let his little baldy eye rest upon on Killeen? Gareth Montgomerie? they were more British and more, er, fast - what did he spot at the back of the field that was so interesting ? that's some spot- I spy with my little eye something beginning with S***

 

[BYOP88]

Dude, I think that was a myth.

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'.

 

[luckyboy]

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'.

He didn't did he? Lance raced a bit in the 90s and then I don't think we ever heard from him again after 97 or so

 

[BYOP88]

He didn't did he? Lance raced a bit in the 90s and then I don't think we ever heard from him again after 97 or so

Yeah he beat cancer, but just figured that there were better things to do than ride a bike around France. Which is a shame because I think he could have won the TdF at least 5 times, if not more.

 

[leon7766]

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.

Im not clever enough to do whatever that means

 

[webvan]

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.

I for one am certainly not "anti-sky" and while I found Wiggins' performance on the 2012 TDF believable, it's an understatement to say that what Froome (and Porte to some extent) are performing in a "not normal" way at all. I've probably never seen something as "not normal" as his sprinting on Ventoux on Sunday!

Now again maybe Froome is one of a kind and this is his best year but still, but it's fairly mind-boggling that no one else in the history of cycling has been able to do what he does, i.e. accelerate like crazy on 10+% slopes and not blow up. Not to mention of course that until 24 months ago he was an absolute nobody who was about to be without a contract. This has to be the most amazing rags to riches story in the history of sports? I fear that something's up...

 

[leon7766]

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?

I fully believe it is

 

[leon7766]

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.

I fully expect after this race finishes they will show their evidence .The problem is as has been stated on here ad nauseum it wont be believed because people have closed minds Its like it with any conspiracy theorists

 

[Frosty]

I fully expect after this race finishes they will show their evidence .The problem is as has been stated on here ad nauseum it wont be believed because people have closed minds Its like it with any conspiracy theorists

We'll see. People used to think that people who believed Armstrong doped were nutters.

 

[victorschipolrijk]

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.

Why should Brailsford follow this guy , if Froome at that time was Kenian not Brit ?????
Besides , his results at the 2006 Commonwealth Games were really bad , finishing both races 5 minutes off the winner .

Regarding the doping rumors , if there are not that many , according to you of course , why are you writing the above "lesson" ????????????

 

[131313]

I believe SKY are clean - here endeth the lesson. And if Wiggins / Froome is not then I will give £250 to charity.

Livestrong should work

 

[happychappy]

thats like saying I'm an armed robber because I drive the same car as one (a Jaguar Mk2)!

You're a cop! You drive the same car as Inspector Morse.

 

[thehog]

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.

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".

 

[jamesmasters]

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.

 

[skidmark]

Livestrong should work

I know it's technically not a charity, but is the Floyd Fairness Fund still around?

 

[taiwan]

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

I firmly believe SKY are clean...

You're naive at best if you think the TdF can be won on bread and water, considering the countless examples of the contrary and the lack of evidence of change in the sport since those examples occurred. Tour 1-2 legit? Just no.

 

[Benotti69]

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".

Exactamundo.

 

[JustinReynolds]

You're naive at best if you think the TdF can be won on bread and water, considering the countless examples of the contrary and the lack of evidence of change in the sport since those examples occurred. Tour 1-2 legit? Just no.

So what about Cadel?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So what about Cadel?

Only one poster I know of here will say Cadel was clean.

 

[JustinReynolds]

How do you explain equalling/beating the ascent times of rampant dopers on AX3 and Ventoux and the fact that CF has gone from a mediocre rider who Sky were about to release to the greatest rider in the history of the sport (assuming he is clean and basing his greatness on his ascent times this year, which no clean rider has ever come even close to) in the space of 3-4 years?

these are the main reasons for people's suspicions on here and you haven't addressed either of them

I admit i havent seen in detail the Ventoux times, but when comparing these all i would say is lets make the comparisons fair. i.e. were thry riding alone for the same distance, or in the group? What were the wind conditions, etc.

I think Sky in the past put a lot of their eggs in one basket (wiggins) and released / were about to release a number of riders at that time - and have done since. 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.