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

[Taxus4a]

Yes there are different variations of the disease. Even Wikipedia lists five different types of Schistosoma which infect humans and several more that infect animals. Within these types there will be variations too. It's a small creature which exists in its billions, probably thousands of billions across the vast continent of Africa and beyond with a short reproduction cycle. If you think that it will have developed uniformly in all environments in complete contradiction to all evolutionary biology then we will have to just disagree.

It infects around 100 million Africans - not all cases are the same. What you have done is try to homogenize it from scraps you have read and then picked out variations between what Froome had and your model.

And as for doctors. I've yet to have any one of them give me a full lecture on what my illness/injury is. It's always a brush stroke overview and then focus on the treatment. You see to think that Froome had to attend a University medical lecture and sit a test before he was allowed treatment.

You can think that the whole thing was faked as part of some conspiracy if you like but I doubt you'll find many takers outside this forum. After all, plenty of other riders have managed to dope without such an elaborate pantomime. Many on here like mentioning Occam's Razor. Well here the simplest explanation is that an African got a disease that many millions of Africans get.

Good post. Just to say not just this forum, no so many as you thing and no not many some people of the clinic thinks. Anyway, people toughts is not the important issue, and it is not going to tell the truth.

 

[The Hitch]

If people were doubting it as a reason for the improvement then they would focus on the disease itself.

But they are focussing Froome's testimony of having it. The implication being that he did't actually have it.

(PS my personal view - anyone who bleats on about 'strawman' isn't interested in open conversation, just arguing. It's a lacklustre gambit of someone devoid ideas grasping for a ready made defence mechanism. Who ever uses the word in real life?)

Still waiting on those sources that backup your scientific conclusions.

Do they exist, or did you make everything up yourself?

 

[thehog]

Good post. Just to say not just this forum, no so many as you thing and no not many some people of the clinic thinks. Anyway, people toughts is not the important issue, and it is not going to tell the truth.

100% agree.

Now what is it you're saying?

 

[DirtyWorks]

The implication being that he did't actually have it.

No. The explanation for Froome's sudden and complete domination was Badzilla was cured.

Claiming he didn't really have it is a convenient way to ignore a bunch of real problems with the story.

 

[timmers]

No. The explanation for Froome's sudden and complete domination was Badzilla was cured.

Claiming he didn't really have it is a convenient way to ignore a bunch of real problems with the story.

Well only if you think the results he obtained weren't possible by better coaching, Froome gaining confidence, a general reduction in the cheating by doping of stage race contenders or other factors.

It appears that several things are agreed by all sides.

1. Froome had Bilharzia.

2. Although no one on the forum is a medical expert on Bilharzia you can argue that Froome's possible treatment according to comments from Froome and his Team Manager was wrong.

3. Froome has not released all his BP passport details.

4. Wiggins didn't work with Ferrari (unless you were the hog).

5. Dave Brailsford is not the messiah but some think he is.

6. Froome is Kenyan but not true Kenyan.

7. Froome has a British licence but has never lived in Britain.

8. Froome and Wiggins won and no-one has come forward with any evidence, not even rumours, that Sky or any of its riders are doping.

9. Some forum members won't read David Walsh's articles in the Sunday Times.

10. Froome, Brailsford, myself and also possibly other forum members have said things that have varied with something we said earlier.

11. Climbing times can mean what you want them to mean.

Which means that maybe no matter how silly it may seem there is a possibility that Froome and, I hope, Nibali are clean and we are seeing real performances from one rider who has followed the traditional path in Italy and one who having been born in Africa a different one.

Until a positive doping test, a confession or evidence from others we will never know.

 

[Ferminal]

Supreme show of strength by Froome today, simply too good.

 

[Benotti69]

Well only if you think the results he obtained weren't possible by better coaching, Froome gaining confidence, a general reduction in the cheating by doping of stage race contenders or other factors.

It appears that several things are agreed by all sides.

1. Froome had Bilharzia.

2. Although no one on the forum is a medical expert on Bilharzia you can argue that Froome's possible treatment according to comments from Froome and his Team Manager was wrong.

3. Froome has not released all his BP passport details.

4. Wiggins didn't work with Ferrari (unless you were the hog).

5. Dave Brailsford is not the messiah but some think he is.

6. Froome is Kenyan but not true Kenyan.

7. Froome has a British licence but has never lived in Britain.

8. Froome and Wiggins won and no-one has come forward with any evidence, not even rumours, that Sky or any of its riders are doping.

9. Some forum members won't read David Walsh's articles in the Sunday Times.

10. Froome, Brailsford, myself and also possibly other forum members have said things that have varied with something we said earlier.

11. Climbing times can mean what you want them to mean.

Which means that maybe no matter how silly it may seem there is a possibility that Froome and, I hope, Nibali are clean and we are seeing real performances from one rider who has followed the traditional path in Italy and one who having been born in Africa a different one.

Until a positive doping test, a confession or evidence from others we will never know.

Dont forget

12. working with a doping doctor.

13. GT donkeys turned into GT winning racehorses.

14. Beating the climbing times of known dopers

15. Able to TT and climb better than specialist TTers and specialist climbers

We are getting close to the 'never tested positive' and 'done too much good for too many people' arguments.

Froome and Wigans would be well advised to get some colour band scam going now and cash in.

 

[IndianCyclist]

Supreme show of strength by Froome today, simply too good.

When there are three jerseys together, something's sure not right.

 

[IndianCyclist]

Until a positive doping test, a confession or evidence from others we will never know.

I am not sure even with a positive doping test,one can know for sure. Eg. Theo Bos, Rolland low cortisol levels, Rui Costa's supplement doping case, Contador's own "beefcase", Frank Schleck's case. Especially the fans who are into their idols, it is difficult for them to believe.
The only way the truth comes out is with confession or evidence.

 

[70kmph]

Froome worked with Leinders a proven doping doctor, then there was Barloworld of course nothing suspicious going on there either, just the Bilharzia...

 

[Tonton]

Too bad (or purposely) ASO didn't set next year's ITT in Bergerac on the exact same course as in '94. What a thread it would have been...

 

[red_flanders]

8. Froome and Wiggins won and no-one has come forward with any evidence, not even rumours, that Sky or any of its riders are doping.

You must mean physical evidence or proof. There is plenty of evidence.

 

[EnacheV]

You must mean physical evidence or proof. There is plenty of evidence.

If it's not physical evidence what it is ? Fantasy evidence? I think there is no evidence but i will give you a chance to show me some EVIDENCE.

Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence.

Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method.

I'm very interested in seeing some of those, not "who shoot Kennedy" evidences.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

If it's not physical evidence what it is ? Fantasy evidence? I think there is no evidence but i will give you a chance to show me some EVIDENCE.

Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence.

Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method.

I'm very interested in seeing some of those, not "who shoot Kennedy" evidences.

This operates like the American system where a jury decides: Froome is guilty as charged.

Hell even ASO had to move the operation to an offshore location to drum up support for Froome. Japan FTW.

 

[thehog]

This operates like the American system where a jury decides: Froome is guilty as charged.

Hell even ASO had to move the operation to an offshore location to drum up support for Froome. Japan FTW.

Problem is that Europe is still home of the bike.

But growing markets tend to spend more.... I think.

Maybe time for a new champion of Germany?

 

[the sceptic]

If it's not physical evidence what it is ? Fantasy evidence? I think there is no evidence but i will give you a chance to show me some EVIDENCE.

Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence.

Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method.

I'm very interested in seeing some of those, not "who shoot Kennedy" evidences.

that sound im hearing must be Dr Maseratis strawman detector going crazy.

 

[thehog]

that sound im hearing must be Dr Maseratis strawman detector going crazy.

The vortex-o-meter making the sound "link link link link link".

 

[red_flanders]

If it's not physical evidence what it is ? Fantasy evidence? I think there is no evidence but i will give you a chance to show me some EVIDENCE.

Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence.

Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method.

I'm very interested in seeing some of those, not "who shoot Kennedy" evidences.

It's simpler than that.

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

This renders your assertion in #8 invalid.

 

[timmers]

It's simpler than that.

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

This renders your assertion in #8 invalid.

Evidence that sees the rider sanctioned. Your and others beliefs and propositions on an internet forum having no standing under UCI rules as yet.

One of the challenges when there is no evidence apart from beliefs is that I can just state the alternative view but that appears to be a waste of time.

As I have said before if you have the evidence phone UKAD or the UCI. If Froome is cheating then he should be sanctioned but no one has any evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

 

[DirtyWorks]

It's simpler than that.

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

This renders your assertion in #8 invalid.

Not this again. Not a direct reply to you but a general comment: the cycling federations cannot be relied upon to deliver anything resembling truth, or even delivering on the idea a fair game is being played.

There is no reliable source of facts anywhere. Riders aren't reliable, DS's aren't reliable, promoters aren't reliable, the federations aren't reliable, the UCI itself is the definition of unreliable.

There is an overwelming body of facts that show the people responsible for the sport cannot be relied upon to deliver incriminating facts.

Now, maybe, just maybe, things might change under Cookson. Too early to tell.

 

[DirtyWorks]

....As I have said before if you have the evidence phone UKAD or the UCI. If Froome is cheating then he should be sanctioned but no one has any evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

You clearly don't understand how WADA works. Here's a short list of how awesome the bio-passport is:

-35+ Russian athletes sanctioned in 2013 for doping at WADA-sanctioned historic elite events. (ex. Olympics, world championships)
-Jamaica anti-doping anyone? There was only a NADO there by name only!!!
-Armstrong red-hot 2009-10 samples? UCI/APMU had the samples, had the suspicious values....
-How was that Contador case hidden, then dragged on vs FuYu Li's case?

What can WADA do in all those examples above? Nothing. WADA still advising the world that sports federations are hiding positives. And they are. And cycling is too. How many? <shrug> Let's give WADA the authority to open cases and watch what happens.

As for contacting the UCI, what happened to that investigation the UCI opened on Floyd Landis' allegations? USA Cycling got right on that. Oh, that's right they didn't. No consequences for doing nothing.

There is no reliable sources for facts regarding corruption of all kinds in cycling. Well, pretty much every Olympic sport.

 

[red_flanders]

Evidence that sees the rider sanctioned. Your and others beliefs and propositions on an internet forum having no standing under UCI rules as yet.

One of the challenges when there is no evidence apart from beliefs is that I can just state the alternative view but that appears to be a waste of time.

As I have said before if you have the evidence phone UKAD or the UCI. If Froome is cheating then he should be sanctioned but no one has any evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

You said several things are agreed on by all (sides). They are not. That's all I'm addressing.

 

[Benotti69]

Evidence that sees the rider sanctioned. Your and others beliefs and propositions on an internet forum having no standing under UCI rules as yet.

And yet here you are spending time arguing that Sky have managed in to wade through a cesspit and emerge clean.....

One of the challenges when there is no evidence apart from beliefs is that I can just state the alternative view but that appears to be a waste of time.

As I have said before if you have the evidence phone UKAD or the UCI. If Froome is cheating then he should be sanctioned but no one has any evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

There is plenty of evidence.

Riders who rode like Donkeys in GT now winning the biggest one. And Froome rode one like a 3 legged Donkey holding on to motorbikes.

Leinders.

Bilhzaria lasting a long time.

Wigans and Froome dominating their chosen races up to July and then back to Donkeys after.

etc

etc

UKAD or the UCI are not interested in evidence. If they were they would've opened an independent investigation into the hiring of Leinders.

 

[EnacheV]

And Froome rode one like a 3 legged Donkey holding on to motorbikes.

Still searching for those EVIDENCES, found none of them.

If you believe X is doping and you see a red car, that's no evidence.

About Froome riding on motorbikes, since WC 2013 the towed award goes to Nibali, "talented" riders hang on cars, motorbikes are for pussies.

 

[Benotti69]

Still searching for those EVIDENCES, found none of them.

If you believe X is doping and you see a red car, that's no evidence.

About Froome riding on motorbikes, since WC 2013 the towed award goes to Nibali, "talented" riders hang on cars, motorbikes are for pussies.

Not sure what this mumbo jumbo is supposed to mean!!!

The biggest piece of evidence against Sky is that they hired a doping doctor and he worked for 2 years with them.

Then we have riders, donkeys being turned into racehorses.

We have the hiring of former dopers all against their ZTP which they sold their brand on, being clean, but more importantly being seen to be clean by not hiring those ex dopers, doping doctors yada yada

I consider this as evidence, but then i am not a fanboy who ignores everything presented and screaming 'never tested positive'..........