Follow all the latest news and results from the Tour de Romandie 2022!
Giro d'Italia is fast approaching - Check out the Cycling News Giro d’Italia 2022 preview!
Your disguised sky apology failed.deviant said:Firstly I haven't said septicemia isn't rare, I said it happens and why shouldn't Txema have succumbed to it?....its as plausible an explanation as the default 'Sky are doping' position adopted by others.
Secondly the pro cycling fraternity is small, a lot of the guys know each other, soigneurs follow riders from team to team, some move between teams for pay/career progression etc..to state that rider-X knows soigneur-Y therefore subsequent riders that soigneur-Y comes into contact with must be doping sounds no more concrete than just gossip.
Illnesses in the team can be explained by.... Illness, funnily enough....but this doesn't fit with the agenda that everything Sky do is doping related.
I'll say it again, I'm no fan of Froome. He has the personality of a brick and Sky may or may not be doping....I don't know for sure and haven't yet seen any proof.
There's plenty of gossip, accusations and power guesstimates from armchair sports scientists but the focus on Sky to the exclusion of rational debate about other riders is bizarre.... There was much s******ing on here about Sky's suggestion that G.Thomas could one day win a TdF....this week Sagan's team have said the same thing about Peter but what is seen as an outrageous suggestion from Sky barely registers when another team come out with claptrap about one of their riders.... Its the double standards that are laughable, ditto the lack of insinuation re. Contactor's and Rodriquez early season form.... the silence is deafening and makes the fixation on Sky all the more obvious.
What is there not to understand ?deviant said:Firstly I haven't said septicemia isn't rare, I said it happens and why shouldn't Txema have succumbed to it?....its as plausible an explanation as the default 'Sky are doping' position adopted by others.
Secondly the pro cycling fraternity is small, a lot of the guys know each other, soigneurs follow riders from team to team, some move between teams for pay/career progression etc..to state that rider-X knows soigneur-Y therefore subsequent riders that soigneur-Y comes into contact with must be doping sounds no more concrete than just gossip.
Illnesses in the team can be explained by.... Illness, funnily enough....but this doesn't fit with the agenda that everything Sky do is doping related.
I'll say it again, I'm no fan of Froome. He has the personality of a brick and Sky may or may not be doping....I don't know for sure and haven't yet seen any proof.
There's plenty of gossip, accusations and power guesstimates from armchair sports scientists but the focus on Sky to the exclusion of rational debate about other riders is bizarre.... There was much s******ing on here about Sky's suggestion that G.Thomas could one day win a TdF....this week Sagan's team have said the same thing about Peter but what is seen as an outrageous suggestion from Sky barely registers when another team come out with claptrap about one of their riders.... Its the double standards that are laughable, ditto the lack of insinuation re. Contactor's and Rodriquez early season form.... the silence is deafening and makes the fixation on Sky all the more obvious.
Where is this proof?...enough people want Sky to fail, let's see it.Benotti69 said:....then ignore the proof when called out on their marginal gains and no stone unturned.
Sky are doping. Proof is there, people just dont want to accept it
The rest has been answered.deviant said:Firstly I haven't said septicemia isn't rare, I said it happens and why shouldn't Txema have succumbed to it?....its as plausible an explanation as the default 'Sky are doping' position adopted by others.
Secondly the pro cycling fraternity is small, a lot of the guys know each other, soigneurs follow riders from team to team, some move between teams for pay/career progression etc..to state that rider-X knows soigneur-Y therefore subsequent riders that soigneur-Y comes into contact with must be doping sounds no more concrete than just gossip.
Illnesses in the team can be explained by.... Illness, funnily enough....but this doesn't fit with the agenda that everything Sky do is doping related.
I'll say it again, I'm no fan of Froome. He has the personality of a brick and Sky may or may not be doping....I don't know for sure and haven't yet seen any proof.
There's plenty of gossip, accusations and power guesstimates from armchair sports scientists but the focus on Sky to the exclusion of rational debate about other riders is bizarre.... There was much s******ing on here about Sky's suggestion that G.Thomas could one day win a TdF....this week Sagan's team have said the same thing about Peter but what is seen as an outrageous suggestion from Sky barely registers when another team come out with claptrap about one of their riders.... Its the double standards that are laughable, ditto the lack of insinuation re. Contactor's and Rodriquez early season form.... the silence is deafening and makes the fixation on Sky all the more obvious.
Enough people wanted to see USPS/Pharmstrong fail....it took time! But when it came crashing down it was beautiful and when Team Sky comes crashing down it too will look beautiful.deviant said:Where is this proof?...enough people want Sky to fail, let's see it.
Estimates on power based on guessing rider weights and TV observed climbing times?....yeah that's cast iron proof right there!
....or conspiracy theories about BC, the UCI, ASO etc....yep, that's not conjecture at all!
The doubters are as as bad as the pro Sky ranks, you're convinced they're doping and won't entertain any other views.
Will Sky though? As someone else alluded to, Team Sky could be the Indurain of their era. I just think all those Olympic champions, knighthoods, OBEs etc to be implicated will be too much, it would be made to 'go away'. Then again before the Landis bombshell, most people thought Armstrong had gotten away with it.BYOP88 said:Enough people wanted to see USPS/Pharmstrong fail....it took time! But when it came crashing down it was beautiful and when Team Sky comes crashing down it too will look beautiful.
Do knighthoods and OBE's mean anything?SundayRider said:Will Sky though? As someone else alluded to, Team Sky could be the Indurain of their era. I just think all those Olympic champions, knighthoods, OBEs etc to be implicated will be too much, it would be made to 'go away'. Then again before the Landis bombshell, most people thought Armstrong had gotten away with it.
True, it does. However the glory seems to be shared out a lot more at Sky than it was at USPS, so to me anyway, it seems less likely that one of them would do a Floyd. Could be wrong though and I hope that I am wrong!BYOP88 said:Do knighthoods and OBE's mean anything?
Sky might get away with it, but as you said lots of people including Armstrong thought he was going to get away with it. Just needs one UKPostal member to turn into the Brit version of Floyd.
is that ag2r? no but they got peak generation nowFerminal said:Did ALM ever stop doping?
Seriously?...are you a 14 yr old girl?BYOP88 said:Good that you had a 'try', but best go back to the minor leagues for some more seasoning before you have another go in the show.
It is possible, Sky may not ever get busted. That will be too bad for the sport. When their team goes on the massive fail, and it will, only matter of time. I think the cracks are starting to show now,. There is only so much eperimental doping they can do. It will all be explained away however with some lame *** PR bu11sh1t from the Sky scum.SundayRider said:Will Sky though? As someone else alluded to, Team Sky could be the Indurain of their era. I just think all those Olympic champions, knighthoods, OBEs etc to be implicated will be too much, it would be made to 'go away'. Then again before the Landis bombshell, most people thought Armstrong had gotten away with it.
Correct! But other teams/riders don't have fanboys defending them. Take a look at the OPQS/Movistar threads no one there is defending them. Look at the Sky threads and you have fanboys defending, hence the Sky/Sky related threads are 8983983 times bigger than the other teams.deviant said:Seriously?...are you a 14 yr old girl?
Who actually talks like this?
The forum is good fun but you're taking it far too seriously if you think it is some kind of 'show' with winners and losers....like i said in previous posts, the Sky bashing is not without merit but it should be dealt with in an even handed manner with an acknowledgment that if Sky's top boys are doping them so are pretty much averybody else at the top table in cycling, the Clinic comes across as ridiculously one sided at times.
A guy like bruyneel might have dirt on one or the other sky rider, though to put it mildly bruyneel has a credibility problem.SundayRider said:True, it does. However the glory seems to be shared out a lot more at Sky than it was at USPS, so to me anyway, it seems less likely that one of them would do a Floyd. Could be wrong though and I hope that I am wrong!
Does anyone believe that Froome could bag 5-7 Tours in a row like Indurain- Lance did, without tripping the wire?SundayRider said:Will Sky though? As someone else alluded to, Team Sky could be the Indurain of their era. I just think all those Olympic champions, knighthoods, OBEs etc to be implicated will be too much, it would be made to 'go away'. Then again before the Landis bombshell, most people thought Armstrong had gotten away with it.
SundayRider said:Will Sky though? As someone else alluded to, Team Sky could be the Indurain of their era. I just think all those Olympic champions, knighthoods, OBEs etc to be implicated will be too much, it would be made to 'go away'. Then again before the Landis bombshell, most people thought Armstrong had gotten away with it.
Only problem is evolution. The next criminal always learns from the mistakes of the first, and won't fall the way the first did. That's how it always is. Sky fall if they make some other mistake, buy they've seen how Landis took lance down, all the more so considering how close Wiggins himself was to lance and how much sky tried to emulate usps. They won't make the same mistakes Armstrong did.BYOP88 said:Do knighthoods and OBE's mean anything?
Sky might get away with it, but as you said lots of people including Armstrong thought he was going to get away with it. Just needs one UKPostal member to turn into the Brit version of Floyd.
Correct - I think what people forget is how careless and open lance was about his doping. So many knew, because he didn't make much of an effort to hide it.The Hitch said:Only problem is evolution. The next criminal always learns from the mistakes of the first, and won't fall the way the first did. That's how it always is. Sky fall if they make some other mistake, buy they've seen how Landis took lance down, all the more so considering how close Wiggins himself was to lance and how much sky tried to emulate usps. They won't make the same mistakes Armstrong did.
Must put a great deal of mental/psychological strain keeping it secret (to other riders/team staff etc) than the LA approach of being open.Digger said:Correct - I think what people forget is how careless and open lance was about his doping. So many knew, because he didn't make much of an effort to hide it.
In a general level, not related to sky here, the word is that doping these days is similar but much more secret, cut throat, back stabbing than before.
According to CAS Alberto Velasquez is guilty of taking a contaminated supplement. You may know he's guilty but they decided he wasn't. Either have due process or don't bother.BYOP88 said:The rest has been answered.
You must be new to cycling or did you miss Wiggans' 2012 early season form, Feb-August or last year when Froome also did the early season form cycle of Feb-August? EDIT:So if Contador and J-Rod are fishy, what does that say about Wiggans and Froome?
Contador is a busted doper and like the rest who've been caught should NOT be allowed to race again. But using Contador and J-Rod as a smoke screen wont cut the mustard in the clinic. Good that you had a 'try', but best go back to the minor leagues for some more seasoning before you have another go in the show.
Hiring doping doctor Leinders is evidence. Hiring Ex USPS Yates and Barry. Hiring Jullich and Rogers. The whole marginal gains that makes Sky better than the rest BS, they train harder than everyone else BS, the pineapple juice in their water bidons BS, the mechanics not getting wet while working BS, all the Sky lies, it all points to a team lying about the obvious, DOPING.deviant said:Where is this proof?...enough people want Sky to fail, let's see it.
Estimates on power based on guessing rider weights and TV observed climbing times?....yeah that's cast iron proof right there!
....or conspiracy theories about BC, the UCI, ASO etc....yep, that's not conjecture at all!
The doubters are as as bad as the pro Sky ranks, you're convinced they're doping and won't entertain any other views.
Seem to remember him losing a few GT titles and other stage races and getting banned too. So what would have happened if "they" had found him guilty?Peter70 said:According to CAS Alberto Velasquez is guilty of taking a contaminated supplement. You may know he's guilty but they decided he wasn't. Either have due process or don't bother.
Contador was guilty of having Clenbuterol in his body when tested. That was a 2 year ban. Doping.Peter70 said:According to CAS Alberto Velasquez is guilty of taking a contaminated supplement. You may know he's guilty but they decided he wasn't. Either have due process or don't bother.
If you have time I would be interested in knowing when 'Management' was replaced by 'Performance' and a medical team listed.GuyIncognito said:Name any other date, I'll fetch the staff for you. No Leinders.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
N | Lance Armstrong Appreciation Thread: Part Deux | The Clinic | 10 |
Similar threads |
---|
Lance Armstrong Appreciation Thread: Part Deux |