Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[martinvickers]

As some of those who argue for the possible cleanliness have already stated and conceded (because it's blatantly obvious and has been stated a hundred times on this thread) there is plenty of evidence against Sky which strongly suggests they are doping.

For someone to continually re-assert that there is no evidence is not only illogical, wrong and frankly dumb...or it's just pure trolling.

I wait with baited breath for the genius response to follow.

Here's the genius response, red. You completely misunderstood the f***ing point. Not for the first time.

The point isn't about what evidence exists for any team, Sky or otherwise, doping; the point was about Benotti specifically simply spewing rhetoric about the sport and claiming it as fact.

Hitch brings evidence sometimes, Wiggo too sometimes.

Benotti just talks sh!te and expects it to be taken seriously. Not happening.

Genius enough for you?

"frankly dumb" ...good self-description, Red.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I am confused - are you arguing that Froome is not doping? Or that he is not as bad as others?

That he is on bread and wather like Bassons was, is highly unlikely. I am not naive.
Either he is working in a very grey (but still legal) area, or microdosing, or on some kind of advanced methods the (almost) whole peloton is knowing/using.

What he certainly not is: The lone über doper, the over-the-top-doper like grandpa.
He certainly is not transfusing year round with some kind of Siberia method TH described.
He is not on all-in Alien mode like Horner was at last years absurd Vuelta.

So I repeat what I always said: I don´t know if he´s doping or not. Given his career path, I personally think his rise is not as unusal as it´s assumed here. Other transformations were way more implausible...

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

nice try but no cigar on the tax analogy.....

Lordy. Some of you folk just read what you want to read...

I've passed no comment in this exchange on whether Froome is clean or otherwise. I've simply stated that it's not possible for anyone to prove he hasn't doped, as proving a negative is logically impossible.

The reference to tax was simply to get Sceptic thinking a little more broadly about logic and proving negatives. I could just have easily have said that Mother Thereas wouldn't have been able to prove she didn't eat orphan babies.

Not that anyone ever takes any notice when I make my observations on Froome - I've stated my position a good half a dozen times in my time here - but I think he's doped to the eyeballs and back again, because of the performance jump aged 26 or so at the back end of 2011.

 

[Catwhoorg]

That he is on bread and wather like Bassons was, is highly unlikely. I am not naive.
Either he is working in a very grey (but still legal) area, or microdosing, or on some kind of advanced methods the (almost) whole peloton is knowing/using.

What he certainly not is: The lone über doper, the over-the-top-doper like grandpa.
He certainly is not transfusing year round with some kind of Siberia method TH described.
He is not on all-in Alien mode like Horner was at last years absurd Vuelta.

So I repeat what I always said: I don´t know if he´s doping or not. Given his career path, I personally think his rise is not as unusal as it´s assumed here. Other transformations were way more implausible...

As I said in another thread, I have little doubt many of the pro-cyclists are operating in a WADA compliant way, but still using artificial substances to enhance performance. Be it directly, or through weight loss.

Finish bottles are just the tip of the iceberg.


Is it doping though ? Per the WADA rules, no.
By a 'gut check', well thats a different set of criteria for each indidivual.

 

[Netserk]

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

And round and round we go...

Is the assertion that Froome and Wiggins are doping without evidence?

 

[Ripper]

That he is on bread and wather like Bassons was, is highly unlikely. I am not naive.
Either he is working in a very grey (but still legal) area, or microdosing, or on some kind of advanced methods the (almost) whole peloton is knowing/using.

What he certainly not is: The lone über doper, the over-the-top-doper like grandpa.
He certainly is not transfusing year round with some kind of Siberia method TH described.
He is not on all-in Alien mode like Horner was at last years absurd Vuelta.

So I repeat what I always said: I don´t know if he´s doping or not. Given his career path, I personally think his rise is not as unusal as it´s assumed here. Other transformations were way more implausible...

So if I am understanding you correctly, you are uncertain, but believe Froome to either be clean, or to be doing some minor form of doping (or perhaps just stretching the ethics but not breaking the rules) that is in line with what you believe the majority of other riders are doing.

Does that sum it up?

 

[The Hitch]

Is the assertion that Froome and Wiggins are doping without evidence?

No it isn't

 

[Justinr]

sky defenders base their opinions on faith, hope, and nationalism rather than logic and facts. Thats why the question "can you explain how Froome is clean" never gets answered.

And what 'facts' do you have to support that they are dirty? Just re-read what I asked - FACTS.

 

[ralphbert]

And what 'facts' do you have to support that they are dirty? Just re-read what I asked - FACTS.

Fact 1. Froome performance was not world class pre 2011
Fact 2. Froome performance post 2011 is amongst the best ever recorded

Analysis: Difference in power between pre/post is calculated at 20%

Conclusion: Those gains aren't marginal.

 

[Jack (6 ch)]

Fact 1. Froome performance was not world class pre 2011
Fact 2. Froome performance post 2011 is amongst the best ever recorded

Analysis: Difference in power between pre/post is calculated at 20%

Conclusion: Those gains aren't marginal.

There's an easy explanation, using the tax analogy. He won the lottery. Boom. Loadsamoney!

 

[Justinr]

Fact 1. Froome performance was not world class pre 2011
Fact 2. Froome performance post 2011 is amongst the best ever recorded

Analysis: Difference in power between pre/post is calculated at 20%

Conclusion: Those gains aren't marginal.

Those are suspicions of doping and not facts that they are.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The underlying logic is relevant though - you can't prove a negative. This feeds into legal systems and proving/explaining things on a forum.

Try and prove to me that you haven't fiddled your tax returns if you dispute this point!

From the outside, there's no consistency to the UCI's behaviour regarding sports fraud. That could be doping or buying races, or whatever controversial innovation.


While it's true you can't prove a negative. You can't assume the sports federation is even vaguely consistent so as to use some kind of logic to make conclusions.

 

[BYOP88]

Those are suspicions of doping and not facts that they are.

You could say there are also no facts to prove that he isn't doping. History has shown us that riders have doped and not been caught.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Those are suspicions of doping and not facts that they are.

So, we're just going to wait for SOL and the admissions to follow? In the meantime, the principals of the sport are plainly uncertain thanks to oxygen vector doping technology and a federation that does not sanction dopers.

If the UCI wanted to just admit they pick winners and it be some kind of entertainment wrestling franchise, that would be fine. But they don't. They pretend it's the "cleanest peloton ever" as if there is a fair race taking place.

 

[The Hitch]

Those are suspicions of doping and not facts that they are.

When I offered you facts after you made a factually incorrect comment on Bilharzia, you suddenly disapeared from the thread, and made sure not to come back until it was safely off the page.

So I don't think you are qualified to talk to anyone about facts.

 

[SeriousSam]

And what 'facts' do you have to support that they are dirty? Just re-read what I asked - FACTS.

You don't appear to understand what evidence is, and neither, apparently, what facts are. Not to worry, here are the basics. A fact (a true claim about the world) is evidence for the hypothesis that Froome is/has been dopingjust in case it is more likely given Froome is doping than it is given that he isn't doping.

One such fact is Froome's enormous improvement in a short time. More likely if he's doping than if he isn't, hence evidence he's doping.

Those are suspicions of doping and not facts that they are.

No, those are true claims about the world, aka facts, that are more likely to be true if Froome dopes than if he doesn't dope. In science and statistics, we call that evidence.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

So if I am understanding you correctly, you are uncertain, but believe Froome to either be clean, or to be doing some minor form of doping (or perhaps just stretching the ethics but not breaking the rules) that is in line with what you believe the majority of other riders are doing.

Does that sum it up?

Yes, pretty much, with the lone exception that I think it´s highly unlikely that he is clean in a Bassons, Casar, Mottet*, Dellion, or Moncoutie way (the 5 riders I believe in).

Most likely is either the legal, but as Catworg described, unethical "grey area option", or micro doping.

Way over top transfusions a la Vuelta-Horner can be excluded, b/c if he´d be on such program, we´d see him suffer trou some really bad results in small preparatory races, like it happened to TH and (back then) friends when they were blood less.

Then there is the tiny chance of year round siberia like transfusions. If he is on something like this, he´ll be caught, b/c either one of the many insiders needed will talk, or some kind of police raid will capture evidence.

And then there is the dark theory. But I won´t discuss theories unless we get at least a rumor. I don´t wanna slide into conspiracy theories. That is no serious discussion...

* As i understood he was on some "cough medicine" or something once, but else pretty much clean vegetarian on diet (I trust Voet here. He had no reason to lie when he talked)

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

As I said in another thread, I have little doubt many of the pro-cyclists are operating in a WADA compliant way, but still using artificial substances to enhance performance. Be it directly, or through weight loss.

Finish bottles are just the tip of the iceberg.


Is it doping though ? Per the WADA rules, no.
By a 'gut check', well thats a different set of criteria for each indidivual.

I completely agree. I firstly realized that weight loss fetish when Gerdemann showed up more skinny than ever for the TdF-2009. Personally I think he was clean after the introduction of the BP. I guess he still is BTW.

 

[gooner]

From a premiership team yeah he'll be right clean that lad.

It was Freeman who came from Bolton and later to Sky. But hey, mine and others sky subscriptions helped him to run a doping program back then. That's why Sky hired him.

 

[Hawkwood]

No, those are true claims about the world, aka facts, that are more likely to be true if Froome dopes than if he doesn't dope. In science and statistics, we call that evidence.

Lol, would that be the same as `Lies, damned lies, and statistics'?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Lol, would that be the same as `Lies, damned lies, and statistics'?

What wrong with stats? Cold hard facts they are. They only become lies when missunderstood, missused, twisted, or plainly manipulated.

 

[Benotti69]

It was Freeman who came from Bolton and later to Sky. But hey, mine and others sky subscriptions helped him to run a doping program back then. That's why Sky hired him.

Dont forget Sky hired Leinders. And there is still Knaven, another shining beacon of cleanliness working at Sky.

 

[ralphbert]

Those are suspicions of doping and not facts that they are.

I have taken two facts, analysed them and made an inference. That's what grown ups do in the real world when incomplete information is available. You should try it. If you had to wait until the complete picture was revealed the the world would be a paralysed place. And a lot less fun, piecing the puzzle together is a lot more rewarding than looking at the puzzle completed.

 

[Afrank]

Those are suspicions of doping and not facts that they are.

There are hundreds of facts about Froome, from his transformation, to inconsistencies in his claims, to his performances. And if you look at all of them together, you can draw one very simple conclusion from them. He is doping. Facts add up to create the very plausible conclusion of doping.

I assume only a positive test or admittance would finally be enough for you to come to the conclusion he is doping. Given the history of the sport and of the UCI, I'm not going to wait for a positive test (should it ever come) to come to the conclusion he is doping. It took over 10 years for everyone to come to the conclusion that Armstrong doped, personally, I'm not going to wait that long.

 

[gooner]

Dont forget Sky hired Leinders. And there is still Knaven, another shining beacon of cleanliness working at Sky.

I'm not on about Leinders, you can criticise and point that out continually if you wish to, you won't hear any argument from me.

You referred mistakenly to Farrell as a doping doctor and used working at Bolton as evidence. You meant Freeman but nevertheless the point remains, how can you accuse him of being dodgy from his previous work in football?

There are hundreds of facts about Froome, from his transformation, to inconsistencies in his claims, to his performances. And if you look at all of them together, you can draw one very simple conclusion from them. He is doping. Facts add up to create the very plausible conclusion of doping.

I assume only a positive test or admittance would finally be enough for you to come to the conclusion he is doping. Given the history of the sport and of the UCI, I'm not going to wait for a positive test (should it ever come) to come to the conclusion he is doping. It took over 10 years for everyone to come to the conclusion that Armstrong doped, personally, I'm not going to wait that long.

There was a lot more substantial detail in the public domain to inform people about Armstrong's doping long before 10 years.