Response :gazr99 said:Sky is the most disliked team in the peloton (they sort have brought that on themselves) and people believe they are doping because they win the TDF regularly
I don't doubt there are threads about other teams, it's just generally in sport, success breeds content. Look at the likes of Schumacher in F1 and Manchester United under Ferguson. Even in cycling there are examples over the years, the fan who punched Merckx, the French preferred Pulidor to the man who beat him constantly Anquetil.
You've lost the plot a little. Once one "finds" their "world class performance" level, there is no going back. Going back to the earlier profile will set off all the alarms. Why does anyone think Sky hired docs with doping experience--to bandage the boo-boos or run internal testing controls so they could get out front and demand testers travel to Tenerife with them?IndianCyclist said:After Vuelta 2011, Froome's data has been consistent which indicates that there is little doping involved. It is the jump in 6 months from zero to hero in the 2011 season that is difficult to explain as it is unheard of except with the greatest GT talents who are usually found at a very young age(mind you that this has also been proven wrong with Ricco) compared to Froome. Sky have explained it as Bilharzia.
Also Wiggins TT position is to minimize any body movement except for pedaling and steering to minimize losses and improve aerodynamics. Froome's TT position is all over the bike and yet he is close to the TT specialists.
It is difficult to explain all of this as "Marginal Gains" which Sky repeatedly tries to do
Plus the rather hypocritical way of hiring only those who sign their zero doping policy helps those with the omerta attitude like Knaven whereas the more repentant guys like Julich and De Jongh get kicked out. if all their employees were truthful more than 50% would be probably kicked out
The Yates brothers seem to be copingKing Boonen said:The economy problems have hit Bury market hard...Catwhoorg said:Black Pudding shortage ?
Say it ain't so
Locals get first dibs.Avoriaz said:The Yates brothers seem to be copingKing Boonen said:The economy problems have hit Bury market hard...Catwhoorg said:Black Pudding shortage ?
Say it ain't so
It makes me smile when someone comes out with a statement like the bolded with such certainty.red_flanders said:I didn't ask you to prove anything. I asked you to make the case that he's clean (since you appear to believe he is), to tell me where he gained the tremendous amount of power he's gained over his early career, since you brought up the progression of training and athletic performance. Since the bilharzia nonsense has been thoroughly debunked, I am curious to hear the explanation.Tommy79 said:That sums it up, both sides throwing out challenges with jack squat to back them up. I can't prove he is clean, obviously. You can't prove he is dirty so we can just bicker and wait for some evidence.red_flanders said:The case that the "gains" you speak of are nonsense has been made over and over. You're claiming they're possible. It's an extraordinary claim given the evidence. Back it up.Tommy79 said:Prove these gains aren’t possible. Please.
What would make you guys believe Froome is clean?
Going offline now to avoid spoils.
We've been watching Froome ride for long enough to form an informed opinion on whether he's doping. It's outside the realm of possibility, IMO, that he's doing it clean.
Since you're the one claiming the miracle of the clean rider, make the case. But no, you don't answer the questions, you just throw out challenges and back them up with jack squat.
Every day without evidence makes it more likely he is clean.
There has been a mountain of evidence provided which shows he's doped. There is a large and well documented case against him being clean. It's not proof, but it's more than enough to draw a conclusion. Make the case that he's clean.
Again, let's be clear about the distinction between proof and evidence. You're correct, there is no irrefutable proof he's doped. But there is substantial, incontrovertible evidence of it. Let's hear the evidence to the contrary.
Nice try at nitpicking. There are lots of over the top conspiracy theories flying around over the internet, and also in this thread, but it doesn't change the fact that the Bilharzia story is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictory statements. At the very least, it makes every thinking and unbiased person even more sceptical about Froomes transformation.del1962 said:It makes me smile when someone comes out with a statement like the bolded with such certainty.red_flanders said:I didn't ask you to prove anything. I asked you to make the case that he's clean (since you appear to believe he is), to tell me where he gained the tremendous amount of power he's gained over his early career, since you brought up the progression of training and athletic performance. Since the bilharzia nonsense has been thoroughly debunked, I am curious to hear the explanation.Tommy79 said:That sums it up, both sides throwing out challenges with jack squat to back them up. I can't prove he is clean, obviously. You can't prove he is dirty so we can just bicker and wait for some evidence.red_flanders said:The case that the "gains" you speak of are nonsense has been made over and over. You're claiming they're possible. It's an extraordinary claim given the evidence. Back it up.Tommy79 said:Prove these gains aren’t possible. Please.
What would make you guys believe Froome is clean?
Going offline now to avoid spoils.
We've been watching Froome ride for long enough to form an informed opinion on whether he's doping. It's outside the realm of possibility, IMO, that he's doing it clean.
Since you're the one claiming the miracle of the clean rider, make the case. But no, you don't answer the questions, you just throw out challenges and back them up with jack squat.
Every day without evidence makes it more likely he is clean.
There has been a mountain of evidence provided which shows he's doped. There is a large and well documented case against him being clean. It's not proof, but it's more than enough to draw a conclusion. Make the case that he's clean.
Again, let's be clear about the distinction between proof and evidence. You're correct, there is no irrefutable proof he's doped. But there is substantial, incontrovertible evidence of it. Let's hear the evidence to the contrary.
The problem is build your case against Froome on shaky assumptions and presenting it as incontrevertible evidence.
Not nitpicking but pointing out a logical fallacy that's allPõhja Konn said:Nice try at nitpicking. There are lots of over the top conspiracy theories flying around over the internet, and also in this thread, but it doesn't change the fact that the Bilharzia story is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictory statements. At the very least, it makes every thinking and unbiased person even more sceptical about Froomes transformation.
If Froome is really clean, Sky should release all his data, starting with his Barloworld days. If they are not prepared to do this, they have no right to complain about all the doping innuendo flying around.
Except they debunkeddel1962 said:Not nitpicking but pointing out a logical fallacy that's allPõhja Konn said:Nice try at nitpicking. There are lots of over the top conspiracy theories flying around over the internet, and also in this thread, but it doesn't change the fact that the Bilharzia story is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictory statements. At the very least, it makes every thinking and unbiased person even more sceptical about Froomes transformation.
If Froome is really clean, Sky should release all his data, starting with his Barloworld days. If they are not prepared to do this, they have no right to complain about all the doping innuendo flying around.
Inconsistencies tend not to prove anything. if you have three different people describing an event you often get inconsistencies between their stories. That is how the world works not in 1's and 0's like a software program.
Now if you had three experts on tropical diseases describing it you are less likely to get inconsistencies in their accounts, but even then you could still have differences.
To say that the Bilhazaria story makes every thinking and unbiased person more skeptical is in my opinion flawed logic.
oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive....del1962 said:Not nitpicking but pointing out a logical fallacy that's allPõhja Konn said:Nice try at nitpicking. There are lots of over the top conspiracy theories flying around over the internet, and also in this thread, but it doesn't change the fact that the Bilharzia story is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictory statements. At the very least, it makes every thinking and unbiased person even more sceptical about Froomes transformation.
If Froome is really clean, Sky should release all his data, starting with his Barloworld days. If they are not prepared to do this, they have no right to complain about all the doping innuendo flying around.
Inconsistencies tend not to prove anything. if you have three different people describing an event you often get inconsistencies between their stories. That is how the world works not in 1's and 0's like a software program.
Now if you had three experts on tropical diseases describing it you are less likely to get inconsistencies in their accounts, but even then you could still have differences.
To say that the Bilhazaria story makes every thinking and unbiased person more skeptical is in my opinion flawed logic.
Awesome.gillan1969 said:oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive....
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/09/05/12932.aspx
Interesting stuff.Dear Wiggo said:Awesome.gillan1969 said:oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive....
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/09/05/12932.aspx
you don't need to clutch at straws with Froome...its just funnyTommy79 said:And of course exercise induced asthma is a different game all together.
But great to see the clinic clutching at straws in action.
which is fine...only Froome's weren't...or were they? we just don't know....armchairclimber said:"But when the worms were eradicated by drugs the children then developed increased allergic responses."
Just sayin.
actually...or in fact that he is possibly the only current DS that has been questioned under caution in a police cell on doping related matters...you know...gillan1969 said:you don't need to clutch at straws with Froome...its just funnyTommy79 said:And of course exercise induced asthma is a different game all together.
But great to see the clinic clutching at straws in action.
you know...like not knowing his weight and then giving a weight that shows he's 'bulked-up' since the Dauphine...that sort of funny
or Brailsford claiming on the radio this morning that in his 15 years there has been "nothing"...no Hayles, no Lienders, no JTL, no Henao, no TUEs, no Tramadol, no missed tests...you know "nothing"...that sort of funny![]()
red_flanders said:It does your arguments little credit for you to come back with a comment like this after reading (we assume) dozens if not scores of well thought-out posts which go into detail into why people think Sky is doping.gazr99 said:Sky is the most disliked team in the peloton (they sort have brought that on themselves) and people believe they are doping because they win the TDF regularlydwyatt said:Could someone summarize this thread for me, thanks?
I've literally never heard anyone claim they think Sky are doping because they win. This race or any other. It's weak for you to make that assertion.
Great headlines, but none of those things actually mean anything under closer inspection. You're always missing the next few steps that would make them damning. Why do you think that is?gillan1969 said:actually...or in fact that he is possibly the only current DS that has been questioned under caution in a police cell on doping related matters...you know...gillan1969 said:you don't need to clutch at straws with Froome...its just funnyTommy79 said:And of course exercise induced asthma is a different game all together.
But great to see the clinic clutching at straws in action.
you know...like not knowing his weight and then giving a weight that shows he's 'bulked-up' since the Dauphine...that sort of funny
or Brailsford claiming on the radio this morning that in his 15 years there has been "nothing"...no Hayles, no Lienders, no JTL, no Henao, no TUEs, no Tramadol, no missed tests...you know "nothing"...that sort of funny![]()
![]()
Jan put it better than I could..."if you still can't put two and two together, then you are beyond my help"Tommy79 said:Great headlines, but none of those things actually mean anything under closer inspection. You're always missing the next few steps that would make them damning. Why do you think that is?gillan1969 said:actually...or in fact that he is possibly the only current DS that has been questioned under caution in a police cell on doping related matters...you know...gillan1969 said:you don't need to clutch at straws with Froome...its just funnyTommy79 said:And of course exercise induced asthma is a different game all together.
But great to see the clinic clutching at straws in action.
you know...like not knowing his weight and then giving a weight that shows he's 'bulked-up' since the Dauphine...that sort of funny
or Brailsford claiming on the radio this morning that in his 15 years there has been "nothing"...no Hayles, no Lienders, no JTL, no Henao, no TUEs, no Tramadol, no missed tests...you know "nothing"...that sort of funny![]()
![]()
But.... you've put 2 and 2 together and come up with 74?gillan1969 said:Jan put it better than I could..."if you still can't put two and two together, then you are beyond my help"Tommy79 said:Great headlines, but none of those things actually mean anything under closer inspection. You're always missing the next few steps that would make them damning. Why do you think that is?gillan1969 said:actually...or in fact that he is possibly the only current DS that has been questioned under caution in a police cell on doping related matters...you know...gillan1969 said:you don't need to clutch at straws with Froome...its just funnyTommy79 said:And of course exercise induced asthma is a different game all together.
But great to see the clinic clutching at straws in action.
you know...like not knowing his weight and then giving a weight that shows he's 'bulked-up' since the Dauphine...that sort of funny
or Brailsford claiming on the radio this morning that in his 15 years there has been "nothing"...no Hayles, no Lienders, no JTL, no Henao, no TUEs, no Tramadol, no missed tests...you know "nothing"...that sort of funny![]()
![]()
to the bolded points:wendybnt said:red_flanders said:It does your arguments little credit for you to come back with a comment like this after reading (we assume) dozens if not scores of well thought-out posts which go into detail into why people think Sky is doping.gazr99 said:Sky is the most disliked team in the peloton (they sort have brought that on themselves) and people believe they are doping because they win the TDF regularlydwyatt said:Could someone summarize this thread for me, thanks?
I've literally never heard anyone claim they think Sky are doping because they win. This race or any other. It's weak for you to make that assertion.
Actually, it isn't a bad argument at all. Does any body really think there has been a clean winner in the past quarter of a century?
The only one who posted signficantly reduced numbers (while beating Contador and Schleckette) is Evans.Catwhoorg said:The only non-sanctioned winners in the EPO era
Sastre (2008)
Evans
Wiggo
Froome
Nibali
80% are the most recent winners, so haven't stood the test of time as of yet.
There is reasonable doubt as to Sastre (but thats discussion for another thread).