- Jul 8, 2012
- 105
- 0
- 0
ferryman said:No, he means people like you. Didn't you get it or are you going to come back and counter the points he made about people like you?
People like me? Does he know me?
ferryman said:No, he means people like you. Didn't you get it or are you going to come back and counter the points he made about people like you?
Benotti69 said:Barry Glendenning who does the 'minute by minute' on the guardian is calling something similar to Kimmage in his reports.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/12/tour-de-france-stage-11-live
some examples of his
The Cobra said:I repeat what I said in the power estimates thread. The riders that are actually releasing their data are showing some of the lowest power numbers we've ever seen for final climbs in the Tour. You guys are crazy with Sky hate and ignoring reality. The stage was done at a slow pace. The power numbers are low. Where's the evidence of doping?? If sky turned up with this kind of form a few years ago they'd all get slaughtered on the first climb!
Benotti69 said:You cant. This GT team has been training and racing together for how long now? Since La Vuelta last year? If Froome was working with someone else Sky would know about it.
taiwan said:Wiggins is the long term project, the trusted name, Froome, concened about potentially losing his contract at the end of the season, tries somehing new at the Vuelta, and turns into Ricco. Naive fans are impressed at the awakening of this sleeping giant, and he becomes a big name. Sky obviously have to maintain he's clean, and he has forced his way into their plans.
Darryl Webster said:What utter tosh...a quick Google would have told him this :"Brailsford revealed that Team Sky are investigating Leinders' past and acknowledged that there may be a "reputational risk".
And then this: "Brailsford and Team Sky reconsidered their medical policy – initially no practitioners with a background in cycling were to be hired – after the death of the carer Txema González following a bacterial infection contracted during the 2010 Vuelta a España, citing the need for specialist knowledge to put the riders first."
Txema was NOT a rider but support staff and this is just downright insulting to even bring up let alone use to justify the hiring of Leinders.
Brailfords clutching at straws here and taking the **** out of anyone who knows the game.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/11/dave-brailsford-team-sky?newsfeed=true
And then he tells us Gert ISNT at the tour!..go figure.
PS... I,d bet a large part of my insignificant fortune(that Gert was at the Tennerife training camp. Wonder if any one could confirm or was it total media lock down?
Zam_Olyas said:Barry Glendenning @bglendenning
Mouth-foaming Sky fanboy bike fans keep identifying themselves by sending emails that begin 'I'm not a sky fan boy but ...'
Sounds like our lancey boys.
DirtyWorks said:For me, one of your crazies, it's contextual. Riders don't have to wear HRM's to bed to stay alive with the doping. That era is done. So, what you have is a firm upper boundary of various blood values and your more reasonable performances. But they (not just sky) are still not doing this race on beet root juice alone.
I also think Sky is playing it smart and trying not to 'break the script' like Froome did today. I think 3-10 places will still shuffle, but Wiggo and Froome won't lose meaningful time to anyone, won't look like they are under much pressure for the climbs unlike their competitors and then clobber everyone on the last TT with a ridiculous performance.
To put it as simply as possible, these guys are coming out of nowhere with fantastic (as in fantasy) performances and then vanishing. We have seen exactly this kind of scenario from many dopers. Couple this with the "cleanest peloton ever" version 2012, and it seems like the preview to the next doping scandal, just like the last few.
Again, thanks for working the power output thread. I follow it closely and find it helpful.
mastersracer said:This would carry more weight if those condemning Sky relentlessly in fast proliferating threads on this site offered any evidence for their view, attempted to contextualize Sky's performance in this year's field, and offered any way to square their views with the power data thread.
mastersracer said:In other words, Sky are dominating a weak field, weakened by the fact that the top 2 contenders are absent, other teams have lost their GC riders due to crashes, and even a route that was intentionally designed not to give climbers an advantage.
mastersracer said:Froome is climbing well by pre-EPO standards, but markedly slower than 90s standards. So, the claim is that they are doping but with some agents that appear not to have much effect on performance. So, the claim is then that they are average riders who need this agent to perform at pre-EPO standards. Froome, Porte, Rogers - no palmares there!
In other words, their performance is not distinguishable from the null hypothesis that they are not doping or at least not using anything that isn't widely available to the rest of the peloton.
mastersracer said:As for Froome's attack today, Pinot jumped on it - he's the youngest rider in the Tour, and he beat Froom at the line. Does he get a pass? That attack put Wiggins into trouble (he can thank the organizers for not including an HC finish this year). Think what Contador or A. Schleck would have done to Wiggins today. Look at the GC after this stage - riders like Zubeldia whose recent finishes were 45th, 27th and 16th is in 6th.
mastersracer said:Doping agents have always had a random distribution in the peloton - no one team has had access to some secret agent, so how exactly is Sky dominating (albeit with a diluted agent that only makes you a good pro)?
Parrot23 said:LOL, sounds like people with too much time on their hands to me to have a real life outside of cyberspace.![]()
![]()
DirtyWorks said:For me, one of your crazies, it's contextual. Riders don't have to wear HRM's to bed to stay alive with the doping. That era is done. So, what you have is a firm upper boundary of various blood values and your more reasonable performances. But they (not just sky) are still not doing this race on beet root juice alone.
I also think Sky is playing it smart and trying not to 'break the script' like Froome did today. I think 3-10 places will still shuffle, but Wiggo and Froome won't lose meaningful time to anyone, won't look like they are under much pressure for the climbs unlike their competitors and then clobber everyone on the last TT with a ridiculous performance.
To put it as simply as possible, these guys are coming out of nowhere with fantastic (as in fantasy) performances and then vanishing. We have seen exactly this kind of scenario from many dopers. Couple this with the "cleanest peloton ever" version 2012, and it seems like the preview to the next doping scandal, just like the last few.
Again, thanks for working the power output thread. I follow it closely and find it helpful.
Fergoose said:Froome’s own blog indicates he was out of action from mid-February until the start of April while he overcame a viral infection and underwent treatment for his recurring blood disease. Prior to that he’d been in Africa, presumably without his team. This would in theory give him a couple of windows of opportunity to go rogue from the team? I’ve no idea about the time frames of the medical benefits of the PEDs doing the rounds, but I’d imagine he could undergo treatments in April that would benefit him in July? That way the team being together in Tenerife becomes less damning.
Fergoose said:But Wiggins only has a couple of years left in him and probably won’t get a better opportunity (competitors, ITT miles) to win the tour. So hypothetically, why, as team management, would you leave him in markedly inferior condition to Froome – particularly if Froome proved whatever he did to ace the Vuelta hasn’t been detected? If you can turn Froome into a consistent GT podium (and arguably by far the best GT rider of the past 9 months), you can definitely take the Wiggins you inherited from Garmin and make him better than Froome.
Fergoose said:My personal opinion is Froome is doping. I am not daft enough to close the door to the possibility that any teams (e.g. Sky) are doping. I just can’t rationalise it in my head. If Froome hadn’t had his mechanical he’d be less than a minute behind Wiggins and giving the stated Sky project of a “British” winner (i.e. Bradley) the mother of all headaches.
mastersracer said:Then explain Pinot. He's 22, his first Tour. Was 3rd last year in the Tour of Turkey. On a French team supposedly with a strong anti-doping stance. He was able to match Froome's attack today and then attacked when Froome let up. He then beat Froome at the line. Not to mention his solo win in stage 8. The 'logic' of this thread would be to say he's doping. Do the Sky haters think that?
The Cobra said:I don't deny that Sky appear very dodgy. At first glance this looks like textbook team doping. But when you look at the numbers, you look at the competition, you see the best riders of this generation are missing and I say really, where is the evidence? I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if someone from Sky did pop a postive, however I most certainly haven't seen anything to confirm beyond doubt that they are all juiced up to the eyeballs.
The Cobra said:I don't deny that Sky appear very dodgy. At first glance this looks like textbook team doping. But when you look at the numbers, you look at the competition, you see the best riders of this generation are missing and I say really, where is the evidence? I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if someone from Sky did pop a postive, however I most certainly haven't seen anything to confirm beyond doubt that they are all juiced up to the eyeballs.
mastersracer said:Then explain Pinot. He's 22, his first Tour. Was 3rd last year in the Tour of Turkey. On a French team supposedly with a strong anti-doping stance. He was able to match Froome's attack today and then attacked when Froome let up. He then beat Froome at the line. Not to mention his solo win in stage 8. The 'logic' of this thread would be to say he's doping. Do the Sky haters think that?
The Cobra said:I repeat what I said in the power estimates thread. The riders that are actually releasing their data are showing some of the lowest power numbers we've ever seen for final climbs in the Tour. You guys are crazy with Sky hate and ignoring reality. The stage was done at a slow pace. The power numbers are low. Where's the evidence of doping?? If sky turned up with this kind of form a few years ago they'd all get slaughtered on the first climb!
The Sky train know they don't have to ride till the end so they can bury themselves then sit up when other riders are trying to keep something back for later on in the stage. The biggest thing here is the level of competition they are facing. This year has been very poor no doubt. If Contador was here in top shape or Andy Schleck this thread wouldn't even exist. I have seen nothing to suggest rampant team doping so far based on reality not irrational sky hatred.
Zam_Olyas said:So you are saying "What am I on? I'm on my bike busting my *** six hours a day. What are you on?"![]()
mastersracer said:Do the Sky haters think that?
Libertine Seguros said:The problem is, this isn't 2008, the biopassport is in effect, and we have seen the amount of doping decrease significantly. But as a result of that, the kind of doping that would have turned you into a mediocre rider in 2006 could be the kind of doping that turns you into an unstoppable behemoth in 2012. You don't need to dope up like your namesake to be noticeably better than the competition today.
If it was just Wiggins, or was Wiggins and Froome, or even if it was all four, but Wiggins was the only one there every day, and it was a different 'other' with him each day as the others lost time, it wouldn't look so bad. But when guys like Mick Rogers are shelling guys like Cadel Evans, and still having two other domestiques behind him, it's just a bit too hard to handle for cycling fans who've seen this too often.
This isn't Saunier Duval 2008 or CSF-Navigare, where you could practically smell the dope coming off them as they dropped time then flew around the mountains. But it is LA-MSS spewing the whole péloton bar Garzelli out the back; it is Liberty Seguros in 2009, it is the US Postal train. It is the HTC train adapted for the mountains. You have the leader that wins then says stupid things in the interviews afterwards, disrespecting the fans, the competition or both; you have a no-nonsense Aussie leadout (though they need to get more violent); you have a Germanic guide who will sit through the early parts of the stage and pace the péloton... but here you have two leaders at the end, a two-headed hydra called Wime, or Froogins.
131313 said:"evidence" at this point is hard to come by, but given the sport's history it's ridiculous not to be highly suspicious of anyone winning a grand tour.
This, of course, is not true. There are numerous examples of teams having a competitive advantage via better doping methods: Gewiss and Postal being among the most notable. I don't know if Sky have some "secret weapon", but to suggest it's not out there flies in the face of history. I realize that goes against the mantra of "it's a level playing field, they're all doing it", but that's reality.
mastersracer said:It's fine if people want to flag Froome's performance as suspicious, but the line in this thread is that their team performance - mostly Froome - is sufficient to infer a systematic team doping program (with some science fiction agent X). Froome's performance is not better than his Vuelta TT or climbing performances (the climbing actually looks lower). I called them haters because they infer a giant conspiracy from Froome.
The drugs of choice - EPO, HGH, and testosterone - rapidly diffused across the peloton. I believe EPO was first used in Belgium, and a number of lower-tier riders were early adopters. There may be differences in terms of knowledge, but the agents themselves (or functional equivalents) were not exclusive for very long. These days, just about any agent a pro would use can be found on the Internet.
mastersracer said:The drugs of choice - EPO, HGH, and testosterone - rapidly diffused across the peloton. I believe EPO was first used in Belgium, and a number of lower-tier riders were early adopters. There may be differences in terms of knowledge, but the agents themselves (or functional equivalents) were not exclusive for very long. These days, just about any agent a pro would use can be found on the Internet.
mastersracer said:It's fine if people want to flag Froome's performance as suspicious, but the line in this thread is that their team performance - mostly Froome - is sufficient to infer a systematic team doping program (with some science fiction agent X). Froome's performance is not better than his Vuelta TT or climbing performances (the climbing actually looks lower). I called them haters because they infer a giant conspiracy from Froome.
The drugs of choice - EPO, HGH, and testosterone - rapidly diffused across the peloton. I believe EPO was first used in Belgium, and a number of lower-tier riders were early adopters. There may be differences in terms of knowledge, but the agents themselves (or functional equivalents) were not exclusive for very long. These days, just about any agent a pro would use can be found on the Internet.