Benotti69 said:So Grabovski is clean but Bassons not! You really know this sport.
don't bother if you can't even basic read
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Benotti69 said:So Grabovski is clean but Bassons not! You really know this sport.
Libertine Seguros said:Look, many of the things included under marginal gains do make performance differences. Many of them were done by other teams before Sky, many of them Sky themselves don't always adhere to. We've had a good laugh at some of the things being touted as marginal gains that have been around for years, or some of the things overlooked e.g. Froome wind tunnel testing. Some of it surely is nonsense or is exaggerated to a ludicrous extent by PR people who seemingly have no idea how silly they sound trying to sell us on how a bit of pineapple juice in the bidons would have justified Bjarne Riis. But that doesn't mean that all of it is necessarily nonsense, just that it's exaggerated to the point of turning it into a figure of fun.
Benotti69 said:For those complaining about content in this Sky thread, remember it is not like Sky spew enough laughable content themselves which has contributed to the length of this thread.
JimmyFingers said:That's a good story. However the drawn out nature of the thread is testament to a slow trodding around in ever decreasing circles. The debate hasn't moved forward in two years hence from once being active (as La Flo was at pains to point out) to a very occasional contribution. Because in that time nothing new has really emerged. We have performance and a brief association with Leinders. But nothing like the anecdotal and real proof that emerged about Armstrong from very early on, to whom everyone is so endlessly keen to compare Sky's operation to. It is an easy assumption to make, and not without good reason I will add, that Sky is merely the re-telling of pretty much every other success story in cycling, but there should be some respect for the opinion that its not as clear cut and easy as that. Justice is blind, and justice must be weighed on the evidence provided. To circumvent that delivers us into a mob mentality, which is what I rail against in here chiefly. For many the evidence is incontrovertible, and there's no need for the jury to retire, but others, like me, aren't willing to convict just yet. Apparently this makes me a Skybot, because I reserve judgement and seek to point out flaws in other people's logic where fit. But ultimately I want truth, and nothing else, and I want cheats out of the sport, whoever they are. Given the UCI's complicity in the Armstrong lie, I understand the lack of confidence in the authorities to effectively deal with the cheats, coupled with the paucity in testing and the advancing sophistication of the cheating taking place, but Armstrong was caught. The truth will out
Dear Wiggo said:It was a sincere question. From your answer I get the feeling you may be reading more into it than that. I'm not trying to have a laugh.
Armstrong and former UCI presidents Hein Verbruggen and Pat McQuaid will be invited for confidential, closed-door interviews with the panel which is based at Lausanne, Switzerland.
None of the trio has committed publicly to meeting with the panel, which is chaired by Swiss politician and prosecutor **** Marty.
Froome said the panel could engage "not just necessarily those three, but anyone really who is part of that era and can contribute to resolving it.''
"It's going to be more negative publicity for the sport. That's never good,'' Froome acknowledged.
Daniel Benson said:A gentle reminder that the topic is Sky, not the Sky thread and it's merits. Keep it on track please.
JimmyFingers said:I think that's the point: there's nothing new to really discuss, the the discussion turns in those ever decreasing circles I mentioned.
And on topic, great win by Stannard in the Omloop, a favourite rider of mine and pleasing that his win didn't merit the hysteria usually met with a Sky win. I have reservations about Froome, but not Stannard, at least not more than any rider, so hovering about the 85% mark
the sceptic said:I too hope for justice jimmy. maybe Horner and Contador will juice to the max and deliver sky some well deserved defeat. All is not lost yet.
the sceptic said:There is always new things to discuss, the season has just started and Froome already did 6.7w/kg for 20 minutes. I know this means nothing to you (unless it was Horner, then it is evidence of doping), but Im sure there is more to come this year. Stay tuned Jimmy.
JimmyFingers said:Strawman on Horner, I've never said his performance is evidence of anything. And I personally baulk at using performance as proof, and as I said, I have reservation about Froome.
Do you have reservation about Wiggins?JimmyFingers said:I don't think I 100% believe in anyone, just give them the benefit of the doubt until I am proved wrong.
Libertine Seguros said:Well, the immediate counterpoint to that would be that the characteristics of bilharzia mean that Froome effectively had a biopassport carte blanche at that point in time, all previous values could be argued artificially deflated due to the bilharzia. However, once he'd hit that 2011 Vuelta level, he was beholden to stay at it. Superpeaking isn't so much of an option in the days of the biopassport, so the levels obtained then, whether through legal or nefarious means, have to be maintained, otherwise you get busted for values that stand out once more tests at a different level come out, like happened to Antonio Amorim and Jonathan Tiernan-Locke.
RownhamHill said:This all very fair minded analysis, but it only takes us so far though doesn't it? By this I mean, if Froome was clean until Summer 2011 and then went on the 'full programme' how come he became so dominant so quickly? There's plenty of riders that have been popped in recent years for EPO etc (Di luca and Santiwhat'shisname at the Giro) and while they were decent riders, riding decently, they weren't pulling up any trees in comparison to what Froome has done since 2011. It's hard to imagine that Froome just started to dope in the usual fashion, and uniquely became the dominant athlete he has - unless he really has got a completely free pass from the UCI, and no-one else is doping, or something similar - which stretches my own personal credulity as much as his rapid rise.
And it's in that central mystery - just how did Froome rise so high, so rapidly - that the interesting ambiguity arises.
I dont pay him for the endorsementNetserk said:Here you go
Dario Cataldo @DarioCataldo 6 hrs
Piatto del giorno.... pic.twitter.com/azbqPiBlnj
implicit is, we dont recognise o2 carrying capacity as manifest talent, like say, Robbie Mcewen's jump and handling skills.Red Lobster said:The idea that not all athletes respond the same to this program or that program has been touted as underpinning the entire discussion around doping. It's one of the reasons doping does not create a level playing field. It has been posited that Armstrong was one such "super-responder" ... i.e., even if everybody was doing more or less the same thing, Armstrong's physiology allowed him to enjoy a significantly more pronounced benefit from doping. And thus the rejection of doping, quite apart from any moral objections ... that is, we don't want procycling to be about who has the "best" reaction to various pharmacological substances. Makes some sense on an intuitive level: if your HCT is naturally 47, how much do you stand to gain by taking it to 49? Clearly the guy starting at 39 has more low hanging fruit to pick.
So maybe Froome is just the "super-responder" du jour, and his dramatic improvement as compared to DiLuca or whoever should not be so surprising.