sniper said:(well ok, on a scale of nobrainer-hood, horner perhaps scores 10 out of 10, sky maybe score 9 out of 10)
Benotti69 said:Sky 9.99 out of 10
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!
sniper said:(well ok, on a scale of nobrainer-hood, horner perhaps scores 10 out of 10, sky maybe score 9 out of 10)
Benotti69 said:Sky 9.99 out of 10
Benotti69 said:Sky 9.99 out of 10
mortand said:
JimmyFingers said:My mate knows his sister and she has said he says he was set up by Sky, presumably because he turned out to be a bit **** so they could terminate his contract.
So bitter certainly, but also maintaining his clean-ness, so unlikely to blow a whistle until he is totally bang to rights, Landis-style.
Benotti69 said:Yes there is a chance, the Sky mechanics may not be doping......
Hawkwood said:Surely they're allowed cannabis?
Benotti69 said:Only if Wiggo shares his stash.......
JimmyFingers said:My mate knows his sister and she has said he says he was set up by Sky, presumably because he turned out to be a bit **** so they could terminate his contract.
So bitter certainly, but also maintaining his clean-ness, so unlikely to blow a whistle until he is totally bang to rights, Landis-style.
andy1234 said:Peters' background is in treating psychopaths and the criminally insane.
A few trackies didn't tax him too much.
Netserk said:What you seem to miss is that the assertion that Sky riders are doping is supported by evidence.
martinvickers said:I'd wager there's a couple of narcissistic personality disorders up in Manchester over the years....
Justinr said:Just a couple?
Justinr said:How could they set him up (and why?) - the blood tests weren't done by them (ignoring any ridiculous conspiracy posts that will likely be made). Think about it logically - why would they want a rider to have suspicious test results? It just looks bad for them, regardless of whether you think they are clean or not it just doesn't make sense. It would be like saying Saxo deliberately gave Rogers Clenbuterol. And as most people on here think SKY are doping then surely their program would sort out any performance issues that he might have been having.
I think its much more likely that he was dodgy beforehand or that the BP system is just shot to pieces (which is what a lot of people on here say / imply) - remember, his readings have gone DOWN since leaving NetApp, hardly evidence of current doping.
JimmyFingers said:Oh I'm not laying culpability at Sky's door, JTL is, apparently. More likely he's gotten out of his depth and caught out.
JimmyFingers said:Oh I'm not laying culpability at Sky's door, JTL is, apparently. More likely he's gotten out of his depth and caught out.
The Hitch said:Sky for me and others removed all doubt a long long time ago. I will not say that I don't know, because I do know. I am as certain of the fact that froome and Wiggins didn't just happen to both magically transform at the same time on the same team through a series of increasingly improbable coincidences, as I am of my own name.
martinvickers said:I'm being kind.
Certainly at least Pendleton, Wiggins a fair shout, imagine neither Romero nor Houvenaghal were a gallon of laughs to work on. Of the 2008 big guns only Hoy struck me as basically sane, in so much as any driven sportsman can be. The rest of the 'capos' (i.s not then kids like Kenny and Burke) were high maintenance to say the least.
All three of those women can't stand Brailsford, as far as memory serves - Houvenaghal also hates Sutton. Has no-one considered chasing them up for the 'dirt'? Ok, maybe pendleton has too much forward money value, but surely the other two are buyable?
Justinr said:No its not, its supported by suspicions. There is no evidence per se, or if there is it is circumstantial such as "they employed some people who were involved with dodgy teams". To be honest you'd probably struggle to find anyone who hadn't been involved with a team that was dodgy (be it team sponsored, team blind-eyed, or team unaware) - that doesn't mean they are doping. I agree it doesn't look good but its not concrete evidence.
In my opinion.
ev·i·dence
noun
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
red_flanders said:Circumstantial evidence is by definition, evidence. It's not the best kind of evidence to be sure. I have no problem if you disregard that evidence or aren't swayed by it. I do have a problem with people denying it is in fact, evidence.
Wish that wasn't confusing or so often mis-stated. Would result in a 20% reduction in posts on this (and curiously only this) thread.
As for more damning evidence, in my view, is the simple fact that Froome has posted climbing times that have only (previously) been posted by riders who are known to have blood doped or fueled up on EPO. Conservative estimates of the boost that gives a rider range from 5% to 15%.
The fact that he is matching and beating most of the times posted by these riders, all of whom have a better pedigree than he does, is evidence of doping. You may or may not be convinced by this evidence but it is in fact, evidence.
This evidence is particular to Froome, and not Sky in general. However Sky are stating that he is clean, and they (presumably or I'd like to know why not) know all his numbers. His numbers have certainly gone up since pre-Vuelta '11. They know the numbers spiked, therefore either have an explanation or they don't. So far they don't. In lieu of a reasonable alternate explanation (of course there is none, since this can't be done cleanly) this is evidence that they are helping cover it up.
You can argue about how compelling the evidence is, but you can't say it's not evidence. Unless you don't understand the word, but the definition is simple and straightforward.
This is not so much aimed at your post but all similar posts.
I'm sure this will settle the matter and the confusion will now stop...
Justinr said:I'm sure someone must have thought of that angle. The fact that nothing has come out I guess means one of the following:
1. No one has thought of that angle
2. There is nothing to tell
3. They are fiercely loyal and wont tell
Given how ruthless and demanding Brailsford and Sutton are, I would expect people to blow #3 apart if they were unhappy. The fact they haven't (or at least we don't know about it) - well I'll let people draw their own conclusions.
red_flanders said:You can argue about how compelling the evidence is, but you can't say it's not evidence. Unless you don't understand the word, but the definition is simple and straightforward.
This is not so much aimed at your post but all similar posts.
I'm sure this will settle the matter and the confusion will now stop...
Justinr said:How could they set him up (and why?) - the blood tests weren't done by them (ignoring any ridiculous conspiracy posts that will likely be made).
red_flanders said:Circumstantial evidence is by definition, evidence. It's not the best kind of evidence to be sure. I have no problem if you disregard that evidence or aren't swayed by it. I do have a problem with people denying it is in fact, evidence.
Wish that wasn't confusing or so often mis-stated. Would result in a 20% reduction in posts on this (and curiously only this) thread.
As for more damning evidence, in my view, is the simple fact that Froome has posted climbing times that have only (previously) been posted by riders who are known to have blood doped or fueled up on EPO. Conservative estimates of the boost that gives a rider range from 5% to 15%.
The fact that he is matching and beating most of the times posted by these riders, all of whom have a better pedigree than he does, is evidence of doping. You may or may not be convinced by this evidence but it is in fact, evidence.
This evidence is particular to Froome, and not Sky in general. However Sky are stating that he is clean, and they (presumably or I'd like to know why not) know all his numbers. His numbers have certainly gone up since pre-Vuelta '11. They know the numbers spiked, therefore either have an explanation or they don't. So far they don't. In lieu of a reasonable alternate explanation (of course there is none, since this can't be done cleanly) this is evidence that they are helping cover it up.
You can argue about how compelling the evidence is, but you can't say it's not evidence. Unless you don't understand the word, but the definition is simple and straightforward.
This is not so much aimed at your post but all similar posts.
I'm sure this will settle the matter and the confusion will now stop...
Justinr said:No its not, its supported by suspicions.
timmers said:I remain to be convinced that a clean rider could not produce the results that Froome achieved.