The Clinic is inherently anti-Sky / anti-Froome

[wansteadimp]

Which proves there's nothing inherently anti Sky or Froome here at all. Just anti lying and cheating.

On the assumption that cycling isn't "cleaner", and the fact that no teams are fessing up to doping on a daily basis, can you let us know which teams aren't "lying and cheating?"

Because as far as I can see all the teams are the same bar how much they use PR agencies to push their message. If your team is a member of MPCC and you're doping isn't that hypocritical lying as much as Sky's PR performances.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

On the assumption that cycling isn't "cleaner", and the fact that no teams are fessing up to doping on a daily basis, can you let us know which teams aren't "lying and cheating?"

Because as far as I can see all the teams are the same bar how much they use PR agencies to push their message. If your team is a member of MPCC and you're doping isn't that hypocritical lying as much as Sky's PR performances.

Teams join MPCC, not riders.
They don't do press releases when they do it, or try to use it as evidence of their cleanliness, either.

This is in stark contrast to the Sky PR message of marginal gains being more powerful than doping, or riders suddenly discussing their 6 diseases on 5 continents being treated by 8 doctors by way of explanation for going from pack fodder to WT crusher.

So no, it's not the same IMO.

 

[simoni]

EDIT @Dear Wiggo from a few posts back...

Strictly speaking, what you say is true. But winding back a bit, I can't imagine Team Sky existing at this point in time without the lottery money that allowed British Cycling to sort themselves out.

It seems highly unlikely that Brailsford could have set Sky up without previously making his name at BC and highly unlikely that without BC's success sky would have gone all-in.

 

[xanadu]

EDIT @Dear Wiggo from a few posts back...

Strictly speaking, what you say is true. But winding back a bit, I can't imagine Team Sky existing at this point in time without the lottery money that allowed British Cycling to sort themselves out.

It seems highly unlikely that Brailsford could have set Sky up without previously making his name at BC and highly unlikely that without BC's success sky would have gone all-in.

So there we have it a clear link between BC lottery money and the success of team sky.
As for Chris Froome being Kenyan, well yes but he does have a British passport and joined the British cycling team after the 2006 commonwealth games where he came to the attentrion of Dave Brailsford.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So there we have it a clear link between BC lottery money and the success of team sky.
As for Chris Froome being Kenyan, well yes but he does have a British passport and joined the British cycling team after the 2006 commonwealth games where he came to the attentrion of Dave Brailsford.

No you don't. You have a clear link between Lottery funding and the existence of Sky, but not their success. You've very quickly ignored Wiggo's performance on the road the entire time he was funded via the lottery - it was woeful.

You say if a rider dopes the team will know, but in 2009 JV didn't even know who was coaching Wiggo (erroneously claiming in this forum that it was Ellingworth), who rode into 3rd place at a proper doped up Tour.

Sky didn't even know Froome had Bilharzia.

Sky's success has come despite the lottery funding. And, I would posit, despite their management's best intentions to claim responsibility for its success.

All the while claiming, pillows and pineapple juice mean riders will one day beat the doped up performances of the past - and then not sticking Froome in the wind tunnel for the first 3 years he was on the team.

Laughable.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

EDIT @Dear Wiggo from a few posts back...

Strictly speaking, what you say is true. But winding back a bit, I can't imagine Team Sky existing at this point in time without the lottery money that allowed British Cycling to sort themselves out.

It seems highly unlikely that Brailsford could have set Sky up without previously making his name at BC and highly unlikely that without BC's success sky would have gone all-in.

Agreed. But their success is not down to that funding, nor anything else they have claimed, publicly, as explanation for said success.

Which is the reason why the clinic appears to be anti-sky / anti-Froome. Because it's insulting to anyone with a brain capable of critical thought.

 

[SeriousSam]

Wow this eriana was one angry person. Posts were devoid of reason, of course, but there was some genuine emotion and bitterness there.

 

[No_Balls]

It's quite simple. The regular denizens of the clinic (aka the self entited anti-doping warriors) don't do it because they hate doping. No. They do it because they need to feel morally superior. Contador has already given them that. They can now sit their fat behinds (who I bet have never even came close to a saddle) in their comfortable armchairs and zoom in the next guy. For these guys proof, logic, common sense or understanding of facts discussed are meaningless.

Well, news-flash a*: you are not morally superior to even the most notorious of dopers. Even if Lance, Hincapie, JV, Ullrich, Basso, etc doped, they still did the long and hard hours of training and the long and hard hours of riding. Doping and working still trumps sitting at your computer, stuffing your face and throwing * around.

C´mon. No need to cloud the guy together with all the other names. We all know its all about the Lance thats troubling you.

Which makes this call-out against The clinic exceptionally funny.

 

[djpbaltimore]

It would be interesting to see exactly which tweets called froome a ***** for crashing out. from my experience with dim my guess is if challenged he would not be able to offer many examples.

Although I imagine the tweet was sprinkled liberally with hyperbole, I do believe there is an element of truth in it. Just go to the Froome discussion thread to get a feel for the comments there. Froome got a lot of heat for withdrawing without broken bones, suggesting it was another indication of his weak mentality. And when the injuries were disclosed, examples of riders like VDB riding with a broken wrist and Hamilton with a broken collarbone were brought up to beat him up for not continuing.

FWIW, before the tour I stated that it would be good for the sport if both Froome and Contador lost. And It is impossible to characterize an entire online community, but I think there is a certain double standard in the forum in regards to Froome, especially in comparison to Contador. I can understand the notion to move on after the clen positive and not beat a dead horse, but has the forum moved on from Armstrong? Overall, I think the feeling is that Contador and Nibali are great cyclists who dope while the general sentiment on Froome is that he is a great doper who cycles. This manifests sometimes in a lot of deeply personal attacks that seem over the line IMO.

 

[simoni]

So there we have it a clear link between BC lottery money and the success of team sky.
As for Chris Froome being Kenyan, well yes but he does have a British passport and joined the British cycling team after the 2006 commonwealth games where he came to the attentrion of Dave Brailsford.

We have a clear link between lottery money and the existence of Sky, not their success.

Beyond that, there's probably an argument that the lottery funded research and development of expertise in BC has had some impact to a greater or lesser extent. But obviously, the longer time goes on, the looser this link becomes.

In terms of individuals, Wiggins' coaching setup in 2009 has always been uncertain yet we're give to understand that he's a BC guy through and through. Froome came good after two years at Sky so logically they deserve some credit, yet they were ready to get rid pre Vuelta 2011.

Certainly though, a number of Sky's riders (e.g. Thomas, Swift, Stannard, Kennaugh) are direct graduates of the BC system and all have proven to be very good riders at World Tour level.

 

[djpbaltimore]

If Froome is found to be doping the reprecussions will shake the entire sporting world.

Only if you don't mean USA in your definition of 'sporting world'. ESPN hasn't even bothered to put the results of the tour on their bottom line scroll.

 

[xanadu]

Agreed. But their success is not down to that funding, nor anything else they have claimed, publicly, as explanation for said success.

Which is the reason why the clinic appears to be anti-sky / anti-Froome. Because it's insulting to anyone with a brain capable of critical thought.

Critical analysis coming up.

It cerrtainly wasnt home turf advantage or a wave of popular expectation that drove the British olympic atheletes to unparraleled success in the London olympic games of 2012, huge amounts of carefully targetted lottery money allowed both chosen indivduals and selected groups increased chances of success. The ground work of that success began prior to the 2008 Bejing games.
In the case of cycling, Dave Brailsford was at the heart of the British cycling team success and the haul of a staggering 8 gold medals boasted of a British dominance never known before. Both lottery money and Dave Brtailsford were at the heart of this success. However good the rider and his support team are clothing, bikes, training camps, testing aparatus all need to be paid for.
Whilst at the same time managing the British cycling team Dave Brailsford was DS at sky and indeed a number of key sky riders were at the heart of the british team. Any imprvement to any of the British team riders who were also connected with Sky must have benefited Sky and the reverse is also true.
In the case of Froome, he came to the attention after his performance in the Kenyan commonwealth games team where his creditable performance on a vastly inferior bike, caught the eye of British cycling chiefs

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Critical analysis coming up.

It cerrtainly wasnt home turf advantage or a wave of popular expectation that drove the British olympic atheletes to unparraleled success in the London olympic games of 2012, huge amounts of carefully targetted lottery money allowed both chosen indivduals and selected groups increased chances of success. The ground work of that success began prior to the 2008 Bejing games.
In the case of cycling, Dave Brailsford was at the heart of the British cycling team success and the haul of a staggering 8 gold medals boasted of a British dominance never known before. Both lottery money and Dave Brtailsford were at the heart of this success. However good the rider and his support team are clothing, bikes, training camps, testing aparatus all need to be paid for.
Whilst at the same time managing the British cycling team Dave Brailsford was DS at sky and indeed a number of key sky riders were at the heart of the british team. Any imprvement to any of the British team riders who were also connected with Sky must have benefited Sky and the reverse is also true.
In the case of Froome, he came to the attention after his performance in the Kenyan commonwealth games team where his creditable performance on a vastly inferior bike, caught the eye of British cycling chiefs

Sorry bud but this post sounds like you're drunk on Team Sky koolaid and regurgitating BC press releases.

I believe the home advantage definitely played a part in their medal haul - that's typically been the case in Olympics. Home country exceeds all previous medal hauls. I think there are more recent studies, but this is a good start: http://fulltext.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2000/vic/HAOlympicgames.pdf

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Cool story bro!

 

[lllludo]

Critical analysis coming up.
It cerrtainly wasnt home turf advantage or a wave of popular expectation that drove the British olympic atheletes to unparraleled success in the London olympic games of 2012, huge amounts of carefully targetted lottery money allowed both chosen indivduals and selected groups increased chances of success. The ground work of that success began prior to the 2008 Bejing games.
In the case of cycling, Dave Brailsford was at the heart of the British cycling team success and the haul of a staggering 8 gold medals boasted of a British dominance never known before. Both lottery money and Dave Brtailsford were at the heart of this success. However good the rider and his support team are clothing, bikes, training camps, testing aparatus all need to be paid for.
Whilst at the same time managing the British cycling team Dave Brailsford was DS at sky and indeed a number of key sky riders were at the heart of the british team. Any imprvement to any of the British team riders who were also connected with Sky must have benefited Sky and the reverse is also true.
In the case of Froome, he came to the attention after his performance in the Kenyan commonwealth games team where his creditable performance on a vastly inferior bike, caught the eye of British cycling chiefs

One can just read the bold words to get a quick overview on the text.
I am a bit surprised though you don't refer to "Sir David Brailsford OBE " but only to "Dave Brailsford"

 

[xanadu]

One can just read the bold words to get a quick overview on the text.
I am a bit surprised though you don't refer to "Sir David Brailsford OBE " but only to "Dave Brailsford"

I am waiting for Dave Brailsford to get his true reward from her majesty.
Lord Brailsford of Sky, Master of the three tours, high lord sherrif of alpe d'huez, and inspector of velodromes.

As for the words you highlighted, yeah Sir Dave and his swag bag of lottery loot are responsible for much of Britains medal haul in both track cycling world champs and olympics.

 

[xanadu]

Sorry bud but this post sounds like you're drunk on Team Sky koolaid and regurgitating BC press releases.

I believe the home advantage definitely played a part in their medal haul - that's typically been the case in Olympics. Home country exceeds all previous medal hauls. I think there are more recent studies, but this is a good start: http://fulltext.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2000/vic/HAOlympicgames.pdf

Perhaps you should read this instead.

http://www.channel4.com/news/how-lottery-funding-makes-a-difference-to-team-gb

 

[doperhopper]

The clinic is inherently anti-doping.

The clinic already knows Contador dopes.

The clinic highly suspects Froome to be doping.

Once Froome is popped, the clinic will move on to the next "outta nowhere" GC contender.

Absolutely spot on. Otherwise (bashing past known dopers instead of scrutinizing current "clean" heros) one should get suspicious about the integrity of The Clinic.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Perhaps you should read this instead.

http://www.channel4.com/news/how-lottery-funding-makes-a-difference-to-team-gb

I'm still waiting for some evidence from this forum where the clinic is anti-USPS/anti-Armstrong.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

 

[Escarabajo]

IMO, if everyone was riding clean, Contador would probably be the best GC rider in the world.

Froome would be a water carrier.

LOL!

You owe me a keyboard now.

Open up a thread for this topic. Oh wait, there are several open already.

Bottomline is we don't know.

 

[Escarabajo]

When Froome crashed and then crashed out there were pages and pages of posts, many of which were very anti and showed huge amounts of vitriol, and few that didn't.

Today Contador crashes out and there is virtually nothing.

Discuss and debate ...

Because Sky is USP_version 2

 

[Escarabajo]

The clinic is highly suspect of any team that rides like Radioshack

The clinic knows that any rider that beats Radioshack times in the hills, isn't doing it all on Cranberry juice !

Radioshack was not as bad as US Postal Service / Discovery. Just saying.

 

[del1962]

Radioshack was not as bad as US Postal Service / Discovery. Just saying.

Bruyneel/Armstrong are the founders of Radioshack = the true succesor to USpostal, even now former riders on other teams like Gallopin praise Bruyneel,

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Define "bad"?!

 

[del1962]

Because Sky is USP_version 2

Nope that is bull, the true succesors are shack, with its former "grand monsieur"