The Sky-Con-O-Meter. Predictions on how much more ridiculous they can get

[sideshadow]

On the other hand, despite his brilliance and red flag times, Bolt and Rudisha are not viewed as suspiciously - they're broadly (though not universally) considered simply a freak of nature.

Why do you say Bolt is not suspicious? His coach Angel Heredia is a chemist affiliated with BALCO and multiple dirty sprinters. He is not a coach, a chemist!

In 2008, after the BALCO scandal broke, Angel changed his name to Angel Hernandez.

http://www.nairaland.com/1014517/usain-bolt-using-performance-enhancing

 

[Froome19]

http://www.nairaland.com/1014517/usain-bolt-using-performance-enhancing

That article is mostly rubbish though. Who ever heard of peaking for a big race?

Close to every single athlete in the world peaks for the Olympics above all else..

 

[sideshadow]

@Froome19

Yeah sorry. I read the sources and it looks fishy, tried to delete my post before it spread further, but you saw it, haha.

 

[cineteq]

That article is mostly rubbish though. Who ever heard of peaking for a big race?

I think we heard that before. Regardless whether the article is rubbish or not, what would you call Wiggins' peaking all year long?

 

[Joachim]

A champion

 

[Froome19]

I think we heard that before. Regardless whether the article is rubbish or not, what would you call Wiggins' peaking all year long?

Unusual if not suspect..

But then again I believe that Kerrison's techniques can produce such an effect.

And @sideshadow no worries..

 

[martinvickers]

Why would anyone view.makhloufi as suspicious but not bolt? Makhloufi iis winning races but he isn't breaking the world record or anything while bolt has created a new space the size of 10 world records where only he is allowed to post times in. I get that in 1500 the records don't necessarily come with a top performance because the early pace might not suffice, but still i don't see what Makhloufi has done to ride eyebrows that bolt has not.

Bolt has been a phenome since his junior days. He is, as sprinters go, a physical freak - his length and stride means he generally runs 100m in 41 strides, as opposed to almost all his opposition running off 44. He's just physically different.

Now Blake? He's already had a 'minor' ping, and I have concerns about the paucity of testing in jamacian athletics generally - though that's not blake's fault. And for the record, I'll be disappointed if Blake pings again, because he seems a good, fun, humble guy.

Sociopathy is not always equal to cheat.

Makhloufi suffers to an extent from being seen as the next Rashid Ramzi - in addition, he clearly got a compliant doctor to write balderdash to get his original 1500m expulsion overturned after his 800m dropout. That alone is very worrying.

But in a sense, I'm not saying he dopes - I'm saying that large parts of the 'athletics world' suspect it. not fans, but journos and athletes. I had a discussion with a couple recently who are both retired top tier athletes -and frankly, they're certain of it - might be right, might be wrong, but my point is the 'industry insiders' tend to have quite a lot of inside knowledge on it - to be fair, they also tend to gossip like old soap opera ladies...

 

[Franklin]

Bolt has been a phenome since his junior days. He is, as sprinters go, a physical freak - his length and stride means he generally runs 100m in 41 strides, as opposed to almost all his opposition running off 44. He's just physically different.

Even now American pro-riders, even those who are fervently and rabidly anti-Lance admit Lance was a phenomenon and certainly had a boatload of talent. I certainly believe this, I think Lance is just Dope is emotional exaggeration.*

But this shows the one thing does not exclude the other thing. In fact I'm convinced doping a thoroughbred race horse can create a race-cheetah

* Lance is also a blight on the sport, a general bad person and needed to be exposed. Seeing his latent talent does not mean this all of a sudden makes it better.

 

[sniper]

Even now American pro-riders, even those who are fervently and rabidly anti-Lance admit Lance was a phenomenon and certainly had a boatload of talent. I certainly believe this, I think Lance is just Dope is emotional exaggeration.*

But this shows the one thing does not exclude the other thing. In fact I'm convinced doping a thoroughbred race horse can create a race-cheetah

* Lance is also a blight on the sport, a general bad person and needed to be exposed. Seeing his latent talent does not mean this all of a sudden makes it better.

+1
I got attacked verociously in here once and even had to endure being called a Lance fanboy. All that for having said that, imo, Lance had

charisma

.
I still think he did/does. Suffice it to compare him to guys like Evans, Sastre, or the Schleckies.

As you say, recognizing his charisma/talent doesn't mean we should shove his blatant wrongdoings under the carpet.

 

[will10]

A champion

Well played sir.

Bolt has been a phenome since his junior days. He is, as sprinters go, a physical freak - his length and stride means he generally runs 100m in 41 strides, as opposed to almost all his opposition running off 44. He's just physically different.

Now Blake? He's already had a 'minor' ping, and I have concerns about the paucity of testing in jamacian athletics generally - though that's not blake's fault. And for the record, I'll be disappointed if Blake pings again, because he seems a good, fun, humble guy.

Sociopathy is not always equal to cheat.

Makhloufi suffers to an extent from being seen as the next Rashid Ramzi - in addition, he clearly got a compliant doctor to write balderdash to get his original 1500m expulsion overturned after his 800m dropout. That alone is very worrying.

But in a sense, I'm not saying he dopes - I'm saying that large parts of the 'athletics world' suspect it. not fans, but journos and athletes. I had a discussion with a couple recently who are both retired top tier athletes -and frankly, they're certain of it - might be right, might be wrong, but my point is the 'industry insiders' tend to have quite a lot of inside knowledge on it - to be fair, they also tend to gossip like old soap opera ladies...

The hypocrisy surrounding the 100m at the Olympics was pretty hilarious. Found myself cheering for Gatlin just to see the media go crazy over how "nice guys" Bolt and Blake were robbed.

 

[will10]

Bolt has been a phenome since his junior days. He is, as sprinters go, a physical freak - his length and stride means he generally runs 100m in 41 strides, as opposed to almost all his opposition running off 44. He's just physically different.

Now Blake? He's already had a 'minor' ping, and I have concerns about the paucity of testing in jamacian athletics generally - though that's not blake's fault. And for the record, I'll be disappointed if Blake pings again, because he seems a good, fun, humble guy.

Sociopathy is not always equal to cheat.

Makhloufi suffers to an extent from being seen as the next Rashid Ramzi - in addition, he clearly got a compliant doctor to write balderdash to get his original 1500m expulsion overturned after his 800m dropout. That alone is very worrying.

But in a sense, I'm not saying he dopes - I'm saying that large parts of the 'athletics world' suspect it. not fans, but journos and athletes. I had a discussion with a couple recently who are both retired top tier athletes -and frankly, they're certain of it - might be right, might be wrong, but my point is the 'industry insiders' tend to have quite a lot of inside knowledge on it - to be fair, they also tend to gossip like old soap opera ladies...

The hypocrisy surrounding the 100m at the Olympics was pretty hilarious. Found myself cheering for Gatlin just to see the media go crazy over how "nice guys" Bolt and Blake were robbed.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

The one thing I have learnt here is to take nothing at face value, so fair enough. BUT we know that Basso doped, and we suspect that since he gone from racehorse to donkey he is off the juice or the BB, so Porte's performance may come less of a gain on his part to a massive drop in performance on Basso's.

Unless you're saying Basso used to ride clean....

Sorry Jimmy, missed your post. Have you seen the difference between Basso 2006 in the Giro [just laughable] and the Basso after his suspension? Not saying he is absolutely clean now, no way of knowing, but there is a huge, a HUGE difference. And, do note, Basso knows what he is capable of, on dope, as well as now cleanish.

Basso and the supposedly clean Evans were Aldo Sassi's prime kids. The guy is talented to the bone, boring, but talented.

And, I stick with my statement, when something looks to good to be true it most of the time is too good to be true. Wiggins 2009 was suspect, Froome is just insanely unbelievable, but he do is a nice gentle ladd.

 

[martinvickers]

Even now American pro-riders, even those who are fervently and rabidly anti-Lance admit Lance was a phenomenon and certainly had a boatload of talent. I certainly believe this, I think Lance is just Dope is emotional exaggeration.*

But this shows the one thing does not exclude the other thing. In fact I'm convinced doping a thoroughbred race horse can create a race-cheetah

* Lance is also a blight on the sport, a general bad person and needed to be exposed. Seeing his latent talent does not mean this all of a sudden makes it better.

Well, i'll gently agree to disagree - Armstrong was clearly a talented rider of classic distances - even then doping - but he showed precious little pre cancer to suggest GC ability, never mind unheard of dominance. Nobody saw Armstrong win the Worlds and thought, that boy's gonna destroy Le Tour.

Bolt, on the other hand, was talked about in hushed tones from the age of 15... people knew what was coming, more or less - they just wondered if it would translate to 100m

Let's try another example - JEnnis just won heptathlon gold - but even now, people are talking about two girls who could blow records sky high - Schippers and Johnston Thompson - they're not there yet- indeed, they were outside the 2012 top 10 - but they are regularly discussed as heading a gneration of4 or 5 junior heptathletes, a batch the like of which we've never seen.

Helps that Schippers is a stunner!

No-one will be surprised if those two really appear on the radar in say 2015, or even earlier - not certain of course - but no-one will be shocked.

 

[martinvickers]

Well played sir.



The hypocrisy surrounding the 100m at the Olympics was pretty hilarious. Found myself cheering for Gatlin just to see the media go crazy over how "nice guys" Bolt and Blake were robbed.

Gatlin is an unrepentant serial offender, only still in the sport on a technicallity - he denied a runner broadly accepted as clean, and a credit to the sport, Tyson Gay, an olympic medal. F*** Gatlin.

I can understand a dislike for hypocrisy - but I will not countenance enjoying a cheating b*stard win sh!t, just to laugh at other people who may or may not cheat, or even people who just commentate. Sorry, but that's my 2c.

 

[The Hitch]

Gatlin is an unrepentant serial offender, only still in the sport on a technicallity - he denied a runner broadly accepted as clean, and a credit to the sport, Tyson Gay, an olympic medal. F*** Gatlin.

I can understand a dislike for hypocrisy - but I will not countenance enjoying a cheating b*stard win sh!t, just to laugh at other people who may or may not cheat, or even people who just commentate. Sorry, but that's my 2c.

How do you explain gays 9.71in Berlin then? 2 years earlier already in his prime gays pb was 9.84 and he won the world title with that. He gets injured for a year during which bolt reinvents the sport and when he comes back ( and he was still a bit injured) he is suddenly running 9.71. You can say it was a fast track but it can't have been that fast because only him and bolt got pbs there no one else was suddenly jumping a a tenth of a second in that race ( not even bolt who was probably just as fast in Beijing without the celebrations)

 

[postmanhat]

That's because the great achievement of the biopassport has been to place limitations on doping, so that those who choose to dope do not gain as extreme an advantage as before, which means clean riders are more capable of competing than before. But it also means that you require less doping to become an unstoppable force, because people are not capable of doping to the Pantani level now.

This does not mean that we can extrapolate from that that Sky did what they did clean, however. That requires a leap of faith that I find nigh on impossible to take given some of the names involved. It is more likely that they could do it clean than had they dominated the Tour in similar fashion 5 or 10 years ago, sure. But with all the other circumstances, we have to swallow that 4 riders from the same team - one with dodgy history, one a miracle transformer, and the team with a doctor with a shady past - just happen to be that much stronger than anybody else, and it's hard to do. Take Fränk Schleck as an example. Back in the days pre-biopassport he was still pretty successful - top 10 in the 2006 Tour with his Alpe d'Huez win - and was connected to Puerto; in 2012 he was doping (positive test at the Tour) and was still made to look like a fool by Sky. Is Fränk doping less than he was in 2006? Quite probably. But this is a guy who was dodgy then, is dodgy now, and has been overtaken by a bunch of guys who he should, palmarès-wise, be trampling all over on the climbs, and if the péloton is less doped you would then expect that the effects of doping should magnify the performances, just as Riccardo Riccò and Emanuele Sella stood out in 2008. Fränk Schleck is the same age, roughly, as Wiggins, and younger than Mick Rogers, and coming off the podium of the previous year's race. Seeing him dropped by these guys, clean, when he's doping, is tough to swallow, unless you really don't rate Fränk Schleck (and I personally think he has been overrated a lot at times) or you really have a high estimate of what the Sky quartet are capable of.

Just to take issue with Frank Schleck as an example of who Sky 'blew away' in The Tour. He hadn't had a great season, lost chunks in the time trial and then crashed. His Tour was effectively over by the first week. Maybe like Valverde/Voeckler/Sanchez, he might have switched to going for a stage win. But like those, he was never seriously in contention after the first TT. As impressive as Sky were, none of the other teams put them under pressure after that, and very few of the riders. Everything played into Sky's hands

Sky thought the same trick would work at The Vuelta, but were blown away by better riders and motivated, cannier teams.

It would have been nice for everyone if Sky had admitted making a ricket in hiring Leinders (at the very least). But they way they moved him and Rodgers on, makes it quite clear that they never will

As for Froome's transformation. You could probably make a cast iron case for, or against him doping. No idea either way, to be honest

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

How do you explain gays 9.71in Berlin then? 2 years earlier already in his prime gays pb was 9.84 and he won the world title with that. He gets injured for a year during which bolt reinvents the sport and when he comes back ( and he was still a bit injured) he is suddenly running 9.71. You can say it was a fast track but it can't have been that fast because only him and bolt got pbs there no one else was suddenly jumping a a tenth of a second in that race ( not even bolt who was probably just as fast in Beijing without the celebrations)

so only bolt is using doping and the rest or not. makes real sense

 

[martinvickers]

How do you explain gays 9.71in Berlin then? 2 years earlier already in his prime gays pb was 9.84 and he won the world title with that. He gets injured for a year during which bolt reinvents the sport and when he comes back ( and he was still a bit injured) he is suddenly running 9.71. You can say it was a fast track but it can't have been that fast because only him and bolt got pbs there no one else was suddenly jumping a a tenth of a second in that race ( not even bolt who was probably just as fast in Beijing without the celebrations)

One exceptional run, at a moment of peak tapered performance, does not evidence of doping make. On one day, on a fast track, everything comes together. It's unusual, but it's not unheard of. not least because it was not, in fact, strictly exceptional -a wind assisted 9.68 the year before showed what was there.

Gay may have doped; anybody MAY have doped; but there is no evidence of it - he had a long, impressive career, progressing broadly as he oughta; his rep in the sport is as close to rock solid as you can get both in terms of humility and anti-doping credentials; he fits neither the temprement or physicality of doped ; he has voluntarily undertaken far more rigourous doping controls than most of his competitors, and hasn't, broadly speaking, tried to gain much PR out of it.

one has to be careful of simply suggesting ALL exceptional performances = doping - frankly, if you DO think that, why do you bother with any sport at all?

 

[Jeremiah]

First off, this is the Sky, con o meter thread. Sky is a fraud.

Secondly, Lance was a pro cyclist. Of course he had talent. Who knows how much mainly because he was doping his WHOLE Pro career??

Anyone who goes to watch the ponies or the dogs run realizes that ALL the horses are thoroughbreds and all the dogs are greyhounds???? Some of them are losers. Armstrong was one of the losers.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

why do you bother with any sport at all?

We learned in the last couple of years sports like these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yepb3zqzcjQ
are full of dope, so, what exactly is your point?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Like cycling, many athletes 'know' or have strong idea who's on the dope, who's not. No one was surprised when Valerie Adams was upgraded. No-one has really been surprised at he recent rash of east european positives. Noth this years 1500m were 'dodgy' and everyone in the sport 'knows' it - although proving it is another thing. On the other hand, despite his brilliance and red flag times, Bolt and Rudisha are not viewed as suspiciously - they're broadly (though not universally) considered simply a freak of nature.

But as was posted in the Olympics thread at the time (Hitch drawing the most attention to it), the same commentators as were crapping on Taoufik Makhloufi's every move, straight-up accusing him of doping even in the heats and repeating their accusations in the final, were joyously celebrating as Christine Ohuruogu, somebody who has been pinged for whereabouts violations, ran under 50 seconds for the 400m. She has done this three times in her entire life. One World Championships final and two Olympic finals. Why does Ohuruogu justify applause and celebration when Makhloufi earns ridicule and snide accusations? Sure, Makhloufi might have looked suspicious, but why pick on the Algerian comparative no-name? He won the 800m the previous two years at the All-Africa games, so he had some kind of pedrigree prior to becoming a world beater, he's not a sudden transformer à la Chris Froome.

As for Froome's transformation. You could probably make a cast iron case for, or against him doping. No idea either way, to be honest

I will bow to your better memory than me on Schleck's Tour, I have been caught out on details in the 2012 Tour before too, unfortunately I didn't watch it particularly closely as I was bored to tears by much of it, so many details have gone from my memory. Perhaps it was a bit unfair to use Fränk as the yardstick.

Nevertheless, I question how you can make a "cast iron" case against Froome doping. Given his suspicious transformation and sudden improvement from also-ran to dominator, and his incredible form turnarounds, I can see how you could make a strong case for his doping, but while the bilharzia can helpfully explain away the lack of results prior to that, I don't see how the defence can be "cast iron". Hell, I'm not really sure that the prosecution can be "cast iron", even if I might find the transformation much easier to explain by means of nefarious activity.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Secondly, Lance was a pro cyclist. Of course he had talent. Who knows how much mainly because he was doping his WHOLE Pro career??

This is the problem, though, which is why so much of assessing clean/dirty is putting a finger up in the air and guessing. Bernhard Kohl said it was impossible to compete in today's péloton without doping. Do you believe him? I don't, not because I think he's wrong, but because I don't actually understand how he would know. After all, he never tried to compete in today's péloton without doping, by his own admission. He may have been able to assess his own skill level without doping, but who's to say that Bernhard Kohl is the pinnacle of what's possible?

 

[The Hitch]

One exceptional run, at a moment of peak tapered performance, does not evidence of doping make. On one day, on a fast track, everything comes together. It's unusual, but it's not unheard of. not least because it was not, in fact, strictly exceptional -a wind assisted 9.68 the year before showed what was there.

Gay may have doped; anybody MAY have doped; but there is no evidence of it - he had a long, impressive career, progressing broadly as he oughta; his rep in the sport is as close to rock solid as you can get both in terms of humility and anti-doping credentials; he fits neither the temprement or physicality of doped ; he has voluntarily undertaken far more rigourous doping controls than most of his competitors, and hasn't, broadly speaking, tried to gain much PR out of it.

Im not saying i have evidence that Tyson gay is doping. Im asking, since you hold him up as a standard bearer of clean sport, how you explain him missing a sub 9.7 time by a hairs breadth, when Ben Johnson Maurice Greene and Justin Gatlin and Tim Montgomery could all only manage 9.79.

You said Bolt was a freak of nature? So Gay is also a freak of nature?
and Asafa Powell too?
And maybe Blake?
They are all freaks of nature?

Just happen to all come at the same time?

one has to be careful of simply suggesting ALL exceptional performances = doping - frankly, if you DO think that, why do you bother with any sport at all?

I think given what we know about the potency of doping and its use exceptional results are suspicious. They are even more suspicious if they take place in a known doping sport.

They are exceptionally suspicious if they are significantly better than the fastest recorded dopers ever.

As for why dont i stop watching sport if i believe there is doping going on - wtf I like the sport, i like watching it and cheering for guys i like? Why on earth would i give it up?

 

[Joachim]

This is the problem, though, which is why so much of assessing clean/dirty is putting a finger up in the air and guessing. Bernhard Kohl said it was impossible to compete in today's péloton without doping. Do you believe him? I don't, not because I think he's wrong, but because I don't actually understand how he would know. After all, he never tried to compete in today's péloton without doping, by his own admission. He may have been able to assess his own skill level without doping, but who's to say that Bernhard Kohl is the pinnacle of what's possible?

I agree, although iirc he said it was "impossible to win the tour de France", which is slightly different to competing. It was certainly impossible for him to win whilst doping, so it's fair to assume he couldn't do it without. He said this a couple of years ago.

In Hamilton's book he talks about how he doped and placed high in GC. The following year he didn't dope and only just made the top 100

 

[will10]

Gatlin is an unrepentant serial offender, only still in the sport on a technicallity - he denied a runner broadly accepted as clean, and a credit to the sport, Tyson Gay, an olympic medal. F*** Gatlin.

I can understand a dislike for hypocrisy - but I will not countenance enjoying a cheating b*stard win sh!t, just to laugh at other people who may or may not cheat, or even people who just commentate. Sorry, but that's my 2c.

The hypocrisy during BBC's coverage of the Olympics was horrendous. Openly discussing whether certain winners were doping, whereas others were seemingly above suspicion. So forgive me for seeking a little entertainment in the prospect of a Gatlin win. Might I also refer you to the hundreds of "suck on that haters!" posts in the Olympic RR thread as Vino took gold.

one has to be careful of simply suggesting ALL exceptional performances = doping - frankly, if you DO think that, why do you bother with any sport at all?

To turn that around - why do you watch sport?