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

[The Hitch]

so the answer I come to, apart from faster tracks and the like is simple - he's much better than them.

You said Bolt was a freak of nature?

So Gay is also a freak of nature? No, but he's a world class athlete.

and Asafa Powell too?
And maybe Blake?

Neither - they seem to fit the classic Johnson physique, and it's matter of concern


e?

So you dont believe doping actually works. If clean athletes who arent freaks of nature can absolutely thrash heavily doped top level athletes , then this doping thing doesnt have any power. Why do people even bother with it?

BTW people like Gatlin and Greene are not average athletes who doped their way into the top ranks. They are the best of the best of the best in a country which identifies any 100m talent from a young age. And of all the thousands of kids in all the schools in all the cities of all the states of the US these guys came out as the talents of their age.

And then they doped and they trained with dope and they trained more because the dope allowed them to train more and they doped more.

And they couldnt challenge Tyson Gay.

You dont think that makes him a freak of nature?

In that case, what's the point cheering for cheats and liars?r
and why get so upset with Sky and wiggins if they are all at it, and you don't ca

2 points.
1 to answer the second question what I dont like about Sky is not that i believe they are doping but that they portray themselves as this anti doping team without actually welcoming any discussion about their anti doping and lying through their teeth a lot of the time.

Hypocricy and using people as scapegoats is what irks me.

Wiggins casting doubt on others then responding with foul mouthed rants and threats when people dare to ask the same of him.

Not the actual doping though. I thought Wiggins was doping back in 09 and 10 too and wrote as much but i was still a fan. Hell the wiggins fan thread on this forum was created by me back in 2011.

Likewise i dont have anything against Chris Froome even. He is clearly far less of a jerk than wiggins - like when he thanked the fans on pena cabarga for coming out and making a good atmostphere even though they all hoped he fell of his bike so that cobo could win.

And Froome doesnt go around saying he is clean every second. In fact he is friends with Vino and smiles as he shakes Contador's hand. Sure if asked he catergorically denies doping because he has to but i see more honesty in that than attacking Ricco and Vinokourov while fighting battles for Lance Armstrong as wiggins did.

2 you are imo wrong to assume that arguing that riders are doping does means one is upset with them.

No offense but i believe its a flaw of people are so emotionally tied up to doping that you will refuse to watch sport if you cant convince yourself that its clean. It handicaps your ability to look at these questions impartially since your mind really does want to believe that it is clean.

I always believe you cant let emotions get in the way of ones judgement.

ive argued that many of my favorite riders are dopers including Contador back when people still claimed he was clean. And i believe my national sporting heroes - Korzeniowski and Pudzianowski doped, even though i still have brilliant memories from supporting them I believe my favorite rider of the last decade or so Samuel Sancez is a doper, and i always believed it even if people like you will say that since he hasnt failed any tests he is probably clean.
Though i wish he was clean i dont delude myself when i look at the arguments i can see hes probably not. Either way even if he is a doper hes a nice guy, rides for a team i like, so i support him.

And thats also my answer to your first question but ill add this

Theres more to life than doping. Its a moraly wrong act and i wish it went away but i dont have the time nor energy to waste significant moral outrage on a bunch of athletes who seek out any possible advantage. there are significantly worse things i save that outrage for. Sport imo is at the end of the day of minor importance in the grand scheme of things. I watch it because i like it and will not stop just because a bunch of youths cant play fair (and in school i dont really remember anyone who could).



Anyway to riterate that not all dopers are bad guys here is the gospel of Creed - Michael, which i believe answers your questions better, with less words and with less of an egomaniacal flavour than my attempt.

I think someone like Tyler Hamilton is a really moral guy, anyone would be lucky to have him as a neighbour. There are probably a lot of guys out there that don’t take EPO but you don’t want them as a neighbour.

“And I don’t want that to be the cop out. Oh that guy took drugs, he’s an awful person, because you’re just being lazy if you think that. Some people just need to hang out for a couple of beats and figure out why a rider’s doing it and why he’s denying it and how embarrassed he must be. It’s all complicated. It’s just that much easier to judge people.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/michael-creed-why-i-never-doped-and-my-future-in-the-sport

 

[martinvickers]

So you dont believe doping actually works.

Never said that. I do think that the famous BALCO regime was less useful than it was sold as. Chambers thought the same, as it happens - one reason he was so bitter, he sold his soul for smoke and mirrors, largely

If clean athletes who arent freaks of nature can absolutely thrash heavily doped top level athletes , then this doping thing doesnt have any power. Why do people even bother with it?

Because the Ato Bolden's, Tyson Gays, and even more so the Usain Bolts of this world are few and far between.

Everyone you named who doped may not have hit 9.7. But they ALL won major titles; several in fact. It did it's job for them.

BTW people like Gatlin and Greene are not average athletes who doped their way into the top ranks. They are the best of the best of the best in a country which identifies any 100m talent from a young age. And of all the thousands of kids in all the schools in all the cities of all the states of the US these guys came out as the talents of their age.

And then they doped and they trained with dope and they trained more because the dope allowed them to train more and they doped more.

And they couldnt challenge Tyson Gay.

You dont think that makes him a freak of nature?

Ben Johnson ran 9.79, slowing down, doped in 1988. He could barely legit break 10 seconds.

For the record, Greene WAS an also ran, by high US standards, until he decamped to join John Smith - he couldn't make the world semis in 95 (best 10.19), or even the US team in 96(best 10.08). He joined smith in 97? 1997, 9.86 - didn't even pass 9.9 to collect $200. He was emphatically NOT the best of the best, identified early.

Gatlin arrived at College as a sprint hurdler for god's sake! He wasn't even a flat sprinter. his first brush with drugs was in 2001 - his best 100m at the time? 10.08. Yep, hitch, world class. How did he change that- oh yeah, Trevor Graham got his hands on him.

High class dope from high class dope coaches gives these guys the best part of 2 to 3 tenths of a second each - a lifetime in 100m.

Boldon on the other hand went gently enough 10.2, 10.1, 10 dead, 9,9, to 9.8s where he stayed for his quite extended peak.

Gay ran 9.8 dead in london - one or two races aside, it's been exactly where he has been for the best part of seven years, after a similar progression, if a bit quicker than Boldon's. He also comes from a deep track family (hence the rejection of football, rare in true young speedsters)

Here's the rub, Hitch - if you are truly a speed phenom in the US, all those scouts? They'll try and push you into football long before track grabs you.

2 points.
1 to answer the second question what I dont like about Sky is not that i believe they are doping but that they portray themselves as this anti doping team without actually welcoming any discussion about their anti doping and lying through their teeth a lot of the time.

Hypocricy and using people as scapegoats is what irks me.

And I don't blame you hating hypocrisy - i just would rather hate cheats more.

Not the actual doping though. I thought Wiggins was doping back in 09 and 10 too and wrote as much but i was still a fan. Hell the wiggins fan thread on this forum was created by me back in 2011.

Likewise i dont have anything against Chris Froome even. He is clearly far less of a jerk than wiggins - like when he thanked the fans on pena cabarga for coming out and making a good atmostphere even though they all hoped he fell of his bike so that cobo could win.

And Froome doesnt go around saying he is clean every second. In fact he is friends with Vino and smiles as he shakes Contador's hand. Sure if asked he catergorically denies doping because he has to but i see more honesty in that than attacking Ricco and Vinokourov while fighting battles for Lance Armstrong as wiggins did.

2 you are imo wrong to assume that arguing that riders are doping does means one is upset with them.

No offense but i believe its a flaw of people are so emotionally tied up to doping that you will refuse to watch sport if you cant convince yourself that its clean. It handicaps your ability to look at these questions impartially since your mind really does want to believe that it is clean.

I always believe you cant let emotions get in the way of ones judgement.

ive argued that many of my favorite riders are dopers including Contador back when people still claimed he was clean. And i believe my national sporting heroes - Korzeniowski and Pudzianowski doped, even though i still have brilliant memories from supporting them I believe my favorite rider of the last decade or so Samuel Sancez is a doper, and i always believed it even if people like you will say that since he hasnt failed any tests he is probably clean.
Though i wish he was clean i dont delude myself when i look at the arguments i can see hes probably not. Either way even if he is a doper hes a nice guy, rides for a team i like, so i support him.

And thats also my answer to your first question but ill add this

Theres more to life than doping. Its a moraly wrong act and i wish it went away but i dont have the time nor energy to waste significant moral outrage on a bunch of athletes who seek out any possible advantage. there are significantly worse things i save that outrage for. Sport imo is at the end of the day of minor importance in the grand scheme of things. I watch it because i like it and will not stop just because a bunch of youths cant play fair (and in school i dont really remember anyone who could).



Anyway to riterate that not all dopers are bad guys here is the gospel of Creed - Michael, which i believe answers your questions better, with less words and with less of an egomaniacal flavour than my attempt.



http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/michael-creed-why-i-never-doped-and-my-future-in-the-sport

I could not disagree more, but you put your case very well, and I respect that. By the way, Poland got away with Stella Walsh - you ain't getting one over on a pole in Sport ;-)

 

[thehog]

I remember at the time there were some very juicy conspiracy theories flying about regarding what happened - my favourite being that Bradley realised how well he was going and chose to DNF to keep his cards close to his chest with the World ITT coming up, like he didn't want to alert Cancellara to how great his form was. Kudos to whoever conjured that one up!.

He was testing out a new cocktail. Festina were infamous for trying stuff out in smaller races then stepping of their bikes.

You've inteigued my interest; might go search that race out now.

btw: He rode PR that year as well. I think that was the year he discovered AICAR.

 

[ebandit]

doing a brad

He was testing out a new cocktail.

He rode PR that year as well. I think that was the year he discovered AICAR.

can you enlighten ignorant members such as myself.............can you clarify

what your talking about................fact or fiction.................................

hoggie spin or are there links.................after all you did challenge a member

for links yesterday

and yes! it's sir brad these days to us commoners

who is going to do a 'brad' next year shedding those excess pounds............

and a whole lot more.............imagine? how fast we could be on our bikes

 

[Joachim]

Come on ebandit. You've been here *long enough to know that hog makes everything up, then quotes himself saying "very true", like some sort of incompetent sock puppet.

* Long enough= a couple of minutes.

 

[ebandit]

enlightenment

Come on ebandit.

thanks! i entered the clinic expecting enlightenment...........looks as though

i have been duped

give me time............i will catch up

 

[Joachim]

If you want enlightenment go to the David Icke forum

 

[Alphabet]

The 'weak field' argument used to defend Wiggins can also be stated for Armstrong's 99 Tour win. Just saying.

 

[thehog]

The 'weak field' argument used to defend Wiggins can also be stated for Armstrong's 99 Tour win. Just saying.

And we know how that worked out. Hamilton talked about it in his book. Lance wanted to step things up after 99 due to no Ullrich and the spilt on stage 3.

Can see it already happening. We're on the cusp of a new dawn.

 

[blackcat]

You should go find the letter before just making assumptions.

Boldon was in awe of Greene, almost a brotherly relationship - until he found out that Greene was a 'drug mule' for the coach (which greene has since admitted, while denying taking - Schleck anyone? ) -

Boldon has a long time friendship with Darren Campbell, another visceral anti-doper (though a really good runner, he wasn't absolutely world class, although he had a great big-game temprement), and as I understand it, Campbell urged him to dig further.

When he did, and was told that Greene indeed doped by another member of the group, he went 'postal' on the coach, broke off all ties, and (I am told) wrote to IAAF demanding action - which he never got.

One can never know for certain, but I'd put good money on Boldon being clean.

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.

Ato was clean like Hincapie.

The 10 second theshold is like the TdF win. Not clean

 

[thehog]

“I've never seen a team dominate as much as Sky,” said Schleck.

Neither have I Andy. Neither have I.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...-best-but-Im-not-favourite.aspx#ixzz2H3KPkKpA

 

[JimmyFingers]

“The Armstrong case is from another era,” he said. “We are willing to accept other measures, but I think we can do more. Some want to change cycling, but cycling has changed. The Armstrong case was the big story of the year but we can learn from it, try to change things in the current framework with the tools available to us. We have the biological passport, whereabouts, sports are more controlled... You couldn’t do that today.

“I laugh when I hear people say we can’t do it without taking [banned] products,” he continued. “All those who know cycling know that it’s quite possible. For me, the biological passport is the only way to control riders. Perhaps there should be more controls, not only for the best.”

..............

 

[SundayRider]

Just been reading Wiggins book. Interesting observation in describing the first long TT in the Tour he says he 'held 470 watts all the way and hit 500 at times'. 470/69Kg = 6.81 watts/kilo. Ferrari's magic number.

 

[Panda Claws]

"I think Wiggins will win the giro, he has the character for it" - Andy Schleck

 

[thehog]

"I think Wiggins will win the giro, he has the character for it" - Andy Schleck

"The doping controls are not as strong and there's a more relaxed atmosphere to prepare for each stage" Andy said under his breath.

 

[SundayRider]

"The doping controls are not as strong and there's a more relaxed atmosphere to prepare for each stage" Andy said under his breath.

Just wondering if you've read Wiggins book?

 

[thehog]

Just wondering if you've read Wiggins book?

Which one? He has released at least four autobiographies in the last 3 years...

 

[SundayRider]

Which one? He has released at least four autobiographies in the last 3 years...

The latest one - basically a diary of the 2012 season.

 

[thehog]

The latest one - basically a diary of the 2012 season.

No. Should I? I'm not sure i could. I'm way too cyclical for such a book. With what I saw with my own eyes I'm not sure i could read the tripe reasoning given to such a display.

Could you highlight some passages?

 

[Benotti69]

The latest one - basically a diary of the 2012 season.

Does he list the amount BBs he did?

 

[SundayRider]

No. Should I? I'm not sure i could. I'm way too cyclical for such a book. With what I saw with my own eyes I'm not sure i could read the tripe reasoning given to such a display.

Could you highlight some passages?

Well I won't bore you with copying passages word for word. However in describing the first long TT at this years Tour he says he 'held 470 watts for most of the ride and hit 500 at some points' so if we divide 470 by his weight 69kg we get 6.81 watts/kilo.

 

[cineteq]

Which one? He has released at least four autobiographies in the last 3 years...

First thing that comes to mind, are they consistent with each other?

 

[sniper]

No. Should I? I'm not sure i could. I'm way too cyclical for such a book.

that makes two of us.
a good cook never reveals his recipy, ergo that book must be boring as hell.

 

[thehog]

Well I won't bore you with copying passages word for word. However in describing the first long TT at this years Tour he says he 'held 470 watts for most of the ride and hit 500 at some points' so if we divide 470 by his weight 69kg we get 6.81 watts/kilo.

Ferrari's magic number.

I'm surprised he put it print. Then again I'm sure he had a MG attributed to it for a clean justification.

Sad. Really sad.

And we're told cycling got slower

 

[SundayRider]

Yeah I was surprised as well. The weight was included in a different part of the book to the wattage but still...