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

[Benotti69]

Sincere question: how long are you a follower of cycling?

Since Sky gave him a job

 

[thehog]

I'm suggesting real evidence, not self-generated supposition. We'll let it slide that your above sentence doesn't actually make any sense in the context of my previous post.

Spot the problem with the two sentences above.

Alas there is 'real evidence'. The hiring of a nerafious and known doping Doctor to be the principle MD at the team is evidence of doping.

It is not 'self generated' as Sky hired the Doctor in question not myself.

The action was iniaiated by Sky. Myself and other members are commenting on that action.

If he wasn't hired there wouldn't be comment.

The evidence stands. Sky hired a known doping Doctor.

Thus it's my belief that they are doping.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Since Sky gave him a job

'That would be insincere.

 

[King Of The Wolds]

Alas there is 'real evidence'. The hiring of a nerafious and known doping Doctor to be the principle MD at the team is evidence of doping.

It is not 'self generated' as Sky hired the Doctor in question not myself.

The action was iniaiated by Sky. Myself and other members are commenting on that action.

If he wasn't hired there wouldn't be comment.

The evidence stands. Sky hired a known doping Doctor.

Thus it's my belief that they are doping.

There's no evidence, unless you believe that any organisation who hires somebody with a rumoured, past misdemeanour, is then automatically guilty of that said, rumoured misdemeanour, just be the act of hiring itself.

So the lack of evidence stands, and, thus, it's my belief that they may or may not be doping, given the lack of any evidence.

 

[BroDeal]

Let me see. After a season with results inline with the capabilities or the team's riders, the team relaxes its doping policy, hires a dope doctor, and suddenly it is getting crazy performances out of its riders. Men who spent most of their career struggling to get through mountain stages in the autobus are magically winning stage races, no-hopers who were having difficulty finding a new contract are transformed into top three GT contenders, and riders with a long history of working with the shadiest dope doctor in the sport are riding better than ever. After the season, the sponsor decides that it is all a bit to obvious, so the team desperately chucks all the doping riders and staff that the public knows about overboard. Nope, nothing suspicious to see here at all. Move along.

 

[ebandit]

shocking

Personally, I'm in shock. It's 2002 all over again.

hoggie.......what is shocking is your turnaround within 48 hrs starting in the sky thread.........'you're shocked' then 'to be honest i'm not surprised' now back to 'i'm shocked'

so what's the truth..........you're flaming / trolling?

and why not answer members questions what you are talking about?
well beyond wanting to be the centre of attention

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Let me see. After a season with results inline with the capabilities or the team's riders, the team relaxes its doping policy, hires a dope doctor, and suddenly it is getting crazy performances out of its riders. Men who spent most of their career struggling to get through mountain stages in the autobus are magically winning stage races, no-hopers who were having difficulty finding a new contract are transformed into top three GT contenders, and riders with a long history of working with the shadiest dope doctor in the sport are riding better than ever. After the season, the sponsor decides that it is all a bit to obvious, so the team desperately chucks all the doping riders and staff that the public knows about overboard. Nope, nothing suspicious to see here at all. Move along.

To be fair, this conlcusion should have been made when a certain Chris Froome suddenly rocked the boat on la Covatilla, pardon me spelling. That was sickening to see. Laughed my *** off.

 

[BroDeal]

To be fair, this conlcusion should have been made when a certain Chris Froome suddenly rocked the boat on la Covatilla, pardon me spelling. That was sickening to see. Laughed my *** off.

True, but after 2010 there was a definite change in attitude and by the end of 2011 the results showed it. It was like flip the mood lighting to Timothy Leary psychadelia and let's get it on.

 

[thehog]

There's no evidence, unless you believe that any organisation who hires somebody with a rumoured, past misdemeanour, is then automatically guilty of that said, rumoured misdemeanour, just be the act of hiring itself.

So the lack of evidence stands, and, thus, it's my belief that they may or may not be doping, given the lack of any evidence.

This is not a court of law. This is the real world.

There is direct evidence of doping.

Fact: Sky hired nerafious doping doctor.
Conclusion: team-wide systematic doping program.

Shall I go on?

Rogers, Yates, Ternerife, power levels, weight loss, unrealistic performance levels.

Sentence: lifetime bans.

 

[oldcrank]

after 2010 there was a definite change in attitude and by the end of 2011 the results showed it.

Exactly as predicted in the late 70's by Paul Weller in
his eerily prophetic song 'Burning SKY':

"......the values we had once upon a time
seem stupid now 'cause the rent must be paid
and some bonds severed and others made."

 

[King Of The Wolds]

This is not a court of law. This is the real world.

There is direct evidence of doping.

Fact: Sky hired nerafious doping doctor.
Conclusion: team-wide systematic doping program.

Shall I go on?

Rogers, Yates, Ternerife, power levels, weight loss, unrealistic performance levels.

Sentence: lifetime bans.

There is no evidence re: Leinders and The Clinic is only the real world in your world.

And it would really help in these Sky threads if, when somebody produces a counter argument to a specific allegation, that all other, general arguments aren't then thrown back at them which, in turn, have also been countered at some point. If I have to reply to each and EVERY point, for every time you make an individual point, it's going to add exponentially to the overall length and make life very difficult for anybody who wants to read through the complete content.

 

[thehog]

There is no evidence re: Leinders and The Clinic is only the real world in your world.

And it would really help in these Sky threads if, when somebody produces a counter argument to a specific allegation, that all other, general arguments aren't then thrown back at them which, in turn, have also been countered at some point. If I have to reply to each and EVERY point, for every time you make an individual point, it's going to add exponentially to the overall length and make life very difficult for anybody who wants to read through the complete content.

Why get personal? This is a discussion not an inquisition.

Leinders administered, sold and trafficked EPO to cyclists as late as 2007/2008. This I find most concerning. He was also the Doctor at Rabobank at the time when Michael Rasmussen was dumped from the Tour.

The fact that Sky hired a Doctor with this history of obvious doping is frightening.

By this action I find Sky guilty of systematic-team-wide doping program.

Leinders specialism is doping. Pure and simple. SKy knew this and sort out to hire his services.

I'm sorry. There's no other way to represent this obvious case of team wide doping.

 

[King Of The Wolds]

Why get personal? This is a discussion not an inquisition.

[/U]

You're right, of course, there's no need, and I take that back.

 

[thehog]

You're right, of course, there's no need, and I take that back.

Thank-you.

 

[oldcrank]

doping is frightening

What is even more frightening are the words of the
visionary Paul Weller in his famous composition:

"...there is only one power higher than that of truth
and that's the burning SKY! that's the burning SKY!"

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Sky audited expenses last year for those interested:

'11 the year of PR and Marketing.
'12 the year of Results.
Textbook stuff.
(assuming calendar years in above books)

 

[Joachim]

There is direct evidence of doping.

Fact: Sky hired nerafious doping doctor.
Conclusion: team-wide systematic doping program.

Rogers, Yates, Ternerife, power levels, weight loss, unrealistic performance

They may be doping, they may well be. I find it entirely plausible.

But none of that is evidence. Real world, and most definitely not in any court of law. Rogers and Yates can be discounted out of hand...most likely have previous on the doping front but find me a top 100 tour rider or a former pro DS who doesn't. The other stuff is just baa.

 

[Joachim]

Sincere question: how long are you a follower of cycling?

Gt stuff? On and off for about 30 years. Got a bit bored during the Indurain years. Didnt mind watching Armstrong, knew he was doping as were all the others, but it was quite exciting to watch.

Been riding and racing for about as long.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

They may be doping, they may well be. I find it entirely plausible.

But none of that is evidence. Real world, and most definitely not in any court of law. Rogers and Yates can be discounted out of hand...most likely have previous on the doping front but find me a top 100 tour rider or a former pro DS who doesn't. The other stuff is just baa.

Pierrick Fedrigo was 48th, and comes with good references. Sandy Casar was 22nd and I'm not aware of anything against his name.

 

[Benotti69]

They may be doping, they may well be. I find it entirely plausible.

But none of that is evidence. Real world, and most definitely not in any court of law. Rogers and Yates can be discounted out of hand...most likely have previous on the doping front but find me a top 100 tour rider or a former pro DS who doesn't. The other stuff is just baa.

The real world rarely entered pro cycling and caught the dopers. When it did enter it invariably was the police of customs officials who did the dirty work for the sport.

We are not a court of Law, we are fans who are discussing the obvious, Sky dominated the biggest race of the year in a manner that to fans is as obvious as night follows day.

 

[Joachim]

No, some fans. But not many.

 

[Joachim]

Pierrick Fedrigo was 48th, and comes with good references.

Applying the twisted logic of some people on this forum, Fedrigo is a proven doper

 

[DirtyWorks]

..But none of that is evidence.

Again with the demands for "proof" that is impossible to satisfy and therefore Sky didn't dope for the 2012 miracle. This all has the same feel of the Armstrong myth when it was in full bloom.

Real world, and most definitely not in any court of law. .

This is a failed argument for many countries. For most countries, sporting decisions are non-judicial.

but find me a top 100 tour rider or a former pro DS who doesn't.

What's your point here? Everyone is doing so why bother enforcing it? Athletes have died in what amounts to uncontrolled human experimentation with oxygen vector doping. Is killing people cool now too?

 

[Joachim]

Wow! So many straw men in one post.

Sorry, I won't bother responding to you.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

They may be doping, they may well be. I find it entirely plausible.

But none of that is evidence. Real world, and most definitely not in any court of law. Rogers and Yates can be discounted out of hand...most likely have previous on the doping front but find me a top 100 tour rider or a former pro DS who doesn't. The other stuff is just baa.

There is no evidence Ivan Basso doped in the 2006 Giro. No evidence Contador doped in any of his GT wins except the 2010 Tour. No evidence Cunego doped in 2004 except what Cunego himself has said with a nudge and a wink. No evidence any of Alejandro Valverde's results were ill-gotten - he's never failed a test.

The Clinic is not a court of law, and whether somebody doped or not is only a court of law situation on rare occasions. Only a small fraction of the dopers are ever caught. But absence of the kind of evidence that would be permissible in a court of law does not mean that there are no dots to join.

If something walks, swims, flies, looks, and quacks like a duck, a court might require further evidence; independent witnesses that corroborate your story that what you saw was, in fact, a duck; DNA tests and so forth to confirm this finding. However, in the absence of these, the duck might walk away on a technicality, but that doesn't mean there is not reasonable suspicion that the suspect walked, swam, flew, looked, and quacked like a duck and therefore was, in fact, a duck.