Top Ten excuses Sky will use to fend off doping accusations

[Franklin]

You just don't get it do you? My point was that if you want to accuse, say which riders you are accusing, don't say just say "sky" thereby implicating every rider on the team.

It's a bit to heady for you it seems. I'll try, but I know you simply will not understand.

They hired Leinders. They dragged him out of the gutter as nobody dared to hire him after the schandals had hit him hard. Note that Leinders never even tried to deny, he just hid away knowing this would fly over. Yes, let that sink in: he has been tarred black by ex-riders and the media and he just slinked away.

Now who hired Leinders? Not Wiggins, not Froome, not Porte, not Rogers. It was the management of Sky who decided that Leinders was a really good match.

Now to the riders... you have seen the list of blood passport of l'equipe, one who to my knowledge has been decried due to privacy but not about it's contents. These riders were hired by *hold on to your seat* the management of Sky.

I know this must all be extremely shocking for you, but Sky is responsible for the structure and the riders and ultimately responsible for both right and wrong. Actually, usually teams just take the good things and ditch the scandals

 

[pedaling squares]

Sky failed hard in the classics. Best in rider in the Giro: Uran 7th place. TdS another fail. Vuelta Pais Vasco: Nordhaug 6th place.

I guess when you mean Sky here you really mean Wiggo-Froome-Porte-Rogers.

Don't you ever get tired of your own bull****?

You are talking about a team with the stated goal of winning the Tour de France within 5 years of their inception. Do you think they give a rats backside about the classics?

 

[Dr.Sahl]

Sky does not need an exuse, they are rich enough to pay people to ask them something else.

 

[thehog]

Sky does not need an exuse, they are rich enough to pay people to ask them something else.

I would say this is looking worse than US POSTAL. Lance was better at pretending he was an underdog and “all it takes is one bad day in the Tour”. Wiggins needs to get his rhetoric right. Pretend that he could lose it all at anytime.

I’m actually laughing at it now. That’s how stupid its got.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Swimming coaches and gynecologists. That's what "thinking outside the box" means in men's professional cycling.

 

[Falken]

It's a bit to heady for you it seems. I'll try, but I know you simply will not understand.

They hired Leinders. They dragged him out of the gutter as nobody dared to hire him after the schandals had hit him hard. Note that Leinders never even tried to deny, he just hid away knowing this would fly over. Yes, let that sink in: he has been tarred black by ex-riders and the media and he just slinked away.

Now who hired Leinders? Not Wiggins, not Froome, not Porte, not Rogers. It was the management of Sky who decided that Leinders was a really good match.

Now to the riders... you have seen the list of blood passport of l'equipe, one who to my knowledge has been decried due to privacy but not about it's contents. These riders were hired by *hold on to your seat* the management of Sky.

I know this must all be extremely shocking for you, but Sky is responsible for the structure and the riders and ultimately responsible for both right and wrong. Actually, usually teams just take the good things and ditch the scandals

Oh, I get it. There are some circumstances that give you grounds for being suspicious. Fine, be suspicious. Still, there is no solid proof of doping, and last time I checked mere suspicion doesn't qualify as proof. But reading this forum the court has already laid down its judgement: Sky, id est Wiggo, Froome, Porte, Rogers (Knees, Sivtsou, EBH as well?) are guilty of doping, anyone saying otherwise is a naive Skylover or something. Just amazes me how easy some folks here just judge riders and a team without a shred of evidence.

 

[mastersracer]

It's a bit to heady for you it seems. I'll try, but I know you simply will not understand.



Now to the riders... you have seen the list of blood passport of l'equipe, one who to my knowledge has been decried due to privacy but not about it's contents. These riders were hired by *hold on to your seat* the management of Sky.

I know this must all be extremely shocking for you, but Sky is responsible for the structure and the riders and ultimately responsible for both right and wrong. Actually, usually teams just take the good things and ditch the scandals

and do you know where Sky ranks as a team on that list (hint: below the median).

 

[Franklin]

and do you know where Sky ranks as a team on that list (hint: below the median).

I know, they all do it! So it's perfectly okay for Sky to do it! Or do you have a point here?

I'm puzzled why pointing out the problems with Sky suddenly implies that we don't see the issues with the other teams

But masterracer, let's cut the bs. The tough questions about the structure of Sky are unanswered. Now perhaps I go all wrong about this.

Is Leinders hired for morale? Is he someone who can make everybody laugh? Does he have great conversational skills? Is he able to sing ballads?

I mean he surely isn't hired because of his medical past as that would be rather fishy.

 

[Christian]

17. Tea made from super secret herbs growing on the inside of Mount Teide and harvested at moonlight

 

[Caruut]

Oh, I get it. There are some circumstances that give you grounds for being suspicious. Fine, be suspicious. Still, there is no solid proof of doping, and last time I checked mere suspicion doesn't qualify as proof. But reading this forum the court has already laid down its judgement: Sky, id est Wiggo, Froome, Porte, Rogers (Knees, Sivtsou, EBH as well?) are guilty of doping, anyone saying otherwise is a naive Skylover or something. Just amazes me how easy some folks here just judge riders and a team without a shred of evidence.

This is not the high court - solid proof is not needed to form an opinion, and that is what many have done. What you ask is that we stop thinking. What you are asking is that we simply stick our heads into the sand. Turn off your heads and stop thinking the nasty thoughts - so long as people hide the evidence, there is no crime. If I were a judge, I would not convict Sky of doping - there is clearly not solid evidence. However, I am no judge - I am just a man, and one with an opinion.

 

[cineteq]

@janibrajkovic has the perfect excuse:

"it's very easy to say they must be doing something... Yes, they r, training, nutrition, dedication, etc. well deserved".

So Jani why don't you do the same thing?

 

[Franklin]

Oh, I get it. There are some circumstances that give you grounds for being suspicious. Fine, be suspicious. Still, there is no solid proof of doping, and last time I checked mere suspicion doesn't qualify as proof. But reading this forum the court has already laid down its judgement: Sky, id est Wiggo, Froome, Porte, Rogers (Knees, Sivtsou, EBH as well?) are guilty of doping, anyone saying otherwise is a naive Skylover or something. Just amazes me how easy some folks here just judge riders and a team without a shred of evidence.

Oh I get it. How much evidence did we have against USPS? Tell me how that worked out to be.

I'll tell you a little shocker, the big dogs get burnt by following up leads and exposing their medical teams. It's how Basso, Lance, Ulrich, Zulle etc. got caught. There almost never is solid proof of doping!

Now we take that rather fruitful approach towards Sky: Nobody can deny that Leinders presence is "troublesome". Nobody (not even Leinders!) denies that he is heavily linked with doping programs. So wtf is he doing at Sky?

And don't give me "they couldn't find anyone else drivel". Teams didn't dare to hire him for a few years, so obviously there were alternatives.

 

[roundabout]

and do you know where Sky ranks as a team on that list (hint: below the median).

shouldn't they be last or is that their super training that made the blood values go wonky?

 

[burning]

@janibrajkovic has the perfect excuse:

"it's very easy to say they must be doing something... Yes, they r, training, nutrition, dedication, etc. well deserved".

So Jani why don't you do the same thing?

Papy Vino doesnt feed him with good food

 

[mastersracer]

I know, they all do it! So it's perfectly okay for Sky to do it! Or do you have a point here?

I'm puzzled why pointing out the problems with Sky suddenly implies that we don't see the issues with the other teams

But masterracer, let's cut the bs. The tough questions about the structure of Sky are unanswered. Now perhaps I go all wrong about this.

Is Leinders hired for morale? Is he someone who can make everybody laugh? Does he have great conversational skills? Is he able to sing ballads?

I mean he surely isn't hired because of his medical past as that would be rather fishy.

This thread isn't about all teams doping (the top ones probably are). The claim is that Sky gaining a major advantage over other teams via doping. This is implausible, since the history of doping in cycling has always revealed more or less similar doping among top teams/riders.

Moreover, these threads illustrate confirmation bias and cherry-picking. You point to a suspicious doctor. If you dig around, you'll find suspicious ones at most teams - RSNT had a boat load of them. Everything that's being said of Sky in these threads could be said of BMC - Jim Ochowicz - doesn't get a sketchier past than that. Team organization - goes back to Phonak days, Landis, Hamilton, etc. Riders like Hincapie, admitted doper. Ballan, Gilbert (rumors about 2011 etc). Evans linked to Ferrari and won a Tour against dopers. Team doctors: Max Testa seems to have spent a lot of time around dirty riders. He coached Levi for a long time and said this: "George, Levi, Zabriskie, these are all good guys," Testa said. "You can never know in sports and there are surprises, but they are all solid people." Do we really believe doctors who can't tell if the riders they've coached for years are doping? Like Lim's 'surprise' when Landis got popped.

 

[roundabout]

Sure, they are gaining advantage through training

Other trainers copy the programmes that he invented, and they don’t always do it well. He has a training system that is different and more advanced than everything else. He radically changed my way of doing resistance climbs, for instance. I improved more in a few weeks with him than in six months with others.

 

[Christchurch]

You cite these types of remarks because it's what dirty teams say to cover up being dirty.

But do you see the logical problem? Dirty teams say this PRECISELY BECAUSE it's what clean teams do to achieve results.

It's like saying we know a man on trial for murder is guilty because he said he didn't do it. No, guilty people say this because it's what innocent people say. That both say the same thing does not mean both are guilty.

Hello. I'm curious as to what it would take to convince forum members that someone wasn't doping? We've all been disillusioned through the years by LA, Basso, Alberto etc. As the above post alludes, the language used by the clean and the dirty is exactly the same.

In light of this, is it reasonable to infer good performances by top pros are always indicative of doping / programmes etc?

This year I watched the Champions League. Barcelona and Real Madrid have vast budgets. It is no surprise then that these teams have the best players and (usually!) perform the best.

Sky and BMC also have vast budgets, is it surprising they have the best riders who, after lengthy apprenticships and many trials and tribulations, are performing best at the tour?

I'm not naive, if any rider at this tour subsequently tests positive, I would not be at all surprised. My favourite rider is Contedor, I like him primarily because he has amazing talent and I feel he stuck it up Lance. He is a drug cheat and is rightfully serving a ban. He was (eventually) banned on an evidential base.

Where is the evidence that Sky in general, and Wiggins in particular are doping?

 

[taiwan]

You cite these types of remarks because it's what dirty teams say to cover up being dirty.

But do you see the logical problem? Dirty teams say this PRECISELY BECAUSE it's what clean teams do to achieve results.

It's like saying we know a man on trial for murder is guilty because he said he didn't do it. No, guilty people say this because it's what innocent people say. That both say the same thing does not mean both are guilty.

No, why is the defendant on trial in the first place? It's not the plea of guilt or innocence he's being judged on, it's the incriminating evidence and the plausibility of his explanation of it.

 

[Marco Pantani]

Is Leinders hired for morale? Is he someone who can make everybody laugh? Does he have great conversational skills? Is he able to sing ballads?
I mean he surely isn't hired because of his medical past as that would be rather fishy.

Interestingly you can't find him on their official homepage. You can't find any doctor......but the teams personal psychiatrist.

 

[cineteq]

Where is the evidence that Sky in general, and Wiggins in particular are doping?

Froome, among other things.

 

[Thee_chisa]

Froome, among other things.

do you know what evidence means?

 

[taiwan]

This thread isn't about all teams doping (the top ones probably are). The claim is that Sky gaining a major advantage over other teams via doping. This is implausible, since the history of doping in cycling has always revealed more or less similar doping among top teams/riders.

So you think they're doping, but they aren't doing anything wrong. OK, that's a unique position in this thread at least.

You're wrong that all programmes are the same though, because clearly there the small timers who DIY at huge risk to their health and get popped (Ricco) at one end of the scale, while at the other you have exclusive relationships with the top doctor, a sophisticated logistical operation supporting team wide doping, and protection from the governing body (USPS). Yeah level playing field.

 

[Houndbike]

Boys, boys hold up a minute. It's all very clear.

Its number 18 - because they use oval chain rings. UK tv explained that to us just before the TT

 

[superconfex]

No, why is the defendant on trial in the first place? It's not the plea of guilt or innocence he's being judged on, it's the incriminating evidence and the plausibility of his explanation of it.

Oh so now Sky are on trial now....Who made you judge????

 

[usedtobefast]

Boys, boys hold up a minute. It's all very clear.

Its number 18 - because they use oval chain rings. UK tv explained that to us just before the TT

that and a lot of "hard work"