When do you think SKY will get caught?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

When will SKY get caught?

  • Never, because they are clean.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
Jul 16, 2012
34
0
0
buckle said:
Heck if the UK can host rogue states like Northern Ireland (apartheid)
Before You post I would advise you to get Your facts straight. Think before You post. Or do some research.

Northern Ireland is absolutely not a rouge state.

Iran, Iraq, Libya and North Korea are examples of rouge states.

Thank You.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
buckle said:
I agree. The British are different from the Americans. Although the PC lobby is strong it is not as powerful as the American equivalent. In the USA, Postal together with Armstrong are being offered as a sacrifice to appease ethnic tensions amongst the dopers and their accusers. It’s a case of “let’s give 'em one of our poster boys” by white journalists and the legal system. Cycling is no big deal in the USA outside of the TDF and, bored with the latter, LA is now deemed dispensable.

Even if BW is caught nothing will come of it. ***. “Bloody Johnny Foreigners who are they to tell us etc …” has worked before and will work again.

Ultimately, it depends who does the catching? We know BW has the backing of one major newspaper on the old left plus News International and their agents on the right and in government. His position with one win is potentially stronger than LA’s with seven in the face of exposure. I predict Sir Bradley will be dancing with the stars on big brother up the jungle within five years.
There are not that many Brits riders on TeamSky. Lots of 'bloody johnny foreigners' riding, working and doctoring there.

BW can get sanctioned by other anti-doping. Remember Valverde got sanctioned by CONI, why not Wiggins if he gets caught?
 

ianfra

BANNED
Mar 10, 2009
313
0
0
Benotti69 said:
There are not that many Brits riders on TeamSky. Lots of 'bloody johnny foreigners' riding, working and doctoring there.

BW can get sanctioned by other anti-doping. Remember Valverde got sanctioned by CONI, why not Wiggins if he gets caught?
What do you mean "if he gets caught"? That again is a clear statement by a Mr Know-it-all that Wiggins IS cheating. What is your evidence? Is this opinion stated as fact or is it actually fact? Get it into your head one more time: Because a rider wins it does not mean he has cheated. There are peeps out there with high ethics and Wiggo is one of these folk. Not everyone can be painted and tarred with the same brush. And you should not go around accusing people without evidence, tests, jury and so on. Do you place yourself above common decency? Because common decency dictates that you do not accuse peeps of things that they have not done or about which there is no evidence. There is in fact MORE evidence to suggest that in Sky we have a clean team. Thank goodness.
 

ianfra

BANNED
Mar 10, 2009
313
0
0
Cancellator said:
The road race is fair game, but if they also get the TT it will be disgusting. If we see Wiggins putting minutes into the others after a very "exhausting" Tour, I think everyone should realize what is going on.

The thing is, it seems Sky don't even want to give the others a bit of hope, even just to stop fueling the doping suspicions. They could have let Nibali take 20-30 seconds somewhere in the mountains - it would have made no difference for the GC (with the way Froome did the TTs his 2nd place was not in danger). But no, they want it all, even if it looks ridiculous. That's why they will probably get the double at the Olympics...
You know Cancellator: I would love to see you make all your baseless and insulting allegations directly to Cavendish, Bradley, Brailsford and so on. Have you got the guts to do that? You really should get a life and understand that there are people in this world who have moral standards. The fact that you can post such trash tells me that you may have lost your morality some time ago. I would sincerely like you to rethink and open your eyes and be a little generous to a highly successful team who happen to have got it just right - without the doping that has plagued the sport since the 1880s. Come on enjoy this golden moment in our sport.
 
ianfra said:
You know Cancellator: I would love to see you make all your baseless and insulting allegations directly to Cavendish, Bradley, Brailsford and so on. Have you got the guts to do that? You really should get a life and understand that there are people in this world who have moral standards. The fact that you can post such trash tells me that you may have lost your morality some time ago. I would sincerely like you to rethink and open your eyes and be a little generous to a highly successful team who happen to have got it just right - without the doping that has plagued the sport since the 1880s. Come on enjoy this golden moment in our sport.
Is anyone else having a hard time telling what is a troll, satire, or stupidity?

The tell here appears to be "golden moment in our sport." That marks the post as either a hamhanded troll or over the top satire. I cannot decide which.
 
BroDeal said:
Is anyone else having a hard time telling what is a troll, satire, or stupidity?

The tell here appears to be "golden moment in our sport." That marks the post as either a hamhanded troll or over the top satire. I cannot decide which.
Bam, we have a winner here!
 
ianfra said:
You know Cancellator: I would love to see you make all your baseless and insulting allegations directly to Cavendish, Bradley, Brailsford and so on. Have you got the guts to do that? You really should get a life and understand that there are people in this world who have moral standards. The fact that you can post such trash tells me that you may have lost your morality some time ago. I would sincerely like you to rethink and open your eyes and be a little generous to a highly successful team who happen to have got it just right - without the doping that has plagued the sport since the 1880s. Come on enjoy this golden moment in our sport.
The fact that you caan post such drivel tells me that you may have lost your common sense some time ago!

Two things trolly troll.

1 - Questioning someone's morality based on the post that was written is actually beyond a regular degree of brilliant. It is full genius my friend.

2 - I love this point about loving to see someone make these allegations to another person's face. This is an internet forum, so it could be a bit challenging. That said, are you so sure no one has done this yet? Because if you don' think anyone has, then you are not really that close to the matter :D
 
Aug 13, 2010
9
0
0
i'd bet money that they are doping - if there were a foolproof way of determining it

I reluctantly come the conclusion that this team dopes. The tour definitely looks cleaner overall, yes, but the following evidence leads to a guilty for Sky =

Most damning is the UCI biopassport leak from 2010 that showed that members of this team were overwhelmingly likely to be on doping programs. This includes a score of 5 for Wiggins (Armstrong got a 4) and higher scores for others. This evidence was the clincher for me - not just circumstantial like the others below...

The team uses a doping doctor - Leinders.

Unexpected performance improvements for several of the riders as documented in this forum.

They won the TdF. Note that this is a cynical view, but history shows that dopers win in this sport.

All the above together lead me to believe they are on a doping program.

Had the team management ever addressed the biopassport issues? It is ironic that according to them, British riders are among the most likely to dope.
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
Benotti69 said:
BW can get sanctioned by other anti-doping. Remember Valverde got sanctioned by CONI, why not Wiggins if he gets caught?
I don't think anyone is arguing that Wiggo shouldn't get sanctioned if he tests positive. The argument is that he shouldn't get sanctioned because he won't test positive because he's clean!
 
Mar 4, 2012
704
0
0
ianfra said:
You know Cancellator: I would love to see you make all your baseless and insulting allegations directly to Cavendish, Bradley, Brailsford and so on. Have you got the guts to do that? You really should get a life and understand that there are people in this world who have moral standards. The fact that you can post such trash tells me that you may have lost your morality some time ago. I would sincerely like you to rethink and open your eyes and be a little generous to a highly successful team who happen to have got it just right - without the doping that has plagued the sport since the 1880s. Come on enjoy this golden moment in our sport.
Disclaimer: I am writing this under the assumption that the quoted post is a honest opinion, not some sort of trolling.

Firstly, why come into the clinic, a subforum which has the sole purpose of discussing doping, if you can't bear the though of someone accusing a team you like? Just stay in the Pro Racing forum, where no such immoral acts are permitted...

Secondly, one of my club-mates actually ran into the British Olympic team a few months ago, training on Box Hill (which I did once every two weeks this winter and spring, but I didn't get to meet the guys, sadly). If that happenes to me I might actually tell Wiggo (the oh-so-terrifying 69 kg brute of a man) some of what I think.

I wonder - would he react with the poise of a true champion, confident of his achievements and with his mind at ease, or would he start a litany of c*nts and w*nkers and other British words so close to his heart? I wouldn't be surprised if he threw something about immigrants in there as well, just for good measure :rolleyes:.

If you can't handle the heat, just get out of here because no matter what you say, people will still suspect Sky and there's nothing you can do about it.
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
Cancellator said:
I wonder - would he react with the poise of a true champion, confident of his achievements and with his mind at ease, or would he start a litany of c*nts and w*nkers and other British words so close to his heart? I wouldn't be surprised if he threw something about immigrants in there as well, just for good measure :rolleyes:.
What makes you think he'd mention immigrants? Not only is he one himself, but his chief helper in the Tour is too. If he did, he'd probably be quite positive, though I think you raise the subject of immigrants simply because you don't like Wiggo rather than because of anything objective relating to the man himself.

As to the character of the man, there was a letter in Cycling Weekly last year from a guy who'd been riding in the Alps and sufferred a punture. It was p*ssing with rain at the time. As he started to fix the punture, the Sky team van went past, and Wiggo offered his personal mechanic's services to the puncture victim whilst he stayed in the dry in the van. Read into that what you like. ;)
 
Wallace and Gromit said:
As to the character of the man, there was a letter in Cycling Weekly last year from a guy who'd been riding in the Alps and sufferred a punture. It was p*ssing with rain at the time. As he started to fix the punture, the Sky team van went past, and Wiggo offered his personal mechanic's services to the puncture victim whilst he stayed in the dry in the van. Read into that what you like. ;)
Since when does being a 'good guy' means you cannot dope? Look at Basso for example.
 
Jul 20, 2010
247
0
0
I think Wiggins is clean...until they find the various masking agents that helped him be clean.

Nah, I think he's clean but I don't think he was really tested because this year was a field of no-names.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
As to the character of the man, there was a letter in Cycling Weekly last year from a guy who'd been riding in the Alps and sufferred a punture. It was p*ssing with rain at the time. As he started to fix the punture, the Sky team van went past, and Wiggo offered his personal mechanic's services to the puncture victim whilst he stayed in the dry in the van. Read into that what you like. ;)
In all accounts of people who know him he's seen as a very nice guy to hang around. It's just that he obviously has huge stress issues. For example Jan obviously is a great guy (check out the video's of jan riding gran fondo's and mingling with the crowd), but Jan never made terrible errors with a mike before his nose. Brad just threw the gauntlet in the face of the critics... and it has shown in the tone of the discussion.

I said it before: both Sky and himself are dropping the ball here. He should get a good handler so he can just focus on riding. It's what I would do if I were him... no shame in it and it saves a lot of explaining later on.

This is not to say he should be let of the hook for his declaration of war on critics, but I have read to many genuinely good stories to decide he isn't a Lance like sociopath.

But as Jan and Ivan has shown, great guys still can be on the juice.
 
Mar 4, 2012
704
0
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
What makes you think he'd mention immigrants? Not only is he one himself, but his chief helper in the Tour is too. If he did, he'd probably be quite positive, though I think you raise the subject of immigrants simply because you don't like Wiggo rather than because of anything objective relating to the man himself.

As to the character of the man, there was a letter in Cycling Weekly last year from a guy who'd been riding in the Alps and sufferred a punture. It was p*ssing with rain at the time. As he started to fix the punture, the Sky team van went past, and Wiggo offered his personal mechanic's services to the puncture victim whilst he stayed in the dry in the van. Read into that what you like. ;)
Actually I shouldn't have mentioned that, sorry. I thought of editing it out but it would be cheating now, would it :( I let my annoyance of some of the stuff I read in British media and on forums and Yahoo comments seep into this otherwise unrelated discussion. It was uncalled for.

As for the entire point, there are thousands of different lights in which you can see a man. On some recent occasions, Wiggins has put himself in a bad one (the outbursts etc.).

While it's true that I don't like him, I don't know exactly how he is like in his private life, or to those he meets outside of races - I saw the stuff that was on TV and YouTube, which damaged my opinion of him. I don't deny the possibility that this opinion is not 100% accurate, though.

But my suspicions are not based upon my impression of his character.
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
Franklin said:
I said it before: both Sky and himself are dropping the ball here. He should get a good handler so he can just focus on riding.
Focusing on the riding by giving Kimmage the cold shoulder in 2010 hasn't done him any favours though, has it? :)

I think Wiggo was a tad unwise to make his outburst, but that said, it's good to see a sporting type being decisive. I get annoyed with the bland innanities that we often get served up in interviews, though cyclists are generally more interesting than most.

Everyone gets stressed. The issue is how you deal with it, and if a foul-mouthed rant works for Wiggo then so be it. It's better than beating the wife, recreational drugs or folding like a pack of cards. He certainly didn't seem to suffer from the stress of leading the race as it progressed

None of the above, of course, has any bearing on whether he is actually doping or not.
 

ianfra

BANNED
Mar 10, 2009
313
0
0
Cancellator said:
Disclaimer: I am writing this under the assumption that the quoted post is a honest opinion, not some sort of trolling.

Firstly, why come into the clinic, a subforum which has the sole purpose of discussing doping, if you can't bear the though of someone accusing a team you like? Just stay in the Pro Racing forum, where no such immoral acts are permitted...

Secondly, one of my club-mates actually ran into the British Olympic team a few months ago, training on Box Hill (which I did once every two weeks this winter and spring, but I didn't get to meet the guys, sadly). If that happenes to me I might actually tell Wiggo (the oh-so-terrifying 69 kg brute of a man) some of what I think.

I wonder - would he react with the poise of a true champion, confident of his achievements and with his mind at ease, or would he start a litany of c*nts and w*nkers and other British words so close to his heart? I wouldn't be surprised if he threw something about immigrants in there as well, just for good measure :rolleyes:.

If you can't handle the heat, just get out of here because no matter what you say, people will still suspect Sky and there's nothing you can do about it.
This sub-forum is for discussing 'doping issues' - agreed.
I did not think it was for making accusations without foundation, or showing people that you can really add 2 + 2 and make 5.
Discussion and bigotted accusations are two different things.
I stick around because, hey, someone has to stick up for the innocent.
Incidentally, I do not understand what 'trolling' means. That's not part of my language. Throughout this sub-forum I have said what I honestly feel and I have spoken from my heart. Some people here do not like that and many points I have made have not been addressed - I just get name called et etc etc. Because what I have discovered is that people here can insult whomever they want in pro cycling but people who have honest heartfelt opinions and express them strongly get banned for 'insulting' other posters. That is as unfair and unjust as citing pro riders for doping when there is not a shred of evidence produced to back up these allegations.
Listen, I've been around this sport for 52 years and I think I know what's what. So I'm not some bright eyed newbie who thinks the world is a bed of roses. In my head I know who I suspect and who I utterly believe is clean. I will say on this forum that Sky is clean but I won't name those I suspect to be doping because it is just personal feeling with no evidence. I wouldn't be that unjust. I also think the various insults against Wiggins and Sky actually goes 100% against their human rights, goes 100% against justice and goes 100% against democracy. That's not the way we should do things and I wish, oh wish, that some of you could be forced to make these statements in a court of law.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
ianfra said:
This sub-forum is for discussing 'doping issues' - agreed.
I did not think it was for making accusations without foundation, or showing people that you can really add 2 + 2 and make 5.
Discussion and bigotted accusations are two different things.
You have not addressed your time as a journalist during the time of Simpsons death from doping. Did you ask the difficult questions of his peugeot team? Can you link or scan some of the articles that you wrote about doping back then in your job as a cycling journalist for cycling weekly?

ianfra said:
I stick around because, hey, someone has to stick up for the innocent.
You are following the wrong sport.

ianfra said:
Incidentally, I do not understand what 'trolling' means. That's not part of my language. Throughout this sub-forum I have said what I honestly feel and I have spoken from my heart. Some people here do not like that and many points I have made have not been addressed - I just get name called et etc etc.
When you call someone using 2 doctors with doping reputations innocent, you are not going to be taken seriously. This is pro cycling, not U12s club racing.

ianfra said:
Because what I have discovered is that people here can insult whomever they want in pro cycling but people who have honest heartfelt opinions and express them strongly get banned for 'insulting' other posters.
Use the report function if you feel you are being insulted as insults are againt the rules.

ianfra said:
That is as unfair and unjust as citing pro riders for doping when there is not a shred of evidence produced to back up these allegations.
In journalistic circles working with doctors who have a history of doping in pro cycling is very much considered evidence. There have been 2 articles in UK national newspapers asking TeamSky to explain why they are using Geert Leinders. That is journalism.

ianfra said:
Listen, I've been around this sport for 52 years and I think I know what's what. So I'm not some bright eyed newbie who thinks the world is a bed of roses. In my head I know who I suspect and who I utterly believe is clean. I will say on this forum that Sky is clean but I won't name those I suspect to be doping because it is just personal feeling with no evidence.
So you have your suspicions but wont name them, unlike others calling out what they see as doping performances with the knowledge that Sky are using Geert Leinders. This is done because it is a forum not a publication. The clinic is not judge and jury. It is comparable to the corner of the pub where like minded people discuss the doping side of the sport. No one is obliged to join in the discussion and people do so at their own will and people may leave of their own accord.

ianfra said:
I wouldn't be that unjust. I also think the various insults against Wiggins and Sky actually goes 100% against their human rights, goes 100% against justice and goes 100% against democracy. That's not the way we should do things and I wish, oh wish, that some of you could be forced to make these statements in a court of law.
Unjust??? Unjust is telling the fans lies, lies and more damned lies. The clinic loves the sport but is tired of the lies. Sky lied.

The Clinic is not about human rights, justice or democracy although by your very ability to be here and post your opinions you have been shown more democracy then Sky have allowed.

The Clinic is not a court of law and never pretended to be anything other than a sub forum in a cycling website that discusses the doping in the sport.

You should be asking Sky about their doctors and not asking us to believe that because you have 52 years knowledge of the sport (and all the doping down the years now go against everything you know and believe in Sky being clean.

52 years
Anquetil in 1965 "Leave me in peace; everybody takes dope."

Simpson in 1967 'amphetamines and alcohol, a diuretic combination which proved fatal'

Merckx in 1969 'tested positive for the stimulant Reactivan at Savona'

Joaquim Agostinho in 1969 of Portugal tested positive in the Tour of Portugal

Merckx in 1973 tested positive for a banned substance in the Giro di Lombardia classic

Roger Legeay in 1974 of France tested positive for amphetamines at the Paris - Nice race

Bernard Thévenet in 1975 won the Tour de France by using cortisone.

Joop Zoetemelk in 1977 tested positive for Pemoline in the 1977 Tour de France

Michel Pollentier in 1978 was caught trying to cheat the drugs control with someone else's urine Tour De France

Giovanni Battaglin in 1979 tested positive for doping in stage 13 Tour De France

Freddy Maertens in 1980 admitted to the French newspaper L'Équipe, after his retirement, that "like everyone else", he had used amphetamines.

Ángel Arroyo in 1982, received a penalty for testing positive for the stimulant Methylphenidate (Ritalin) on stage 17 of the 1982 Vuelta a España.

Adri van der Poel in 1983 Dutch world cyclocross champion and Tour de France stage winner tested positive for strychnine.

Francesco Moser in 1984 broke the hour record of Eddy Merckx. In 1999, he admitted blood doping to prepare for the attempt, helped by sports doctor Francesco Conconi. Such doping had not been declared illegal at the time.

Kim Andersen in 1987 tested positive for doping.

Pedro Delgado in 1988 tested positive for probenecid at the Tour de France

Laurent Fignon in 1989 tested positive for amphetamines at the Grand Prix de la Liberation in Eindhoven on 17 September

Sean Yates(Team Sky DS) in 1989 tested positive in the first stage of Torhout-Werchter

The PDM team in 1991 all sick from doping 10th stage Tour De France

Claudio Chiappucci confessed in 1997 that he had used drugs from 1993–1995

Bo Hamburger from Denmark admitted taking EPO from 1995–1997

Marco Pantani in 1995 recorded a haematocrit level of 60.1%

Bjarne Riis won the 1996 Tour de France under the effects of EPO, growth hormone and cortisone.

Djamolidine Abdoujaparov in 1997 became the first rider to be disqualified from the 1997 Tour de France for taking banned substances after testing positive for Bromantan

1998 Festina affair

Lance Armstrong in 1999 tested positive for corticoids during the Tour de France

We can go on and on and on and on..........

50 years of doping. How man times during those 50 years have those in charge of the sport said they had cleaned it up? Too many. Too many times we are lied too.

Time the teams and riders stop lying and show the fans that they wont have anything to with doping, doping doctors, doping DS, ex dopers etc etc...

Wiggins is as clean as those on this list. That he works with 2 doping doctors and a DS that tested positive in his career as a rider and then subsequently worked for USPS and Discovery mark him as a doping enabler.

This is the evidence that the clinic is discussing. You dont like it dont click in here.
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,642
0
0
Benotti's reply pretty much sums up what I think, but there are a couple more things I would add.

ianfra said:
This sub-forum is for discussing 'doping issues' - agreed.

I did not think it was for making accusations without foundation, or showing people that you can really add 2 + 2 and make 5.

Thoroughly dishonest way of arguing that point. You start out with the assumption that someone's point is wrong, and then say they shouldn't be arguing it because it's wrong, rather than argue against it.

Discussion and bigotted accusations are two different things.
And yet you insist on making generalisations implying that those who are suspicious of Sky are like that just because they are bigots. Is that not bigotry too?

Incidentally, I do not understand what 'trolling' means.
You are on the internet - ignorance is not an excuse, if you wanted to find out, you would have done, yet you remain wilfully blind.

That is as unfair and unjust as citing pro riders for doping when there is not a shred of evidence produced to back up these allegations.
Define "not a shred". I mean that seriously.

In my head I know who I suspect and who I utterly believe is clean. I will say on this forum that Sky is clean but I won't name those I suspect to be doping because it is just personal feeling with no evidence. I wouldn't be that unjust.
You need evidence to believe that they are dirty, but you are willing to believe that they are clean without specifying why. Could it be because they are British? If so, that would be bigotry.

I also think the various insults against Wiggins and Sky actually goes 100% against their human rights, goes 100% against justice and goes 100% against democracy.
What on earth does this have to do with justice, and how exactly does the clinic infringe on the rights of people to choose their government? The human rights angle is slightly more substantial, but I do not believe there is any human rights declaration that sets down the right to remain free of suspicion, not should there be.

That's not the way we should do things and I wish, oh wish, that some of you could be forced to make these statements in a court of law.
This is not "court of law" evidence, but if I were asked to explain to a ury why I believed Sky were doping, I would happily tell them. Nobody here is suggesting that the suspicions surrounding Sky amount to anything close to a prosecutable case.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS