When do you think SKY will get caught?

Page 4 - 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 .
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
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.
Got two short words for you: Chris Froome.

Either the second coming, he sprints uphill faster than Marco Pantani, or the biggest fraud. React to that. You dont even have to answer to Rogers or Porte who suddenly hit numbers better than his Ferrari days. Just a simple explanation to the mystery Chris Froome.

You know, Chris Froome, formerly Barloworld with Volpi, the ex - Gewiss Ballan rider, DS at Fasso etc etc.
http://www.dopeology.org/incidents/Volpi-positive/

Do you even know pro cycling or a you just a track groupie/trainer?
 

ianfra

BANNED
Mar 10, 2009
313
0
0
As expected everyone of my words is taken to pieces and analysed but there is no clear response to what I say. Earlier this week I was in my front yard prepping 4 track bikes for the velodrome. A well dressed couple appeared over my gate and started talking to me about the Bible and they were Jehovah's Witnesses. There was no argument that could be used against their beliefs because they firmly believed that they had a monopoly on truth and would never budge. I realised then that my experience of these people was the same as my experience of people who want to believe that Sky and their riders run a doping programme. JW's do not entertain opposing views. Nor do the folk around here, it seems.
I would be a lot more comfortable with the posts here if you said "It is alleged that ...", "It is possible that ...." "Maybe, just maybe ......" "perhaps ....." etc rather than making blanket statements then tear anyone to bits who dare oppose those statements.
Fortunately, I live amongst friends and colleagues who take a much more positive view of the world than you peeps. I've had no end of emails (from friends and lurkers) praising the position I have taken in opposing the statements on this sub-forum that you guys make as if you know the truth of everything.
In any case, I also believe that what goes round comes round. There are many ex pro cyclists suffering from bad health and that MAY be due to the drugs they used to achieve success. Its up to their own consciences. There are far more important battles to be fought in this world so perhaps you people can use your energy in trying to fight human rights abuses in different parts of the world, or raise money to help young riders in developing countries become world class riders. There are indeed many useful ways to use your energy and now that the Tour is won with a clean team and now that I've made my point to you guys I'm happy to withdraw and use my intelligence elsewhere. Cheers and thanks for the fun and for the insults and put downs. I really don't care about your minority and slightly weird views. Remember you may be wrong. You may be!
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
ianfra said:
Cheers and thanks for the fun and for the insults and put downs. I really don't care about your minority and slightly weird views. Remember you may be wrong. You may be!
And again, nothing to see here, move along people.

Chris Froome? Do endulge us with your professional analysis on his sudden rise to fame.

Or are you just a track groupie with no roadrace expertise? I bet it is the second.

Move along and cheers.
 
Jul 19, 2012
115
0
0
I think Wiggins is disliked by quite a lot of people posting in this forum largely because he identified their characters quite accurately! :)

Tis a strange thing to make accusations without evidence, based on what one sees on a tv screen, with no professional background of ones own to draw from, or if it is using ones own background perhaps it says more about that person than the people being accused?

Alternatively it could just be called Sad.
 
Jun 25, 2012
283
0
0
ianfra said:
I really don't care about your minority and slightly weird views. Remember you may be wrong. You may be!
The thing is, his views are not a minority on this board or in any area other than the UK... Even the kids in my country could see this was farce of a tour..


If you had read this thread, you would notice that quite alot of people, including myself, post valid argumentation to why they might be doped.
Every single time I have posted obivious links and information that points toward them being dirty, the people defending Sky have been refraining from answering (because they can't) furthermore.. If we only took solid posetive test as a sign of doping, quite alot of those taking for it would be free today (since they never tested posetive) ^^
 
Jun 25, 2012
283
0
0
Snafu352 said:
I think Wiggins is disliked by quite a lot of people posting in this forum largely because he identified their characters quite accurately! :)

Tis a strange thing to make accusations without evidence, based on what one sees on a tv screen, with no professional background of ones own to draw from, or if it is using ones own background perhaps it says more about that person than the people being accused?

Alternatively it could just be called Sad.

It is strange to defend one without answering simple accusation questions aswell and thats what many defenders have been doing.. atleast I am yet to see any comment on (let me give you a few examples)

Wiggins all year peak and no off days (off days are part of being human trust me)

Wiggins views on Doping related team staff/doctors. He even said the ASO should ban people with these kinda staff members and even undirectly talked dirt about GL in 2007. Suddenly Wiggin's team got quite a few of these, including GL and now he thinks thats perfectly fine and everybody accusing is paranoid ? :D lol

I never saw a real explanation to how Wiggins could lose weight and power, but still get leagues better than others in the ITT and still be one of the best MR.. all logic says he should lose abit of his ITT power.

Wiggins refuse to show his BP results, because his doctor (I guess GL) said to him that its unwise... maybe thats because people already *proved* doping in the former ones (he was a anti doping researcher)

Wiggins ingeneral agressive nature and very very agreesive natur when the talk falls on him being the bad guy.. now this can be both good or bad, but personaly I find it weird that someone who openly talked about RR being super dirty less than 5 years ago, now say its completely clean and people are paranoid from accusing him.

But to me Wiggins is not the biggest problem (but he was your example) and I didnt bury him as a big cheat yet, even if my opinion is towards that, but it would be very dumb, to not look into these matters and debate this.. there are more evidence on Wiggins and Sky doping than there is evidence against it im0 (not being tested posetive is not a ultimate I am clean evidence) just look at history and even the newest cycling fan would know this.


You also might wanna notice that some of the members of this board are half time pros, (some even former pros) in various sports and that some of us have a education that will give us a mandate to actually speak about the issue.

Whats really sad, is that some people rather want pro wrestling style sport instead of genuine sport... thats what sad.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
ianfra said:
<not the concise prose of someone who wrote for a living>

I'm happy to withdraw and use my intelligence elsewhere. Cheers and thanks for the fun and for the insults and put downs. I really don't care about your minority and slightly weird views. Remember you may be wrong. You may be!
You keep telling us you dont care yet here you are. You allegedly have 24 bikes. Get out and ride them if you cannot take the tone of the clinic, which has a large does of cynicism towards what we are told by those who control and run the sport. You fail to understand this yet have followed or worked in the sport as a professional writer. Hmmmm!

Enjoy your bike.

Sky will get caught.

They are catching the guy who had the UCI in his back pocket. Only a matter or time before Sky get caught.
 
Mar 22, 2011
368
0
0
Caruut said:
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.
Disclaimer: Devil's advocate, don't call me a fanboy, troll etc etc.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
function said:
Disclaimer: Devil's advocate, don't call me a fanboy, troll etc etc.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
In cycling the right of 'reputation' sailed a long long time ago.
 
Mar 22, 2011
368
0
0
Benotti69 said:
In cycling the right of 'reputation' sailed a long long time ago.
In human civilization, the right of reputation sailed a long time ago. See the problem here? As a civilization we have been doing horrible things to one another since time immemorial and yet here we are trying to improve things with a human rights charter.

History does not define the future.
 
Aug 6, 2009
1,901
0
0
function said:
Disclaimer: Devil's advocate, don't call me a fanboy, troll etc etc.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Can you actually challenge something because it allegedly violates a human right in a US court? Do the human rights declaration actually have direct legal force? I think the answer is no, but I'm far from 100% sure.
 
Jul 19, 2012
115
0
0
Dr.Sahl said:
You also might wanna notice that some of the members of this board are half time pros, (some even former pros) in various sports and that some of us have a education that will give us a mandate to actually speak about the issue.
Yet none of these "experts," part time or former, can provide anything other than un-substaniated gossip to support their suspicions??

I call that as bull and jealousy. I shall not comment on the reasons for that, as i'm not aware of them.

As i believe i posted elsewhere, if these guys have the evidence they should be sharing it in places that are going to use it effectively to eradicate the disease. (USADA seems like a good place to start...)

If they don't do that they are a part of the problem.

The fact that they choose instead to post malicious un-substantiated gossip here, a sub-forum specifically designed to keep dopey loonies away from the normal forums, shows the probablity of substance in their claims.

I'm fully aware that cycling has been plagued for many years with doping and i deplore it. I also deplore rubbish being posted and treated as fact just because it fits in with personal agendas.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Snafu352 said:
As i believe i posted elsewhere, if these guys have the evidence they should be sharing it in places that are going to use it effectively to eradicate the disease. (USADA seems like a good place to start...)
s.
You might not realize, but there is a difference between evidence and definite proof.

Evidence: Lance worked with Ferrari. It's not definite proof.
Evidence: Sky employed two dodgye doctors. It's not definite proof.

Now let's play ball... you deplore dirty cycling. I can assume that:

1. You want dirty doctors out!
2. You want every stone turned so this sport can recover.

There was a day where this was the agenda of Wiggins. It's clearly the only logical stance if you love cycling. So why do you want us to stop being critical? Why do you want us to stop hammering Sky? Maybe you prefer having a hero above clean cycling? If you want clean cycling your position truly makes no sense at all.
 
Jul 13, 2012
263
0
0
Franklin said:
You might not realize, but there is a difference between evidence and definite proof.

Evidence: Lance worked with Ferrari. It's not definite proof.
Evidence: Sky employed two dodgye doctors. It's not definite proof.

Now let's play ball... you deplore dirty cycling. I can assume that:

1. You want dirty doctors out!
2. You want every stone turned so this sport can recover.

There was a day where this was the agenda of Wiggins. It's clearly the only logical stance if you love cycling. So why do you want us to stop being critical? Why do you want us to stop hammering Sky? Maybe you prefer having a hero above clean cycling? If you want clean cycling your position truly makes no sense at all.
Good post, I've read posts on here for some years without reply. As informed/regulars have said you search through many posts for the real gems and some of them stop you dead with science, historic facts (% riders winning Le Tour clean) and straight fwd logic.

To slowly find out a sport you damn near killed yourself for as a 20-25yr old, has basically been a testing ground for doping is not pleasurable in any way however emotive, head in the sand attitudes don't take us fwd in any respect.

Its easy to say forums like this are largely made up of conspiracy theorists but when you start to see some of the members who contibute, I for one think they demand at least a modicum of respect.
 
Oct 30, 2010
177
0
0
Snafu352 said:
Yet none of these "experts," part time or former, can provide anything other than un-substaniated gossip to support their suspicions??

I call that as bull and jealousy. I shall not comment on the reasons for that, as i'm not aware of them.

As i believe i posted elsewhere, if these guys have the evidence they should be sharing it in places that are going to use it effectively to eradicate the disease. (USADA seems like a good place to start...)

If they don't do that they are a part of the problem.

The fact that they choose instead to post malicious un-substantiated gossip here, a sub-forum specifically designed to keep dopey loonies away from the normal forums, shows the probablity of substance in their claims.

I'm fully aware that cycling has been plagued for many years with doping and i deplore it. I also deplore rubbish being posted and treated as fact just because it fits in with personal agendas.
+1. The irony is, if you call them out on it and say I know those people and I know they didn't dope (as with Redgrave in the Olympics) they attack you for keeping your real name confidential, yet it's okay for them to say whatever they like about whomever they like without ever having to come out from behind their rock.

They only listen to the stories that fit their agenda. If I'd said I'd seen Steve Redgrave doping at Leander in the '90's and 00's they'd have seized on that as the 'truth' but because I categorically stated that I never saw it happen, never heard rumours of it happening and spent enough time in the squad to know everything about the GB Rowing squad (including lab results) they still come back with the "ah, but you cannot be around them 100% of the time" argument.

It's a lose/lose. They're convinced Sky doped and there's nothing that's going to dislodge that conviction.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Markyboyzx6r said:
They only listen to the stories that fit their agenda.
Cool story.

Now let's wipe those tars from our eyes and go over the facts.

Care to comment on them? Care to support us? Or don't you care about clean sport?

I'm tired of being called a loony when both evidence is clear and the only right decision is demand transparency and answers. Every other position is just fanboyism and does not help cycling one inch. Either you want dope out or you condone it.
 
Jul 13, 2012
263
0
0
Markyboyzx6r said:
+1. The irony is, if you call them out on it and say I know those people and I know they didn't dope (as with Redgrave in the Olympics) they attack you for keeping your real name confidential, yet it's okay for them to say whatever they like about whomever they like without ever having to come out from behind their rock.

They only listen to the stories that fit their agenda. If I'd said I'd seen Steve Redgrave doping at Leander in the '90's and 00's they'd have seized on that as the 'truth' but because I categorically stated that I never saw it happen, never heard rumours of it happening and spent enough time in the squad to know everything about the GB Rowing squad (including lab results) they still come back with the "ah, but you cannot be around them 100% of the time" argument.

It's a lose/lose. They're convinced Sky doped and there's nothing that's going to dislodge that conviction.
Thats a little unfair to some, I keep an open mind as do I'm sure many on here, I know nothing about rowing or doping there of, its your area of expertise so I 'hope' what you say is correct! There are elements of doubt in most walks of life (death & taxes aside;)) so folk will always have an alternate view - yours is just as valid and remember how fortunate we all are for being able to freely express ourselves whether it be fact or fiction :D
 
Jul 19, 2012
115
0
0
Franklin said:
So why do you want us to stop being critical? Why do you want us to stop hammering Sky?
There is a massive difference between being inquisitive and asking questions versus the tripe that you and others have posted here.

Unfortuantely for you it seems you have inadvertantly revealed your true motives for posting:

Franklin said:
Why do you want us to stop hammering Sky?
 
Jul 19, 2012
115
0
0
Franklin said:
I'm tired of being called a loony when both evidence is clear and the only right decision is demand transparency and answers. Every other position is just fanboyism and does not help cycling one inch. Either you want dope out or you condone it.
"...evidence is clear..."

In the court of Franklin apparently.

Are you aware that you do not exclusive rights to the "truth?" Something being your opinion does not in fact make that something fact!

And then off you go into a emotion based "with us or against us" G Dubyaesque ultimatum. :rolleyes:

Not doing your "argument" any favours here.

Provide substance not emotion.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Snafu352 said:
There is a massive difference between being inquisitive and asking questions versus the tripe that you and others have posted here.
You mean those pesky things called facts and evidence? Yeah they sure rain on your parade :D

Unfortuantely for you it seems you have inadvertantly revealed your true motives for posting:
I want to hammer Sky so they be transparent. Obviously you haven't taken the effort to check my posts, but I have been very clear that I want to out all the doping doctors. About the riders? I posted a few times I certainly can believe they are clean. It's just that this doesn't make a difference, there is hammering to be done unless we never get a clean sport :cool:

But clearly you only care about the image of your team. Cool with me, but you have nothing to look for in this thread where we look at facts and evidence and don't believe in fairytails. I know it must be heartwrenching to see the evidence and know that cycling's history is squarely and utterly against you... so save yourself the misery. If you don't want to find out the truth, don't post here.
 
Jul 19, 2012
115
0
0
Franklin said:
You mean those pesky things called facts and evidence? Yeah they sure rain on your parade :D



I want to hammer Sky so they be transparent. Obviously you haven't taken the effort to check my posts, but I have been very clear that I want to out all the doping doctors. About the riders? I posted a few times I certainly can believe they are clean. It's just that this doesn't make a difference, there is hammering to be done unless we never get a clean sport :cool:

But clearly you only care about the image of your team. Cool with me, but you have nothing to look for in this thread where we look at facts and evidence and don't believe in fairytails. I know it must be heartwrenching to see the evidence and know that cycling's history is squarely and utterly against you... so save yourself the misery. If you don't want to find out the truth, don't post here.
Where's the "facts" Franklin? You haven't posted anything that resembles one!

Just a whole lot of emotive blubbing allied with a strong set of insinuations and allegations.

Once again, claiming something is a "fact" does not in fact make it one!
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Snafu352 said:
"...evidence is clear..."

In the court of Franklin apparently.
Evidence is something else as proof :D

Are you aware that you do not exclusive rights to the "truth?" Something being your opinion does not in fact make that something fact!
Awwww..... now we have somone even denying the facts... you are a hoot!

Okay. We now can deny that:

1. Sky has two dodgy doctors. It's simply not true!
2. Wiggins promised to post his blood values and decided against it. This never happened, he actually posted his values!
3. Sean yates was a DS of a team which in that period used dope according to WADA. This is not true, there was no doping at USPS or he wasn't a DS there!
4. Rodgers, who is connected to Freiburg twittered that his performance is better than ever. Rodgers doesn't ride for Sky, Didn't ride for Telekom or didn't post that tweet!

Care to respond to these falsehoods? ;)

And then off you go into a emotion based "with us or against us" G Dubyaesque ultimatum.
Awww.. don't like to be told how it is? You want us to want a clean cycling, only be very, very, very understanding and especially circumspect about it? Surely the riders and teams have deserved that we trust them? :D

Not doing your "argument" any favours here.

Provide substance not emotion.
I think I'm the one with the facts, you are the one with... ? ;)
 
Jul 19, 2012
115
0
0
Insinuation and allegation Franklin not evidence or proof or fact of doping. :rolleyes:

It is clear that as far as you are concerned insinuation and allegation are good enough for a conviction.

Plus we must not forget the emotive side of it eh... :rolleyes:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY