When do you think SKY will get caught?

Page 5 - 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
When Michael Rogers is pulling and Samuel Sanchez has to let the pack go one could raise an eyebrough or two. No evidence, just a bit suspicious imho. Then softpedalling to the top in company of Richie Porte and still be in front of the like of Sanchez. Must be the watts.
 
Jul 19, 2012
115
0
0
Franklin said:
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.
Looking back at this prompts the following thoughts.

1) You cannot assume anything.
2) The world is slightly more sophisticated than your black and white perfect ideal.
3) Stop projecting what you think is the "only logical stance" as the only option.
4) Of course "my position" in your mind, contrived as it is only in your mind, does not make any sense, as a) it doesn't fit in with your personal agenda and b) it is a contrived position assembled only in your mind.
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,642
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.
There is a fundamental difference between saying something happened and saying it never happened. To say it happened, you need to see it once. To say it never happened you must have seen it not happen all the time. You cannot know that someone has never doped, plenty of people have been completely unaware of spouses cheating - far harder to conceal than simply injecting something in private, popping a pill or putting a patch on. You seem to be under the impression that no-one has ever lied about who they are to give themselves credibility on the internet.

I think you will find also that many people would doubt the claims of an anonymous internet poster claiming to have seen an athlete dope without revealing who they were. I know I would. Personally I believe you that you are involved with Leander/GB and that you've never seen Redgrave dope. I still don't see how that means that he never has.
 
Apr 10, 2009
594
0
0
Are there really folks out there that think these guys are clean?

I mean besides Brits, as we have seen previously with Americans (fully admitting to being part of that crowd for a while) and others, jingoism comes with cataracts so you can't see clearly when looking at compatriots.
 
slowoldman said:
Are there really folks out there that think these guys are clean?

I mean besides Brits, as we have seen previously with Americans (fully admitting to being part of that crowd for a while) and others, jingoism comes with cataracts so you can't see clearly when looking at compatriots.
Though i am not a Brit, not all Brits think they are clean even some Englishmen are very suspicious and maybe some Norwegians/Scandinavians think they are clean, i think.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Snafu352 said:
Insinuation and allegation Franklin not evidence or proof or fact of doping. :rolleyes:
I dare you to go over every point and deny they are cold hard facts. This is so hilarious :D

It is clear that as far as you are concerned insinuation and allegation are good enough for a conviction.
First off, the ties between two doping doctors and Sky are irrefutable. You are the first one who is even so ridiculous to deny this.

Mr. Wiggins himself once said that every team that has 1% connection with a doping doctor needs to be banned.

Plus we must not forget the emotive side of it eh... :rolleyes:
You are using belief, I am using facts. You want to muzzle us, we just want to speak out. We want clean cycling, you want us to whitewash Sky. This makes it irrefutable: you are the guy who lets emotions wave away cold hard facts.

And that's the way the cookie crumbles... :cool:
 
Snafu352 said:
Insinuation and allegation Franklin not evidence or proof or fact of doping. :rolleyes:
I've seen enough of your posts where you reject some argument. I don't see a post where you've laid out your case. Honestly, I could have missed it. Please reply with the specific evidence you believe justify Sky did this dope-free.
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,642
0
0
gooner said:
Now tell me where can we "join the dots" to link a suspicion of possible doping to Redgrave? Is there any dodgy doctors linked with him? We used this critieria to raise suspicion on Sky so lets use it with Redgrave also. To me there is nothing, absolute zilch link and nothing for us to "join the dots", so I don't know why his name is being discussed here in The Clinic. I don't want to hear this free spech mantra as a means to back up people's argument to raise suspicion on someone. To me it's discussing something for the sake of it, and as a result nothing constructive and coherent comes out of it.
I have no position on Redgrave, don't know enough about rowing or doping in rowing to comment. The guy I replied to had stated in another thread that he knew that Redgrave had not doped. That was criticised for two things. Firstly he made an argument based on insider credibility yet was offended by people curious as to who he was and secondly that without spending all your time with someone, you just can't know what they got up to. Now he's trying to use these criticisms of his post as evidence that the Clinic has one line and only one line and sticks to it. That is what I was making a point about - the criticisms of his post are not evidence that the Clinic is what he wants to paint it to be.
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,642
0
0
Zam_Olyas said:
Though i am not a Brit, not all Brits think they are clean even some Englishmen are very suspicious and maybe some Norwegians/Scandinavians think they are clean, i think.
I sure don't.
 
Caruut said:
I have no position on Redgrave, don't know enough about rowing or doping in rowing to comment. The guy I replied to had stated in another thread that he knew that Redgrave had not doped. That was criticised for two things. Firstly he made an argument based on insider credibility yet was offended by people curious as to who he was and secondly that without spending all your time with someone, you just can't know what they got up to. Now he's trying to use these criticisms of his post as evidence that the Clinic has one line and only one line and sticks to it. That is what I was making a point about - the criticisms of his post are not evidence that the Clinic is what he wants to paint it to be.
As someone that regularly supports rowing here, I agree with you completely.

Over the top arguments that cannot be substantiated are exactly that, regardless of the sport or athlete. In fact, these are exactly the arguments that get the attention of the Clinic, and so they should be.

Dave.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
The biggest issue that springs to mind on Wiggins is his training statement saying he maintains 95, 96, 97% top form year round.

Lance didn't even try and claim being in top form year round. :)

He may be caught sooner than later given today's atmosphere.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Zinoviev Letter said:
Hang on. I haven't been following this thread and have lost track of some of the claims and counter-claims.

2 doctors?
Yeah, thanks to some diligent sleuthing another doctor popped up. I assume that this guy is really good at making sports drinks.

After the tour de Shanghai the guy who washes the chamois got foodpoisoning, it was an extremely close call. It was reported it as due to spoilt milk. They realized they were running incredible risks, so they needed someone who is really good at filling bidons. Those guys are hard to find you know!

They just had to hire Dr. Fabio Bartalucci, they simply couldn't find a better drink-mixer.
 
Never. Not because they are clean because that would be a much bigger scandal then US Postal and Lance. Also with the possibility of much bigger fishes being involved and covering their backs.

As some of you already have stated. Lance was smart enough writing history in the bigger races and keeping his credibility as long as possible while Sky take on a full-year peak program.
 
No_Balls said:
Never. Not because they are clean because that would be a much bigger scandal then US Postal and Lance. Also with the possibility of much bigger fishes being involved and covering their backs.
Who are these "bigger fish?" In the U.S. Tailwind represents all of the power and much of the money in cycling. Tailwind officers run USA Cycling and it's clear that the UCI fully back the myth even to this day. Can it get bigger than that? It's an honest question. I really don't know.

No_Balls said:
As some of you already have stated. Lance was smart enough writing history in the bigger races and keeping his credibility as long as possible while Sky take on a full-year peak program.
Don't give the guy that much credit. Off the dope, he was Pro pack fill. I don't have his lone Tour of the Gila results handy, but that's the perfect example.
 
DirtyWorks said:
Who are these "bigger fish?" In the U.S. Tailwind represents all of the power and money in cycling. Tailwind officers run USA Cycling and it's clear that the UCI fully back the myth even to this day. Can it get bigger than that? It's an honest question. I really don't know.
 
Zam_Olyas said:
Though i am not a Brit, not all Brits think they are clean even some Englishmen are very suspicious and maybe some Norwegians/Scandinavians think they are clean, i think.
The Scandinavians believe in staying loyal to their fellow Northern Europeans. They fear rule from the Vatican otherwise. Curiously, Denmark and Sweden played out a 'biscotto' at Euro 2004 (biscotto is the Italian term for horse doping) as in fix a game. The Spanish were in position to do the same thing in 2012 but refused. Italy were victims and potential victims in both cases.
 
maxmartin said:
Anybody change their minds after olympic TT?
That wasn't an extraterestrial performance. Incremental gains, average speeds, maybe Tony Martin will make us all feel better with a quote about a natural performance on Wiggins' part...

Just don't mention Froome. They haven't come up with excuses for that one. It's like a version of Stockholm Syndrome.
 
Jul 19, 2012
115
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
I've seen enough of your posts where you reject some argument. I don't see a post where you've laid out your case. Honestly, I could have missed it. Please reply with the specific evidence you believe justify Sky did this dope-free.
I can't do that because i don't know that they did. :rolleyes:

Unlike some who are so sure of themselves and their beliefs.

What i will do with absolute certainty is stand up against such malicious allegations from anonymous internet warriors who have as much knowledge as i do yet claim to be the all knowing oracle.

(ps as i've stated before if there are guys here who do know more than the average chap and yet aren't taking that to places where it'll be used then they are part of the problem. As of yet i don't see any of the big mouth deep throats on this forum doing that at all...now i wonder why that is...(NOT!))
 
Jul 19, 2012
115
0
0
Franklin said:
I dare you to go over every point and deny they are cold hard facts. This is so hilarious :D



First off, the ties between two doping doctors and Sky are irrefutable. You are the first one who is even so ridiculous to deny this.

Mr. Wiggins himself once said that every team that has 1% connection with a doping doctor needs to be banned.



You are using belief, I am using facts. You want to muzzle us, we just want to speak out. We want clean cycling, you want us to whitewash Sky. This makes it irrefutable: you are the guy who lets emotions wave away cold hard facts.

And that's the way the cookie crumbles... :cool:
Yet again telling me what i think...and with a good dose of insult thrown in...hhmm.

Weak.

(ps not sure what you think you are achieving here, i've never denied any of the above hysterical rambling; all i've done is pointed out that it proves nothing. At the same time i've stated that Sky have questions to answer. But hey you and your buddies such as the hog carry on being the "smart guys" in the clinic (a forum set up for the loonies to discuss doping away from the real discussions) and convincing yourselves you are the dogs. :rolleyes:)
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Snafu352 said:
Yet again telling me what i think...and with a good dose of insult thrown in...hhmm.
So you do agree there are cold hard facts and evidence after all? Glad to have established that.
So I assume we shouldn't handwave it after all? Glad to have established that.
So it eems you have no more points to rave about. Glad to have established that.

Thank you for agreeing that your allegations of no evidence or facts were wrong. I'll accept this as an apology and assume you will stop derailing the thread with nonsense. :cool:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS