Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[Benotti69]

Well, I'm not sure they always have the time, and the best equipment isn't available for the whole team.....that also irritated Hamilton, IIRC.

So what is an aspiring pro cyclist supposed to do, if his team won't back him fully?
Oh yes, we are in the clinic, and in this context, it does make a certain amount of sense

win the TdF of course, you know, like you do........

 

[Granville57]

If it was high you would be guaranteed it was released

Which begs the question: Have they ever released any scientific data that would point to Froome being an exceptionally gifted athlete? I haven't read every page of every thread, so maybe they did release something, somewhere?

Has Sky ever subscribed to anything along the lines of JV's "crazy adaptive physiology"? Do they publicly consider Froome to be exceptional for any specific reasons, a truly unique specimen?

Or just a hard worker?

Not a rhetorical question.

 

[daveyt]

Maybe it is strange they didn't put him in a wind tunnel, especially with the benefit of hindsight.

But I don't really understand what you guys are actually accusing sky of here? What do you think actually happened which is different to what sky are saying?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Which begs the question: Have they ever released any scientific data that would point to Froome being an exceptionally gifted athlete? I haven't read every page of every thread, so maybe they did release something, somewhere?

Has Sky ever subscribed to anything along the lines of JV's "crazy adaptive physiology"? Do they publicly consider Froome to be exceptional for any specific reasons, a truly unique specimen?

Or just a hard worker?

Not a rhetorical question.

No. Nothing beyond trainer hunches, Brailsford's alleged hunch and well some incredible results out of nowhere. Crazy adaptive physiology was a JV creation.

 

[red_flanders]

He was put in the wind tunnel when he became the star rider at the start of 2013. In 2012 Wiggins was the star. Wind tunnel time is very expensive. How do you not understand this?

It's odd, as a few days ago folks were arguing as if the science of aerodynamics has come so far as to eat up all the advantage of doping.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1608782#post1608782

So which explanation for Sky's unbelievable performance is it? The "Sky's gains in TT are due to aero science moving forward" or "Sky doesn't bother with wind tunnel testing because it's too expensive", or are folks somehow able to reconcile these arguments?

I know it's different people making these arguments, it's just that my head starts to spin trying to keep track of all the unlikely, difficult to explain paths Wiggins and Froome may have taken to transform the way they did. It's torturous.

I'll go with the simple explanation that checks literally every box on what we witnessed.

 

[Granville57]

But I don't really understand what you guys are actually accusing sky of here?

Of double-talk.

They claim to be on the cutting edge of marginal gains and scientific application in the pursuit of excellence. And yet they didn't expose this amazingly gifted Chris Froome of theirs to one of the most common of the more scientific approaches to making "marginal gains." The exact same type of thing that TT specialists such as Mark Cavendish had already supposedly found benefit in.

 

[the sceptic]

It's odd, as a few days ago folks were arguing as if the science of aerodynamics has come so far as to eat up all the advantage of doping.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1608782#post1608782

So which explanation for Sky's unbelievable performance is it? The "Sky's gains in TT are due to aero science moving forward" or "Sky doesn't bother with wind tunnel testing because it's too expensive", or are folks somehow able to reconcile these arguments?

I know it's different people making these arguments, it's just that my head starts to spin trying to keep track of all the unlikely, difficult to explain paths Wiggins and Froome may have taken to transform the way they did. It's torturous.

I'll go with the simple explanation that checks literally every box on what we witnessed.

And then bots will complain about the sky threads being long. After clogging up the thread with this nonsense that really doesn't need 500 posts worth of "discussion"

 

[daveyt]

Of double-talk.

They claim to be on the cutting edge of marginal gains and scientific application in the pursuit of excellence. And yet they didn't expose this amazingly gifted Chris Froome of theirs to one of the most common of the more scientific approaches to making "marginal gains." The exact same type of thing that TT specialists such as Mark Cavendish had already supposedly found benefit in.

Ahhh OK. Yeah, they aren't perfect. Obvs one good performance from Froome hadn't convinced them to fully invest in him, silly with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[daveyt]

And then bots will complain about the sky threads being long. After clogging up the thread with this nonsense that really doesn't need 500 posts worth of "discussion"

Well it's always hard being the one trying to prove something.

Why don't you explain how many people you think are involved in the doping, when it started, what they are taking, how they got Cookson and Walsh onside, how they are stopping leaks and let's see how that holds together?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Well it's always hard being the one trying to prove something.

Why don't you explain how many people you think are involved in the doping, when it started, what they are taking, how they got Cookson and Walsh onside, how they are stopping leaks and let's see how that holds together?

Haha. Yeah. What year is this again?? What is sufficient proof? Be specific.

There's that whole grand tour transformation thing we won't talk about. Cleans. For sure.

 

[red_flanders]

Well it's always hard being the one trying to prove something.

Why don't you explain how many people you think are involved in the doping, when it started, what they are taking, how they got Cookson and Walsh onside, how they are stopping leaks and let's see how that holds together?

How did Contador do it in the Tour this year? How did Nibali do it? Or do you believe them to have been clean? If you think they doped, why the lack of concern when someone observes that they were doping? Or are you actively defending them and I'm missing it?

One need not have all the details to know when it's happening. I believe Froome and Wiggins doped to their Tour wins. I am happy to present why I think that is. I am not interested in trying to prove what I don't know and what would not change my conclusion based on what I've seen.

Let me put it more simply. I don't know how almost all dopers ever have gotten away with doping. That doesn't mean they aren't or weren't doping.

 

[daveyt]

Haha. Yeah. What year is this again??

What would Cookson have to do with it? Or, are you suggesting, like Verbruggen, Wiggins is never tested positive?

There's that whole grand tour transformation thing we won't talk about.

Cooks on has nothing to do with.... or he is covering for sky. Views vary depending on if you are a tinfoil hat wearing mentalist.

Froome's transformation is suspicious, of course it is. But it's not damning, I know some will say "it is for me lolz you stupid skybot thinking Froome is cleans". But a rider needing 3 seasons to adapt to the world tour having limited experience compared to others is credable. You will scoff but whatever.

Wiggins is less problematic, straightforward move from track to GT.

Just tell me why you think sky and British cycling would dope knowing it would come out eventually?

 

[the sceptic]

 

[DirtyWorks]

Cooks on has nothing to do with.... or he is covering for sky. Views vary depending on if you are a tinfoil hat wearing mentalist.

Haha! Yeah! Personal attacks are a fail.

Please do not move on. What is sufficient proof of doping? Please be specific.

What incentive would BC have to make their own winner positive?

 

[daveyt]

How did Contador do it in the Tour this year? How did Nibali do it? Or do you believe them to have been clean? If you think they doped, why the lack of concern when someone observes that they were doping? Or are you actively defending them and I'm missing it?

One need not have all the details to know when it's happening. I believe Froome and Wiggins doped to their Tour wins. I am happy to present why I think that is. I am not interested in trying to prove what I don't know and what would not change my conclusion based on what I've seen.

Let me put it more simply. I don't know how almost all dopers ever have gotten away with doping. That doesn't mean they aren't or weren't doping.

I think Contador is clean (now), I think Nibali is clean, I do think there is a divide between his clique and the dodgy side of the team. I don't defend them as much as I don't support them do don't have the will to plough through all the guff on their threads.

It's odd that the burden of proof is on the defence... I don't know why I keep ending up on the defensive when you lot have so little behind your arguments but are very good at licking apart others.

Do you think there are team run programs now? Sky, tinkoff, astana, movistar, BMC, garmin and others? Are they beating the testers or are the testers corrupt?

And how did I get dragged into arguing on here.... I have been checking this forum for years as I have concerns, of course I do, and I think if any real evidence cropped up it will appear here. But the sheer illogic and brainlessness on most of the arguments on here that sky are doping just rile me so much, esp around the TUE, why Walsh jumped on the sky bandwagon (not if), how such a large conspiracy could survive with such a large financial incentive for the first whistle blower who gets a book out, the refusal on some parts to accept that sports science is a thing and that speeds for clean athletes SHOULD be going up etc etc.

 

[veganrob]

Ahhh OK. Yeah, they aren't perfect. Obvs one good performance from Froome hadn't convinced them to fully invest in him, silly with the benefit of hindsight.

"one good performance". I would say 2011 Vuelta was way, way beyond "one good performance".

 

[daveyt]

Haha! Yeah! Personal attacks are a fail.

Please do not move on. What is sufficient proof of doping? Please be specific.

What incentive would BC have to make their own winner positive?

Let he who has never said "skybot" cast the first stone.

Just one whistleblower or a failed test. I know, I know, Armstrong never failed a test. But I am cautiously optimistic that both the testing itself and the will of the testers is better now. I can't prove it, you can't prove against it.

 

[daveyt]

"one good performance". I would say 2011 Vuelta was way, way beyond "one good performance".

Really? Wasn't that string a field.

 

[DirtyWorks]

And how did I get dragged into arguing on here....

The personal attacks and constantly varying demands for proof while offering none of your own.

I still want to know what you feel constitutes sufficient evidence doping. Please be specific.

 

[daveyt]

The personal attacks and constantly varying demands for proof while offering none of your own.

I still want to know what you feel constitutes sufficient evidence doping. Please be specific.

As above, a test or a whistleblower, and I haven't attacked a specific individual, just the general mindset of some around here. I've been called a troll and a bot multiple times by the septic.

And as I said, I came here looking for proof against sky. While prodding to see if it was as flimsy as it looked I ended up being asked to defend them, them being clean can't be proven, just seems the more likely scenario.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Let he who has never said "skybot" cast the first stone.

Just one whistleblower or a failed test. I know, I know, Armstrong never failed a test. But I am cautiously optimistic that both the testing itself and the will of the testers is better now. I can't prove it, you can't prove against it.

How is it better? The sports federation is still in charge and can choose not to open sanctions. The UCI is the same org it was under McQuaid.

 

[red_flanders]

I think Contador is clean (now), I think Nibali is clean, I do think there is a divide between his clique and the dodgy side of the team. I don't defend them as much as I don't support them do don't have the will to plough through all the guff on their threads.

It's odd that the burden of proof is on the defence... I don't know why I keep ending up on the defensive when you lot have so little behind your arguments but are very good at licking apart others.

Do you think there are team run programs now? Sky, tinkoff, astana, movistar, BMC, garmin and others? Are they beating the testers or are the testers corrupt?

And how did I get dragged into arguing on here.... I have been checking this forum for years as I have concerns, of course I do, and I think if any real evidence cropped up it will appear here. But the sheer illogic and brainlessness on most of the arguments on here that sky are doping just rile me so much, esp around the TUE, why Walsh jumped on the sky bandwagon (not if), how such a large conspiracy could survive with such a large financial incentive for the first whistle blower who gets a book out, the refusal on some parts to accept that sports science is a thing and that speeds for clean athletes SHOULD be going up etc etc.

So that's all fine, if you really think those guys are clean I don't know what to say. Riding as fast as the times during the height of doping has no explanation to me other than doping.

The burden of proof is not on the defense. I have more than enough evidence to satisfy myself of what's going on, I won't get into it again here. What I am saying is that it's bull**** to ask people to demonstrate how they're doping as a defense against doping. I thought that was very clear in my post.

That I or anyone else do not know how specifically how they're doping is not an argument. I have more than enough evidence they are doping to satisfy myself that it's a fact. If I had the how it would simply bolster what I already understand. I have not been able to prove how anyone was doping ever, and it changed nothing about all the dopers which have been obvious to me. I could speculate, but it's not important and likely far off base.

It will all come out at some point and then I'll understand the how. It will not change the fact that I currently understand guys like Froome, Contador and Nibali are doping.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I can't prove it, you can't prove against it.

So what now? Is discussion forbidden for lack of daveyt-level proof?

 

[DirtyWorks]

I ended up being asked to defend them, them being clean can't be proven, just seems the more likely scenario.

You disagree. That's fine. You can offer evidence of cleans, yet refuse. Here's a clue. Consistency, performance history, age.

Be the exception to the norm and give it a shot. Or not.

 

[The Hitch]

In the Climb, Froome drops a number of hints about how he wasn't happy that wiggins got preferential treatment: in the Olympics TT, he was even jealous of Wiggins bike. He understood that Sky had written a script with Wiggins the hero. So the wind tunnel treatment (as opposed to the hairdryer treatment) would just be consistent with this.
Strikes me as having an element of truth in it

Well yes we are all assuming it is true.

And if it is true then it is another example of Sky lying since they claim the reason they were so dominant in 2012 was because they gave their riders all this help that no other teams were able to. Even bought super pillows for them.

And yet if Froome didn't go into a windtunnel until 2013 then they denied their leader for the Vuelta, one of the most basic training techniques that all top teams have provided for their riders since long ago.

Which shows that they were talking absolute bull**** and lying through their teeth when they claim to be more scientifically advanced than all other teams. And the reason they claimed that to begin with was to counter accusations of doping.
"We don't dope, we just train better".

Only Froome essentially confessed that they don't train better, in fact they train worse.