Me too, but to stay on topic, can SKY get any better, with Rosa in? Who will go out anyway, i am not sure about their contracts, apart from Konig, who i expect to leave...
Edited by Avin Wargunnson on 21-07-2016 18:06
Just my private view on dope.
As I can't prove Yes or No, I won't speculate, but one thing is sure in Fromy or Sky use is I'm 100% sure, everyone else does too, so I don't think it will effect the balance between the riders.
There have been drugs in cycling for 100 years +, but as long as everyone use it, the best riders will win.
Tamijo wrote:
Just my private view on dope.
As I can't prove Yes or No, I won't speculate, but one thing is sure in Fromy or Sky use is I'm 100% sure, everyone else does too, so I don't think it will effect the balance between the riders.
There have been drugs in cycling for 100 years +, but as long as everyone use it, the best riders will win.
There's a difference though. Everyone else might be doped to the gills, but Sky have much more money. They can find new drugs that are more effective and harder to detect because of it. Kind of like their "marginal gains" within doping itself.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
Tamijo wrote:
Impossible to know, but I find it hard to believe someone have found the miracle drug, and others don't know about it, riders change teams ect ect
True, but definitely ways to pay people off, shut them up, etc. with that kind of stuff.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
For me the only way Sky could have a leg up in the doping process is through better masking agents/ glow time reducers, this could help them use/gain more than the rest. I think that all the good riders still dope, just Sky do a better job of it and have tons more money than the other teams.
welker3257 wrote:
For me the only way Sky could have a leg up in the doping process is through better masking agents/ glow time reducers, this could help them use/gain more than the rest. I think that all the good riders still dope, just Sky do a better job of it and have tons more money than the other teams.
Or froome could just be a great responder to the drug that there using which would have the greatest effect if they are all on drugs
sad stuff that the Sky dope/hate thread has actually a more senseful discussion than every single TDF stage and is fairly more grounded than many suggestions in the stats discussion thread in these days...
Croatia14 wrote:
sad stuff that the Sky dope/hate thread has actually a more senseful discussion than every single TDF stage and is fairly more grounded than many suggestions in the stats discussion thread in these days...
Vaughters has kind of gone off about Sky (maybe not directly) the last couple of days, and a few of the points he made are quite important to the years long discussion as a whole.
Why does rider comp matter in overall team performance? In transfer market, best talent goes to highest bidder. Not pay more=go faster. Duh
Since Daily posts can only contain one that one is the most important I feel, but I would suggest checking out his little tweet spree in it's entirety because there's a lot of interesting point and unique perspective.
One thing is for sure. Vaughters used to defend Sky quite a bit at the beginning but he's completely turned his opinion coming from the inside of cycling. And I would think a lot of other managers probably have similar sentiments, though they are much more bashful in proclaiming it than Vaughters is (and as Vaughters is with just about everything).
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
I don't see him turning at all against Sky, he's just commenting as it is.
Salary cap would be absolutely useless, there is so little money in the sport already it makes absolutely zero sense.
Vaughters isn't saying anything interesting really, the only person that was saying interesting things was Oleg, cycling needs to be commercialized to actually make money to sponsors..and for this time, it's just not there. But obviously that's not happening anytime soon as well.
At the end I don't see why people are complaining, Sky dominates the season 21 days out of whole season, the other races are much more even and level playing field, just enjoy that and let Sky have the Tour
Alakagom wrote:
I don't see him turning at all against Sky, he's just commenting as it is.
Salary cap would be absolutely useless, there is so little money in the sport already it makes absolutely zero sense.
Vaughters isn't saying anything interesting really, the only person that was saying interesting things was Oleg, cycling needs to be commercialized to actually make money to sponsors..and for this time, it's just not there. But obviously that's not happening anytime soon as well.
At the end I don't see why people are complaining, Sky dominates the season 21 days out of whole season, the other races are much more even and level playing field, just enjoy that and let Sky have the Tour
It's actually a huge problem. Because the Tour is not only the cycling's most famous race, for many, it is the only race. Literally the only race they know about. Most cycling fans, including my self, first saw the Tour de France, which got them into cycling.
For me, that was in 2008. Knowing nothing about cycling and seeing a guy like Sastre make his strategic attack to win the race, and the way team tactics could be nuanced is what convinced me that cycling was awesome and far from simple. It was much more than just "a bunch of guys riding bikes," as many of my friend tell me. If I had flipped the TV channels and found this Tour instead of the 2008 Tour, I don't think I ever would have gotten into cycling.
And that phenomena is probably playing out (at least to some extent), as this Tour goes by. The Tour is cycling's window to the outside. The impression is makes about the sport as a whole to the outside is at stake, and that is extremely important, regardless of the entertainment value present fans see throughout the season.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
Tamijo wrote:
Just my private view on dope.
As I can't prove Yes or No, I won't speculate, but one thing is sure in Fromy or Sky use is I'm 100% sure, everyone else does too, so I don't think it will effect the balance between the riders.
There have been drugs in cycling for 100 years +, but as long as everyone use it, the best riders will win.
I don't often dip into this thread and sorry for picking out your post but this is a total and utter fallacy that needs to be challenged - there is no level playing field in performance enhancing drugs. It's very easy to think there is and I'm sure most of us have held that opinion at one point.
Tamijo wrote:
Just my private view on dope.
As I can't prove Yes or No, I won't speculate, but one thing is sure in Fromy or Sky use is I'm 100% sure, everyone else does too, so I don't think it will effect the balance between the riders.
There have been drugs in cycling for 100 years +, but as long as everyone use it, the best riders will win.
I don't often dip into this thread and sorry for picking out your post but this is a total and utter fallacy that needs to be challenged - there is no level playing field in performance enhancing drugs. It's very easy to think there is and I'm sure most of us have held that opinion at one point.
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
