trekbmc wrote:
Remember in last year's tour on the Mont du Chat, when Froome had a puncture and Aru attacked? Froome told him off.
Remember today when Nibali crashed and Froome just went for it straight away?
Not even worth mentioning the fact that Froome has been caught for doping now and I have my doubts about G (although there's no clear evidece) Damn, I am so tired of Sky.
Not a fact. Cleared.
Also, Froome didn't attack Nibali. He lost 10 seconds to Froome on the line with a broken back. They all sat up. Admittedly that was because they were watching each other, but they didn't attack when Nibali went down. They just carried on riding.
Its not only about suspicions from doping. Well thats the main reason why people do not like them but you are ringo more or less right that there is no evidence yet. But yeah then there are cases like Wiggins`s jiffy bag etc.
There is however second reason (away from doping) why people do not like them. And thats the money thing and their budget. Okey, probably again they are not the one to blame (it should be leading organisations because there could be a salary cap etc) but its frustrating to see such a dominance. If other teams could also afford more expensive riders it could be more equal
We are just tired of seeing this kind of dominance with only a weak and unequal SKY`s competitors.
I totally understand and accept that. The biggest and richest teams in any sport are often disliked. It's normal.
The problem with the majority of criticism levelled at Sky is the constant "FACT FACT FACT Sky are Doping, Froome is a doper. Thomas is in yellow but he rides for Sky so he's obviously doping".
Stop stating untrue facts about Sky doping. The reason people don't like them is because they are successful. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing so stop stating it as fact that they are doping. It isn't a fact.
I have no problem with people disliking Sky for actual reasons. The reason you dislike them may be because you suspect them of doping, again perfectly fine. But stating gossip and rumour and suspicion as fact. It isn't fact.
Okey I will admit it too, I dont like them because they are too much successful. But I also dont like them because of the reason I mentioned above. I also see your points which you are stating but I just cant help myself.
Yes, I suspect them of doping, because in the last few years there was too much of it. They claim something and they are not doing it (jiffy bag - well no medical records kept by Mr. Freeman because his laptop was stolen. Come on guys. How you can investigate sth like this when they did not leave any evidence. Basically you can not prove sth when the evidence is perfectly destroyed or hidden.
Also I would be fine if I could believe in testing systems, which reveals doping and that they are actually working. Then I would state the same as you, there is no clear evidence and I can rely on that fact since I know detection of doping is actually working and there are same rules used for every rider. Put your hand on your heart and ask yourself. Are you sure that UCI can reveal every kind of doping? I would like to believe in that. Then there would not be such comments, speculations, gossips and rumours. This uncertainty in everything creates this environment.
Btw If you will have more time 15-20min - read this article https://www.indep...l7cFyskub0 (I picked him from SKY doping hate thread where was posted).
Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.
_____________________________________________ PCM Velogames Championship - Top Results
* 1st Tour de Suisse ('23)
* 1st Tour de Romandie ('19, '18)
* 1st Tour de Pologne ('20, '19)
* 2nd Tour of California ('19)
* 2nd Tour de Suisse ('18)
* 3rd Tour de France ('23, '21)
* 3rd Giro d’Italia ('22)
* 3rd Vuelta Espana ('23)
* 3rd Autumn Classics ('19, '18)
* 9th Spring Classics ('18)
Riders have been banned for much less than what Froome got caught with. So the double standard is glaring. Of course this is mainly UCI's fault, but Sky is just shamelessly abusing their power to get their way and yet claiming that they stand for a new type of clean cycling. I know that officially nothing has been proven yet, but only a fool would point to flawed or manipulated rules to argue for his cleanness.
If they really cared about clean cycling, which is what they propogate, they might have done more to prove Froome's innocence instead of filibustering their way to the Tour.
trekbmc wrote:
Remember in last year's tour on the Mont du Chat, when Froome had a puncture and Aru attacked? Froome told him off.
Remember today when Nibali crashed and Froome just went for it straight away?
Not even worth mentioning the fact that Froome has been caught for doping now and I have my doubts about G (although there's no clear evidece) Damn, I am so tired of Sky.
Not a fact. Cleared.
Also, Froome didn't attack Nibali. He lost 10 seconds to Froome on the line with a broken back. They all sat up. Admittedly that was because they were watching each other, but they didn't attack when Nibali went down. They just carried on riding.
Its not only about suspicions from doping. Well thats the main reason why people do not like them but you are ringo more or less right that there is no evidence yet. But yeah then there are cases like Wiggins`s jiffy bag etc.
There is however second reason (away from doping) why people do not like them. And thats the money thing and their budget. Okey, probably again they are not the one to blame (it should be leading organisations because there could be a salary cap etc) but its frustrating to see such a dominance. If other teams could also afford more expensive riders it could be more equal
We are just tired of seeing this kind of dominance with only a weak and unequal SKY`s competitors.
I totally understand and accept that. The biggest and richest teams in any sport are often disliked. It's normal.
The problem with the majority of criticism levelled at Sky is the constant "FACT FACT FACT Sky are Doping, Froome is a doper. Thomas is in yellow but he rides for Sky so he's obviously doping".
Stop stating untrue facts about Sky doping. The reason people don't like them is because they are successful. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing so stop stating it as fact that they are doping. It isn't a fact.
I have no problem with people disliking Sky for actual reasons. The reason you dislike them may be because you suspect them of doping, again perfectly fine. But stating gossip and rumour and suspicion as fact. It isn't fact.
Okey I will admit it too, I dont like them because they are too much successful. But I also dont like them because of the reason I mentioned above. I also see your points which you are stating but I just cant help myself.
Yes, I suspect them of doping, because in the last few years there was too much of it. They claim something and they are not doing it (jiffy bag - well no medical records kept by Mr. Freeman because his laptop was stolen. Come on guys. How you can investigate sth like this when they did not leave any evidence. Basically you can not prove sth when the evidence is perfectly destroyed or hidden.
Also I would be fine if I could believe in testing systems, which reveals doping and that they are actually working. Then I would state the same as you, there is no clear evidence and I can rely on that fact since I know detection of doping is actually working and there are same rules used for every rider. Put your hand on your heart and ask yourself. Are you sure that UCI can reveal every kind of doping? I would like to believe in that. Then there would not be such comments, speculations, gossips and rumours. This uncertainty in everything creates this environment.
Btw If you will have more time 15-20min - read this article https://www.indep...l7cFyskub0 (I picked him from SKY doping hate thread where was posted).
I perfectly respect your opinion and agree with much of what you say.
I also respect you admitting part of the reason you dislike Sky is because of their success and racing style, which is perfectly fine. The same as disliking a football team for the same reason.
As I've stated before on this forum, I would say that Sky are not 100% clean. But I would also say no team are 100% clean. Every team uses TUEs. Every team will bend the rules to the limit of breaking them. Sky get all the flack because they are the biggest team and have the most successful rider.
A lot of what is levelled at Sky is the failures of the system, be that WADA, the UCI or the legal system in general. That is not Sky's fault. You can't blame Sky for a poor testing system. However one fact that can be stated is that Froome is tested far more than any other cyclist in the pro peloton and hasn't returned anything other than the salbutamol result of which he has been cleared. As has been stated before, lots of riders return adverse results but they are not released to the public. Froome's result got leaked which is the only reason we know about it.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
Expecting the best doping program suported riders to actually being caught with dope in their urine-blood is like expecting to catch the murders with blooded knife standing over the corpses...so you are either naive, not smart enough or actually just denying obvious state of things. You choose
ringo182 wrote:
As I've stated before on this forum, I would say that Sky are not 100% clean. But I would also say no team are 100% clean. Every team uses TUEs. Every team will bend the rules to the limit of breaking them. Sky get all the flack because they are the biggest team and have the most successful rider.
Dont care about other teams, this is ONLY about Sky.
A lot of what is levelled at Sky is the failures of the system, be that WADA, the UCI or the legal system in general. That is not Sky's fault. You can't blame Sky for a poor testing system. However one fact that can be stated is that Froome is tested far more than any other cyclist in the pro peloton and hasn't returned anything other than the salbutamol result of which he has been cleared. As has been stated before, lots of riders return adverse results but they are not released to the public. Froome's result got leaked which is the only reason we know about it.
Armstrong logic lol
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
It took almost whole day to bring "most tested rider in the world and only returned one positive, which was dismissed later as not proving anything"
I knew certain Mr. Armstrong, you know him Ringo? The most tested guy in peloton for ten years, who never oficially returned a positive test.
Do we need to discuss more?
This.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
trekbmc wrote:
Remember in last year's tour on the Mont du Chat, when Froome had a puncture and Aru attacked? Froome told him off.
Remember today when Nibali crashed and Froome just went for it straight away?
Not even worth mentioning the fact that Froome has been caught for doping now and I have my doubts about G (although there's no clear evidece) Damn, I am so tired of Sky.
Not a fact. Cleared.
Also, Froome didn't attack Nibali. He lost 10 seconds to Froome on the line with a broken back. They all sat up. Admittedly that was because they were watching each other, but they didn't attack when Nibali went down. They just carried on riding.
Its not only about suspicions from doping. Well thats the main reason why people do not like them but you are ringo more or less right that there is no evidence yet. But yeah then there are cases like Wiggins`s jiffy bag etc.
There is however second reason (away from doping) why people do not like them. And thats the money thing and their budget. Okey, probably again they are not the one to blame (it should be leading organisations because there could be a salary cap etc) but its frustrating to see such a dominance. If other teams could also afford more expensive riders it could be more equal
We are just tired of seeing this kind of dominance with only a weak and unequal SKY`s competitors.
I totally understand and accept that. The biggest and richest teams in any sport are often disliked. It's normal.
The problem with the majority of criticism levelled at Sky is the constant "FACT FACT FACT Sky are Doping, Froome is a doper. Thomas is in yellow but he rides for Sky so he's obviously doping".
Stop stating untrue facts about Sky doping. The reason people don't like them is because they are successful. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing so stop stating it as fact that they are doping. It isn't a fact.
I have no problem with people disliking Sky for actual reasons. The reason you dislike them may be because you suspect them of doping, again perfectly fine. But stating gossip and rumour and suspicion as fact. It isn't fact.
Okey I will admit it too, I dont like them because they are too much successful. But I also dont like them because of the reason I mentioned above. I also see your points which you are stating but I just cant help myself.
Yes, I suspect them of doping, because in the last few years there was too much of it. They claim something and they are not doing it (jiffy bag - well no medical records kept by Mr. Freeman because his laptop was stolen. Come on guys. How you can investigate sth like this when they did not leave any evidence. Basically you can not prove sth when the evidence is perfectly destroyed or hidden.
Also I would be fine if I could believe in testing systems, which reveals doping and that they are actually working. Then I would state the same as you, there is no clear evidence and I can rely on that fact since I know detection of doping is actually working and there are same rules used for every rider. Put your hand on your heart and ask yourself. Are you sure that UCI can reveal every kind of doping? I would like to believe in that. Then there would not be such comments, speculations, gossips and rumours. This uncertainty in everything creates this environment.
Btw If you will have more time 15-20min - read this article https://www.indep...l7cFyskub0 (I picked him from SKY doping hate thread where was posted).
I perfectly respect your opinion and agree with much of what you say.
I also respect you admitting part of the reason you dislike Sky is because of their success and racing style, which is perfectly fine. The same as disliking a football team for the same reason.
As I've stated before on this forum, I would say that Sky are not 100% clean. But I would also say no team are 100% clean. Every team uses TUEs. Every team will bend the rules to the limit of breaking them. Sky get all the flack because they are the biggest team and have the most successful rider.
A lot of what is levelled at Sky is the failures of the system, be that WADA, the UCI or the legal system in general. That is not Sky's fault. You can't blame Sky for a poor testing system. However one fact that can be stated is that Froome is tested far more than any other cyclist in the pro peloton and hasn't returned anything other than the salbutamol result of which he has been cleared. As has been stated before, lots of riders return adverse results but they are not released to the public. Froome's result got leaked which is the only reason we know about it.
Yeah I understand what you want to say. I think we both agree that the system need to be changed and reformed. I hope that Mr. Lappartient will bring some positive things. I just want to be 100% sure that UCI, WADA etc are not corrupted.
Regarding, of your argument about how many times is Froome stated. Yeah, thats definitely nice and appreciated unless it is not a charade. I think @Avin is right - Armstrong was also tested many many times. So thats not right argument to state.
However, lets finish it here and hope that there will be positive changes - mainly in cycling organisations in general. Otherwise I will be always left frustrated when watching the biggest race in the world, thinking how is that f*cking possible that Mr. Froome is winning every Grand Tour in which he participates. Okey I am exaggerating but you know what I mean.......Edited by Kalach on 20-07-2018 13:16
Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.
_____________________________________________ PCM Velogames Championship - Top Results
* 1st Tour de Suisse ('23)
* 1st Tour de Romandie ('19, '18)
* 1st Tour de Pologne ('20, '19)
* 2nd Tour of California ('19)
* 2nd Tour de Suisse ('18)
* 3rd Tour de France ('23, '21)
* 3rd Giro d’Italia ('22)
* 3rd Vuelta Espana ('23)
* 3rd Autumn Classics ('19, '18)
* 9th Spring Classics ('18)
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
It took almost whole day to bring "most tested rider in the world and only returned one positive, which was dismissed later as not proving anything"
I knew certain Mr. Armstrong, you know him Ringo? The most tested guy in peloton for ten years, who never oficially returned a positive test.
Do we need to discuss more?
You've already said you aren't talking to me so I guess no
It actually means nothing. Froome is tested alot. So is Dumoulin, Quintana, Bardet etc. No comparison can be made between Froome/Armstong without comparing every rider in the peloton who is tested alot.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
Actually, there are lot of comparisons. You are just not willing to admit them (team, illness, victories, narrative, caught doping but got cleared!!!! etc) Why do you think Sky is nicknamed UK Postal
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
Shonak wrote:
Actually, there are lot of comparisons. You are just not willing to admit them (team, illness, victories, narrative, caught doping but got cleared!!!! etc) Why do you think Sky is nicknamed UK Postal
Because people like you don't like them.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
Shonak wrote:
Actually, there are lot of comparisons. You are just not willing to admit them (team, illness, victories, narrative, caught doping but got cleared!!!! etc) Why do you think Sky is nicknamed UK Postal
Because people like you don't like them.
Not really, but more because of the dominance of team sky. IMO, Froome will be stripped of everything within the next 15 years.
FreitasPCM wrote:
I am waiting for Roglic to unleash his super-beast mode in the final week and get in the fight for yellow, our hopes and dreams if Tommy D feels the pain of the Giro in his legs. [/dream mode off]
Guido Mukk wrote:
what a heck this is anyway?
Giro guys can ride tour again..back to 90 's?
That was my thinking exactly, this was only possible in good old EPO days.
Yes, they are definitely on EPO and all the other good stuff. Thomas's time up Alpe d Huez 41.20, Pantani 36.40. 4 minutes and 40 seconds difference. Without considering 20+ years of improvement in training methods, efficiency on the bike and technology in terms of bike and kit etc.
Salbutamol is a hell of a drug.
Pantani did it on a stage where Alpe D'Huez was the only climb.
Yesterday it was Madeleine ridden pretty fast because the breakaway hasn't established yet by then and also Croix de Fer ridden pretty fast because of Kruijswijk.
And then favourites lost over a minute by playing mindgames allowing Nibbles with a broken vertebrae back and Landa multiple times.
Check your facts before commenting again dumbass
I checked my facts before commenting, and the facts say that the time they did up Alpe d' Huez this year doesn't even reach the top 100 fastest times up the climb. The stage this year was hard, yes, but Sky still had kwiato, castro and bernal after the Croix de Fer, which means they didn't go full gas in the climbs because they knew they would gain minutes on Kruijswijk in the downhill and flats. In case you didn't notice, the Sky riders did a leadout in the first half of the climb before the favourites started attacking.
No matter how hard this stage and the previous stages was, that doesn't make up nearly 5 minutes.
Realistically, todays peloton should be riding faster up climbs than they did 20 years ago for obvious reasons, but they're not. Instead they are going way slower. Wouldn't you agree that is a sign of less doping?
Guido Mukk wrote:
what a heck this is anyway?
Giro guys can ride tour again..back to 90 's?
That was my thinking exactly, this was only possible in good old EPO days.
Yes, they are definitely on EPO and all the other good stuff. Thomas's time up Alpe d Huez 41.20, Pantani 36.40. 4 minutes and 40 seconds difference. Without considering 20+ years of improvement in training methods, efficiency on the bike and technology in terms of bike and kit etc.
Salbutamol is a hell of a drug.
Pantani did it on a stage where Alpe D'Huez was the only climb.
Yesterday it was Madeleine ridden pretty fast because the breakaway hasn't established yet by then and also Croix de Fer ridden pretty fast because of Kruijswijk.
And then favourites lost over a minute by playing mindgames allowing Nibbles with a broken vertebrae back and Landa multiple times.
Check your facts before commenting again dumbass
I checked my facts before commenting, and the facts say that the time they did up Alpe d' Huez this year doesn't even reach the top 100 fastest times up the climb. The stage this year was hard, yes, but Sky still had kwiato, castro and bernal after the Croix de Fer, which means they didn't go full gas in the climbs because they knew they would gain minutes on Kruijswijk in the downhill and flats. In case you didn't notice, the Sky riders did a leadout in the first half of the climb before the favourites started attacking.
No matter how hard this stage and the previous stages was, that doesn't make up nearly 5 minutes.
Realistically, todays peloton should be riding faster up climbs than they did 20 years ago for obvious reasons, but they're not. Instead they are going way slower. Wouldn't you agree that is a sign of less doping?
Well, you should double-check then....the time was 41:16, not 41:20 and it doesn't put him outside of the top 100, but exactly at 25th fastest. 2 seconds faster than Armstrong in 2003 btw.
