baseballlover312 wrote:
Assumptions based on opinion mean nothing.
And what do you have to respond?
I've decided not to go into this discussion, but it's obvious that these 40 pages or so is a game of connecting dots.
There's zero evidence, only a lot of "this doctor has a dodgy past", "this guy is riding better than he used to", "they've been training at a place where doped cyclists used to train".
You can't just shoot down any Sky-supporter for stating opinions and assumptions when you haven't posted anything else yourself.
The burden of proof is on you, not on Sky-supporters.
The defense of the sponsor/manager/rider would lose rep has been used so often for guilty patrties and is so irrelevent that it is also not worth writing.
Edit: I have said noform of evidence this whole thread? That's a surprise to me.
Edited by baseballlover312 on 20-07-2012 21:30
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
"Changing their image? The change in their image is that they made promises of certain core rules they would abide by, and then broke literally all of them."
Sorry I tried to use the old BskyB to make it clear when I was talking about the TV company. Here I was referring to the TV company trying to change their image.
"However, it's all irrelevant. The sponsor has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the team dopes
...
Why would Bruyneel jeopardize his career and reputation to allow his team to dope? Why would Sáiz? Why would Guimard? Why would Godefroot? Why would Pevenage? Why would [insert literally hundreds of other names]?
All these had massive reputations to protect, yet they all condoned doping.
That's like asking why you would make this argument if you've read the topic and thus know it's been made and discussed to death: if people were perfect it wouldn't happen, but it does anyway because none of us are "
It is relevant about the sponsor. They have bankrolled this team to unprecedented levels. They have only done so due to their close links to Dave Brailsford from their relationship to track cycling.
I cannot stress enough how much the sponsor is trying to use cycling and all forms of it to change their (the sponsor's) image. They are only behind team sky because of Brailsford. This is a massive company with nothing to gain and everything to lose if the team doped. They would simply not allow it to happen. And I believe Brailsford would be told this at length and will have given them assurances. This guy is still heavily involved in the track cycling sky team preparing for the Olympics and the sky coaches including the much laughed at (on here) swimming coach. There is so much overlap between team sky and team GB. I just fail to see how these guys can be involved in a squeaky clean track cycling project and yet have so much suspicion from you lot about their use of doping.
Can I also ask about your knowledge of British attitudes to doping in sport? I hope it is well known that Britain has possibly the strongest stance in the world when it comes to doping. Complete zero tolerance and everyone caught gets a lifetime ban. David Millar and a runner called Dwayne Chambers both made the headlines after getting the courts to overturn their lifetimes bans and force their selection to the olympic teams. Wiggins has referred heavily to the fact that if he doped the British Press and Public would crucify him and he said rightly so. Also, Britain is really picking up speed in it's attentions to cycling, it's a massive potential audience and source of future sponsorship, and if Sky are doping it would all but kill off British interest for good.
"It's not that he's winning, it's the manner of the dominance. And, far more than Wiggins, it's all that you didn't mention or mentioned only in passing: It's Rogers, it's Porte, it's Froome. Wiggins is suspicious, but those three are far more. And the team itself manages to be more suspicious than Froome."
Do you not agree that this is a flatter tour than normal? Do you not agree that this is the weakest field in years? Who in this year's tour is a great rider? There's no Contador, no Schleck, and wouldn't Evans be the second oldest winner ever if he won it? Sky are dominating what I consider to be an easy tour. Do you not think that with fading German audiences, financial problems in Spain, that perhaps the lour is trying to Help Wiggins and sky and to cultivate British interest to pick up the financial responsibilities to help professional cycling continue? Maybe that's a bit of a leap of faith on my part, but there's no doubt that this is an easier course than normal for Wiggins, and that the mountains have hardly been a big test.
I haven't mentioned the likes of Porte, Rogers and Froome on purpose. As I said, I have read the thread, I've seen what people say, particularly yourself, and you appear to have a better knowledge and understanding than I do, and I cannot produce a valid counter argument. I hope that you are wrong, but I would say that if they are doping I do not believe that it is with consent or knowledge of the team or it's management. One thing I will say on Froome, as regards coming out of nowhere, Vaughters was interviewed on ITV4 the other night (stage 19?) and was going on about how he tried to sign him in 2010, and knew he'd be a big talent. If the likes of Vaughters really wanted him, has he really come out of nowhere? as for rogers and Porte, I stand by my earlier argument, could Sky not have got better domestiques than these with perhaps the biggest budget and best paid riders in professional cycling? If reports of sky's budget is true, why would they not sign better and be clean than sign worse and dope?
"It's your right to believe as such, as long as you don't get mad at people who disagree like some did"
i would never discourage anyone to have an opinion and questioning things is never a bad thing, particularly in a sport like cycling. The sport needs to be clean or it'll die a death. Could it really survive a fresh big doping scandal now, particularly if the Armstrong case goes the way as is likely?
Digger wrote:
Few sports are not shown on "Sky Sports",
Including the Tour de France
I don't know why Sky didn't bid for the rights in 2009 or earlier this year, ITV have it for peanuts until 2015
Thats because there is hardly a following in the UK for Tour De France.
There might be a increased interest now that Team Sky have been so clear winners and with Contador , Andy, Sanchez, Hejsedal and all the big favorits who were out of this race, either because of crash or injuries or suspensions.
Back for next years TdF, Team SKy will surely have to be better then this year, and also who will Sky go for, if Froome beats Contador in Spain or Contador doesnt win with a clear margin, then we will also have the Froome/Wiggins battle internally on Sky.
Jacdk wrote:
Thats because there is hardly a following in the UK for Tour De France.
Its growing. ITV4 have peaked over a million at points during this Tour. And the success is such that live coverage is on ITV1 this weekend. And many newspapers are throwing plenty of coverage at it now.
Alastairhufc wrote:
Digger wrote:
Few sports are not shown on "Sky Sports",
Including the Tour de France
I don't know why Sky didn't bid for the rights in 2009 or earlier this year, ITV have it for peanuts until 2015
Because it would be a very poor commercial move for Sky.
ITV gives live coverage free access. More people therefore watch it -> therefore more brand exposure for Sky, since they sponsor one of the leading teams!
If Sky took the rights, significantly less people would watch. Besides, if anybody wants to watch the Tour on Eurosport, theyll probably have to sign up to Sky anyway!
Sponsoring Team Sky, British Cycling and various cycling initiatives is all Sky need to do - it would ruin it by then trying to take the coverage. Plus, Sky Sports are still fairly clueless - the only reporter who wore a full suit in the Pyrenees, came from Sky Sports Edited by SportingNonsense on 21-07-2012 10:58
is it in todays cycling possible to win clean (even in an 'easy tour' coz of the generation gap ) if so even with a astronomical budget it is a milestone tour.
Offcourse i will not be suprised if dissapointed again but
Thomas De Gendt after his masterpiece on the Mortirolo said his 'unexplainable' progress he made over the years, can only be explained by a much cleaner 'bunch'
Offcourse to make a note of doubt, Sky was there only with a C-team around youngsters Henao and Uran
Anyway thanx for the info on Sky team and its internal kitchen, i learned a lot from tgis
Edited by Koener on 21-07-2012 11:49
Digger wrote:
Few sports are not shown on "Sky Sports",
Including the Tour de France
I don't know why Sky didn't bid for the rights in 2009 or earlier this year, ITV have it for peanuts until 2015
Because it would be a very poor commercial move for Sky.
ITV gives live coverage free access. More people therefore watch it -> therefore more brand exposure for Sky, since they sponsor one of the leading teams!
If Sky took the rights, significantly less people would watch. Besides, if anybody wants to watch the Tour on Eurosport, theyll probably have to sign up to Sky anyway!
Sponsoring Team Sky, British Cycling and various cycling initiatives is all Sky need to do - it would ruin it by then trying to take the coverage. Plus, Sky Sports are still fairly clueless - the only reporter who wore a full suit in the Pyrenees, came from Sky Sports
I never thought of it that way, that is actually a good move by them
Ybodonk wrote:
And the guy who used the logic about Michael Rasmussen and Contador is just absolutely dumb.
Contador did ride first couple of months this year, and whole last year. He has only missed 5 months of racing. Michael Rasmussen did miss two whole year, and will never come back. He was blacklisted , nobody did dare to touch.
I can not see how Contador should loose any of his talent or riding skills.
Stop being foolish.
Basso, Vino, Kaschekin and Valverde and those like's did all miss between 1-2 years racing. Vino did never became as good again in the mountains as before. Basso did become the very same basso who was riding for Fassa Bortolo. The Basso riding for CSC had actually develep an acceleration the last two years where he could follow armstrong.
Same goes for Kaschekin.
Valverde will be back at his normal level next year.
Yes, let's just start throwing insults right away, shall we?
First, my comparison with Rasmussen was meant to be sarcastic. Thought that'd have been obvious, but I'll remember the smiley next time.
But you miss my point entirely. I'm not expecting Contador to come back slower because he missed 5 months of racing. I'm expecting him to come back slower because he's cleaner than he was before his ban. Maybe I'm being too optimistic there, but isn't it a lifetime ban for a 2nd offense? Might be a better deterrent.
As for your past examples: Kashechkin was 3rd overall in the 2006 Vuelta (behind two of your other examples, Vino and Valverde). What has he done since his return? Valverde was 2nd overall then and a Vuelta winner in 2009. He hasn't been back that long, so not much to compare to, but he's nowhere near that point in this year's Tour (not sure if he's actually focusing on Tour, though). We'll see if you're right about next year, but I'm not expecting that. Basso I can agree with you on, results-wise at least, but I think riders in general doped much more in the years before Basso was banned, so it's not that easy to compare.
Anyway, this doesn't really have anything to do with Sky, so sorry for the off-topic.
baseballlover312 wrote:
Assumptions based on opinion mean nothing.
And what do you have to respond?
I've decided not to go into this discussion, but it's obvious that these 40 pages or so is a game of connecting dots.
There's zero evidence, only a lot of "this doctor has a dodgy past", "this guy is riding better than he used to", "they've been training at a place where doped cyclists used to train".
You can't just shoot down any Sky-supporter for stating opinions and assumptions when you haven't posted anything else yourself.
The burden of proof is on you, not on Sky-supporters.
And the burden of suspicion is on Sky-supporters, not the rest of us. Get use to it.
Wiggins wrote:
"When we were riding on the front at 450 watts or whatever, someone would attack and Mick Rogers would say ‘just leave him, he can’t sustain it,’” Wiggins said.
“Someone is going to have to sustain 500 watts over 20 minutes of a climb to stay away which is not possible anymore unless you’ve got a couple of extra litres of blood. That’s the reality of it. It really is.
So, if someone beats Sky, they're doping. Better and more efficient than those expensive blood tests. Not sure how this'd work OOC, though.
kumazan wrote:
We don't need the WADA anymore guys:
Wiggins wrote:
"When we were riding on the front at 450 watts or whatever, someone would attack and Mick Rogers would say ‘just leave him, he can’t sustain it,’” Wiggins said.
“Someone is going to have to sustain 500 watts over 20 minutes of a climb to stay away which is not possible anymore unless you’ve got a couple of extra litres of blood. That’s the reality of it. It really is.
So, if someone beats Sky, they're doping. Better and more efficient than those expensive blood tests. Not sure how this'd work OOC, though.
For me, it says "noone can dope better than we do"...
kumazan wrote:
We don't need the WADA anymore guys:
Wiggins wrote:
"When we were riding on the front at 450 watts or whatever, someone would attack and Mick Rogers would say ‘just leave him, he can’t sustain it,’” Wiggins said.
“Someone is going to have to sustain 500 watts over 20 minutes of a climb to stay away which is not possible anymore unless you’ve got a couple of extra litres of blood. That’s the reality of it. It really is.
So, if someone beats Sky, they're doping. Better and more efficient than those expensive blood tests. Not sure how this'd work OOC, though.
For me, it says "noone can dope better than we do"...
Now Mr. Wggins explain me how Sky riders can "SUSTAIN" 450W for so long.
And how's Contador doped if the wattage during his accelaration is 900W.
kumazan wrote:
We don't need the WADA anymore guys:
Wiggins wrote:
"When we were riding on the front at 450 watts or whatever, someone would attack and Mick Rogers would say ‘just leave him, he can’t sustain it,’” Wiggins said.
“Someone is going to have to sustain 500 watts over 20 minutes of a climb to stay away which is not possible anymore unless you’ve got a couple of extra litres of blood. That’s the reality of it. It really is.
So, if someone beats Sky, they're doping. Better and more efficient than those expensive blood tests. Not sure how this'd work OOC, though.
Though the figures have looked a little contradictory lately, Sky have been performing at the very limit of human possibilities, but not blatantly above them.
What I'm pointing my finger at is that, as far as I can tell, Wiggo and Froomechkin are not supposed to be the ultimate human beings ever, so they shouldn't perform that high, no matter what.
But Wigins is right, he knows he's at the very limit of what's possible, so if somebody dropped him (and Froome) like milestones (hi, Ybodonk ), that couldn't be natural.
Aquarius wrote:
Though the figures have looked a little contradictory lately, Sky have been performing at the very limit of human possibilities, but not blatantly above them.
What I'm pointing my finger at is that, as far as I can tell, Wiggo and Froomechkin are not supposed to be the ultimate human beings ever, so they shouldn't perform that high, no matter what.
Not only that but he odds of two perfect human beings appearing at the same time in the same team after previously not exhibiting signs of being the Ultimate Human Beings (R) are just ridiculous.
I hope this thread will revive, once the thruth will be known (if ever). I dont have any evidence apart from what was stated on thgese 53 pages, but i follow cycling for long enough, to know that miracles did not happen without bitter endings. Sky 1-2 is far more impressive than anything other dopers were able to achieve.
So they are either superhumans, aliens or dopers.
That's a surprise to me.
