|
Sky Doping/Hate Thread
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 24-07-2012 06:51
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
‘I think they have to take a strong look at who they invite to the race in the next few years; if there is one per cent suspicion or doubt that a team is involved in doping, or (are) working with certain doctors who are under suspicion of doping, then they shouldn’t be invited to the Tour de France, it’s as simple as that. They shouldn’t even be given a racing licence until they can prove that they are not involved in wrongdoing.’
I lol'd on this Wiggins speech. This man has clearly double standarts, i would not believe him a word...
And my answers to MM questions:
Who wants Sky to be found doping? ME, if there is evidence justyfiing our suspicion.
Now think, why do i want them to be caught? what will that do to the sport?
I want every doper to be caught, and it is them who should think what it will do to the sport, no one is bigger than the sport itself, it will go on...
Then re-think do i want them to be found doping.
I still do.
There is more to this than did they or didn't they dope.
Of course all my answers are from that point of view, that they are actually doped. And if they did not, we will never know that,as we will probably never know even if they did.
Edited by Avin Wargunnson on 24-07-2012 06:56
|
| |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 24-07-2012 07:32
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Definitely the best piece which I've seen on the topic.
|
| |
|
|
| drugsdontwork |
Posted on 24-07-2012 07:43
|
Free Agent
Posts: 123
Joined: 20-09-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
New piece on performance in the recent TdF's. A lot of these figures have already been discussed here.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18...e-18921784
Nobody is normal
|
| |
|
|
| Ybodonk |
Posted on 24-07-2012 10:08
|
Domestique
Posts: 510
Joined: 24-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
CountArach wrote:
Definitely the best piece which I've seen on the topic.
drugsdontwork wrote: New piece on performance in the recent TdF's. A lot of these figures have already been discussed here.
https://www.bbc.co...
A very interesting view in one of the articles is Nibalis numbers and his way of release them.
Dr Forrester says his data shows that he is riding consistently. His first two climbs are done at 320 and 322 watts and the final ride is 360 watts. This means on the final climb his power to weight ratio is 5.2W/kg. "Those figures are where you expect that rider to be." |
| |
|
|
| cosmic |
Posted on 24-07-2012 11:21
|
Stagiare
Posts: 171
Joined: 28-06-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
My final point here;
Who wants Sky to be found doping? (Please answer this honestly)
Now think, why do i want them to be caught? what will that do to the sport?
Then re-think do i want them to be found doping.
There is more to this than did they or didn't they dope.
I doubt anyone wants anyone to be found guilty of doping. Every doping case hurts the sport of cycling. And I don't think most of the suspicions towards Sky are founded on dislike or hatred towards the team.
The basis for the suspicions is the extreme improvement of certain riders. A guy like Rogers who hasn't performed in years (sure he's been ill, but even back when he was good and dominated in time trials, he didn't violate the best climbers in the world in the mountains). Then there's Froome, who came out of nowhere last Vuelta. The guy was a nobody before that. And even worse, he's been ill for several years. Then suddenly he's the strongest climber in the Tour ? I mean it was painfully obvious he could've easily dropped them all if he wanted/was allowed to.
But by all means, I hope they're clean. There was afterall limited competition this year, with Evans out of form, VDB losing a lot of time before the race even started, Sanchez crashing, no A.Schleck, no Contador, Basso and Szmyd clearly not at peak form after doing the Giro, half the Garmin team out after crashes etc. |
| |
|
|
| Jupi |
Posted on 24-07-2012 12:18
|
Amateur
Posts: 14
Joined: 13-06-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ybodonk wrote:
Dr Forrester says his data shows that he is riding consistently. His first two climbs are done at 320 and 322 watts and the final ride is 360 watts. This means on the final climb his power to weight ratio is 5.2W/kg. "Those figures are where you expect that rider to be."
SRM measures absolute wattage, so the number would only be correct if Nibali weighed 70 kilos. He is much less than that so the 5.2 W/kg is incorrect. I think i saw three different sources that have the Nibali group between 5.6 and 5.7 up La Toussuire, which is a much more reasonable number given that they were only 30-40 seconds slower than Sastre in 2006. |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 24-11-2024 13:49
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| pcm2009fan |
Posted on 24-07-2012 14:28
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1105
Joined: 30-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
baseballlover123 wrote:
If someone is a better climber, they can naturally climb better.
"Better" climber is still so subjective though. I might think that Purito makes a "better" climber than Wiggo because of his riding style, or how he uses his natural abilities in a race situation, even though he might not be able to go faster than Brad up a certain climb.
That's not the same as judging how well Purito vs Wiggins, or anyone else, compare in terms of how much power their body, at its peak, could exert against a said pace/time up a mountain (without dope).
So I hope you'll understand that just saying "Wiggo was a 'bad' climber and now he is inexplicably a 'good' climber so must have doped" is highly opinionative.
And why Would Wiggins only go 50%? 
I mean that whilst he could have been trying 100%, his body / mentality might have physically been hampered, making him only perform at a certain fraction of his maximum abilities.
Perhaps depression could have influenced his training workload and diet, or maybe a focus on the track would not have helped him develop stamina, or like in the case of Froome, a serious illness could have damaged his physical capacity.
All of these would degrade a rider's performance and, in your eyes, make them out to be a "bad" climber, when in actual fact they may well have a very high potential performance in the mountains.
More obviously, if say Greg LeMond had just sat around and ate chips all day without touching his bike then he would never have become a good cyclist. Even so, with his natural endurance and mental strength, he could probably still have shifted his attitude, and have exploded onto the scene in his late twenties without needing to even think about the "good stuff."
Of course Wiggins and Froome aren't that easy to account for, and I do totally agree with the overall point your making about Sky's "suspicious" performance. The wattage stats starting to be released, for example, give an unbiased and reliable insight and they do indeed serve to back up the suspicion. However, whilst Wiggins' and Froome's turnarounds are rather inexplicable, there is simply little-to-no objective case behind such a statement on its own.
All I don't understand is the way you're trying to justify the claim without hard facts and evidence (especially when they are fast becoming available!). Besides, you were the one trying to remove any traces of subjectivity and bias from the discussion.
And Sorry for the long post 
Edited by pcm2009fan on 24-07-2012 14:30
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 24-07-2012 14:34
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
You're the one making assumptions now.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| pcm2009fan |
Posted on 24-07-2012 14:38
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1105
Joined: 30-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
baseballlover312 wrote:
You're the one making assumptions now.
I'm guessing you mean the hypothetical situations I inserted to back up my argument? I think that they are entirely feasible situations which could easily occur in life.
I'm not specifically defending Wiggo by saying maybe he didn't approach the sport in the right way so was only peforming at a tiny fraction of his capabilities - that seems quite unlikely in the circumstances.
I'm saying that the same could hold for any rider who suddenly turns into a good athlete at any stage in their life, so I think the way in which you are branding him, or any other rider in the peleton, as a cheat holds little strength. |
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 24-07-2012 14:42
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
pcm2009fan wrote:
baseballlover312 wrote:
You're the one making assumptions now.
I'm guessing you mean the hypothetical situations I inserted to back up my argument? I think that they are entirely feasible situations which could easily occur in life.
I'm not specifically defending Wiggo by saying maybe he didn't approach the sport in the right way so was only peforming at a tiny fraction of his capabilities - that seems quite unlikely in the circumstances.
I'm saying that the same could hold for any rider who suddenly turns into a good athlete at any stage in their life, so I think the way in which you are branding him, or any other rider in the peleton, as a cheat holds little strength.
You are assuming them.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 24-07-2012 14:47
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
And what are you doing when you claim Team Sky are a bunch of dopers? Stating facts?
Again, I'm not defending Team Sky, but it's ridiculous to see your counter-"arguments". |
| |
|
|
| pcm2009fan |
Posted on 24-07-2012 14:50
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1105
Joined: 30-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
baseballlover312 wrote:
pcm2009fan wrote:
baseballlover312 wrote:
You're the one making assumptions now.
I'm guessing you mean the hypothetical situations I inserted to back up my argument? I think that they are entirely feasible situations which could easily occur in life.
I'm not specifically defending Wiggo by saying maybe he didn't approach the sport in the right way so was only peforming at a tiny fraction of his capabilities - that seems quite unlikely in the circumstances.
I'm saying that the same could hold for any rider who suddenly turns into a good athlete at any stage in their life, so I think the way in which you are branding him, or any other rider in the peleton, as a cheat holds little strength.
You are assuming them.
Only as much as you are assuming that these perfectly feasible situations couldn't happen, and so your only feasible explanation for a "bad" cyclist becoming a "good" one is supposedly through doping.
I'm not going to clog the thread up with any more of this. I respect your overall viewpoint but it just doesn't hold enough objective strength. Not that that necessarily makes it a bad or harmful way of approaching the topic.
At least we can both agree on the fact that Sky's performances are quite indicative of doping, even through our rather different approaches  |
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 24-07-2012 16:02
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
CrueTrue wrote:
And what are you doing when you claim Team Sky are a bunch of dopers? Stating facts?
Again, I'm not defending Team Sky, but it's ridiculous to see your counter-"arguments".
Yes! I have stated facts as evidence before! Thank you again for clarifying!
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 24-07-2012 16:05
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
baseballlover312 wrote:
CrueTrue wrote:
And what are you doing when you claim Team Sky are a bunch of dopers? Stating facts?
Again, I'm not defending Team Sky, but it's ridiculous to see your counter-"arguments".
Yes! I have stated facts as evidence before! Thank you again for clarifying!
what fact is there that they have doped?
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 24-07-2012 16:07
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
Godammit I'm done. There are many facts I have stated as evidence as well as many others thar others (see Isso) have stated. If you don't want to look at them a tleast don't make these comments.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| Coop |
Posted on 24-07-2012 16:13
|
Under 23
Posts: 77
Joined: 06-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
[quote]‘I think they have to take a strong look at who they invite to the race in the next few years; if there is one per cent suspicion or doubt that a team is involved in doping, or (are) working with certain doctors who are under suspicion of doping, then they shouldn’t be invited to the Tour de France, it’s as simple as that. They shouldn’t even be given a racing licence until they can prove that they are not involved in wrongdoing.’
What a douche! With his argument he owes us all an apology for calling as wankers and c*#ts. So it's okay for him to call out for teams to prove their innocence, but SKY shouldn't have to prove anything? |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 24-07-2012 16:17
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
baseballlover312 wrote:
Godammit I'm done. There are many facts I have stated as evidence as well as many others thar others (see Isso) have stated. If you don't want to look at them a tleast don't make these comments.
what you (and other like isso) have stated is circumstantial
yes it shows that the tdf sky team are suspicious, and that there is a high chance they have doped. however it is they are not facts that sky have doped. there is a difference, not a huge one, but there is a difference.
as far as im aware proof of doping is either, a failed test, several missed tests, confession, of the confession of several others very closely linked to the riders in question.
everything else, whilst compelling, and showing that they likly are doped in some way, is not fact, or proof that they have doped.
and i have read every piece of proof. in fact im going through it all again to update my starting post, as a quick reference of all the main arguments and defenses (which is taking a while)
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 24-07-2012 16:19
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
Then nothing is proof. A confession of them or others could be a lie. A missed test could be an accident, and a failed one could be a setup. By that logic, there really is no proof. everything is circumstantial.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| ruben |
Posted on 24-07-2012 16:19
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7721
Joined: 23-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
We should really concentrate on the facts. Like that I'm awesome and you should all worship me. |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 24-07-2012 16:25
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
baseballlover312 wrote:
Then nothing is proof. A confession of them or others could be a lie. A missed test could be an accident, and a failed one could be a setup. By that logic, there really is no proof. everything is circumstantial.
So no cyclist has ever doped then?
All the arguements about wattage etc make sky look suspicious
but none of them are a fact that sky doped
sky could just have some extremely good riders etc.
A confession by another rider could be a lie, thats why i said several. that makes it less likly
A failed test could be a mistake, thats why i said several. again missing several without good reason makes it more likly they are hiding something.
A failed test could be a setup, not that ive ever heard of that, and i think its unlikly that the WADA, UCI etc would set someone up.
|
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
