|
Sky Doping/Hate Thread
|
| alexkr00 |
Posted on 10-07-2013 18:55
|
World Champion
Posts: 13561
Joined: 05-08-2008
PCM$: 400.00
|
Mwuhi wrote:
alexkr00 wrote:
Mwuhi wrote:
Why you all can't just stop nagging about doping.
Because this should be about who's the best on the bike, not who has the best doctor
For example, if I pay dr. Fuentes 100 billion dollars for getting my the best doping ever, I still won't win the big races.
I won't be so sure of that. If doping can make an less than average cyclist a Tour de France winner, who knows what else it can do 
|
| |
|
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 10-07-2013 18:55
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
masch20 wrote:
Again would people be happy if Froome is indeed clean and i just very good? Or do you want for him to be doper?
Well, honestly i cannot say that i am a fan of him, there is just something about him i dont like.
But if he is clean i will applude him for being the best rider, but after today i am 100% sure he is not clean.
Tony Martin drove so fast that even twitter was 20mins behind him and collapsed when he crossed the finish line.
Froome came in just 12secs behind looking like he just came in from a nice leisurely ride down to the shop for beer in his car. |
| |
|
|
| alexkr00 |
Posted on 10-07-2013 18:57
|
World Champion
Posts: 13561
Joined: 05-08-2008
PCM$: 400.00
|
Jacdk wrote:
Froome came in just 12secs behind looking like he just came in from a nice leisurely ride down to the shop for beer in his car.
Did you see the Olympics time - trial?
After the race, Martin was completely dead and to a point even Wiggins. Meanwhile, Froome face was saying something like "Was that all?"
|
| |
|
|
| Mwuhi |
Posted on 10-07-2013 18:58
|
Stagiare
Posts: 179
Joined: 02-06-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
alexkr00 wrote:
Mwuhi wrote:
alexkr00 wrote:
Mwuhi wrote:
Why you all can't just stop nagging about doping.
Because this should be about who's the best on the bike, not who has the best doctor
For example, if I pay dr. Fuentes 100 billion dollars for getting my the best doping ever, I still won't win the big races.
I won't be so sure of that. If doping can make an less than average cyclist a Tour de France winner, who knows what else it can do
If it did, why he wasn't winning already in '10/'11?
You know that at Sky their doctors came from other sports and also some of their trainers have background on swimming and rugby for example. Makes the difference, if you don't get stuck at old times. Maybe, you should yourself. |
| |
|
|
| masch20 |
Posted on 10-07-2013 18:58
|
Under 23
Posts: 58
Joined: 25-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
tsmoha wrote:
masch20 wrote:
issoisso wrote:
masch20 wrote:
People have different opinions on things and i accept them..
No you very clearly don't
well that's not for you to decide!
Given your comments so far, it's no decision to say you don't.. It's a fact.
show me the place where i havent respected people opinions? |
| |
|
|
| Mwuhi |
Posted on 10-07-2013 18:59
|
Stagiare
Posts: 179
Joined: 02-06-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
alexkr00 wrote:
Jacdk wrote:
Froome came in just 12secs behind looking like he just came in from a nice leisurely ride down to the shop for beer in his car.
Did you see the Olympics time - trial?
After the race, Martin was completely dead and to a point even Wiggins. Meanwhile, Froome face was saying something like "Was that all?"
And I can fake being drunk, and raise my heartbeat within a couple of second to look exhausted. Maybe Martin is playing and fakes his exhausment. |
| |
|
|
| alexkr00 |
Posted on 10-07-2013 19:01
|
World Champion
Posts: 13561
Joined: 05-08-2008
PCM$: 400.00
|
Mwuhi wrote:
alexkr00 wrote:
Mwuhi wrote:
alexkr00 wrote:
Mwuhi wrote:
Why you all can't just stop nagging about doping.
Because this should be about who's the best on the bike, not who has the best doctor
For example, if I pay dr. Fuentes 100 billion dollars for getting my the best doping ever, I still won't win the big races.
I won't be so sure of that. If doping can make an less than average cyclist a Tour de France winner, who knows what else it can do
If it did, why he wasn't winning already in '10/'11?
You know that at Sky their doctors came from other sports and also some of their trainers have background on swimming and rugby for example. Makes the difference, if you don't get stuck at old times. Maybe, you should yourself.
It's amazing how you believe all their propaganda. All your arguments are the same as the one Sky come up with.
2010 and 2011? Froome was so good at that time that he didn't even make the Tour team. Clearly wasn't training hard enough.
|
| |
|
|
| miggi133 |
Posted on 10-07-2013 19:02
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2992
Joined: 19-08-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
masch20 wrote:
Again would people be happy if Froome is indeed clean and is just very good? Or do you want for him to be doper?
If he is clean, than thats good for him. Not saying he is a doper, but comparing his results prior to joining sky with his results since, is a bit dubious, you got to admit that. (Same goes for Wiggins since 2009 btw)
Though, I am still not convinced that you can be this dominating in a 21day stage race without having previously engaged in shady practices! Especially not in a race that is THE Peak for a majority of the cycling world!
|
| |
|
|
| TimoCycling |
Posted on 10-07-2013 19:04
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1760
Joined: 27-08-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Mwuhi wrote:
alexkr00 wrote:
Jacdk wrote:
Froome came in just 12secs behind looking like he just came in from a nice leisurely ride down to the shop for beer in his car.
Did you see the Olympics time - trial?
After the race, Martin was completely dead and to a point even Wiggins. Meanwhile, Froome face was saying something like "Was that all?"
And I can fake being drunk, and raise my heartbeat within a couple of second to look exhausted. Maybe Martin is playing and fakes his exhausment.
Seems highly, highly unlikely to me. But I feel like the TT by Martin and Froome today is almost humanly impossible, I mean 53 km per hour... insane. |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 08-12-2025 08:23
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Mwuhi |
Posted on 10-07-2013 19:05
|
Stagiare
Posts: 179
Joined: 02-06-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
alexkr00 wrote:
Mwuhi wrote:
alexkr00 wrote:
Mwuhi wrote:
alexkr00 wrote:
Mwuhi wrote:
Why you all can't just stop nagging about doping.
Because this should be about who's the best on the bike, not who has the best doctor
For example, if I pay dr. Fuentes 100 billion dollars for getting my the best doping ever, I still won't win the big races.
I won't be so sure of that. If doping can make an less than average cyclist a Tour de France winner, who knows what else it can do
If it did, why he wasn't winning already in '10/'11?
You know that at Sky their doctors came from other sports and also some of their trainers have background on swimming and rugby for example. Makes the difference, if you don't get stuck at old times. Maybe, you should yourself.
It's amazing how you believe all their propaganda. All your arguments are the same as the one Sky come up with.
2010 and 2011? Froome was so good at that time that he didn't even make the Tour team. Clearly wasn't training hard enough.
Exact, that is what am I saying. You however say that dope makes it all, so it won't matter if you train hard. As long as you dope enough. But I say that training is the key and not that dope. |
| |
|
|
| Mwuhi |
Posted on 10-07-2013 19:07
|
Stagiare
Posts: 179
Joined: 02-06-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
TimoCycling wrote:
Mwuhi wrote:
alexkr00 wrote:
Jacdk wrote:
Froome came in just 12secs behind looking like he just came in from a nice leisurely ride down to the shop for beer in his car.
Did you see the Olympics time - trial?
After the race, Martin was completely dead and to a point even Wiggins. Meanwhile, Froome face was saying something like "Was that all?"
And I can fake being drunk, and raise my heartbeat within a couple of second to look exhausted. Maybe Martin is playing and fakes his exhausment.
Seems highly, highly unlikely to me . But I feel like the TT by Martin and Froome today is almost humanly impossible, I mean 53 km per hour... insane.
Ofcourse unlikely, but well, that doesn't matter. Was making a point to Alex. |
| |
|
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 10-07-2013 19:08
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
alexkr00 wrote:
Jacdk wrote:
Froome came in just 12secs behind looking like he just came in from a nice leisurely ride down to the shop for beer in his car.
Did you see the Olympics time - trial?
After the race, Martin was completely dead and to a point even Wiggins. Meanwhile, Froome face was saying something like "Was that all?"
And your pointe being was? because remind me again when the Olympic was and when a froome suddenly appeared out of nowhere. |
| |
|
|
| alexkr00 |
Posted on 10-07-2013 19:11
|
World Champion
Posts: 13561
Joined: 05-08-2008
PCM$: 400.00
|
Jacdk wrote:
alexkr00 wrote:
Jacdk wrote:
Froome came in just 12secs behind looking like he just came in from a nice leisurely ride down to the shop for beer in his car.
Did you see the Olympics time - trial?
After the race, Martin was completely dead and to a point even Wiggins. Meanwhile, Froome face was saying something like "Was that all?"
And your pointe being was? because remind me again when the Olympic was and when a froome suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
My point was that Froome looked like he didn't just make a considerable effort
Mwuhi wrote:
Exact, that is what am I saying. You however say that dope makes it all, so it won't matter if you train hard. As long as you dope enough. But I say that training is the key and not that dope.
That's it. You've convinced me while agreeing with my sarcastic comment.
|
| |
|
|
| tsmoha |
Posted on 10-07-2013 19:17
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 11786
Joined: 19-07-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
masch20 wrote:
tsmoha wrote:
masch20 wrote:
issoisso wrote:
masch20 wrote:
People have different opinions on things and i accept them..
No you very clearly don't
well that's not for you to decide!
Given your comments so far, it's no decision to say you don't.. It's a fact.
show me the place where i havent respected people opinions?
We are talking about "accepting different opinions" and - i'm on my mobile and too lazy to find your comments - you call "us" haters, just because we don't believe in Froome being clean. So: you clearly do not accept that "different" opinion.
You think he's clean - go SKY, right? - and you don't want so many people to think he's not. Simple.
|
| |
|
|
| Mwuhi |
Posted on 10-07-2013 19:19
|
Stagiare
Posts: 179
Joined: 02-06-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
alexkr00 wrote:
Mwuhi wrote:
Exact, that is what am I saying. You however say that dope makes it all, so it won't matter if you train hard. As long as you dope enough. But I say that training is the key and not that dope.
That's it. You've convinced me while agreeing with my sarcastic comment.
Of course I do
|
| |
|
|
| baggieboys32 |
Posted on 10-07-2013 19:23
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1951
Joined: 01-10-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
I'll join this topic by first saying: I am a sky fan
However, that being said I've spent this year with steadily less belief in them being credible, and Froome in this Tour has been a step beyond reality for me, I can no longer believe that he;s not doping.
I have a genuine question: When they are doing drug tests, are they just testing for incongruencies or for specific substances? Because if it's the latter would it be possible to get away with doping by using a new substance?
Secondly (Carrying on from Q1): When people first started using EPO etc, how were they treated? was it instantly banned and the riders with it? Because whilst I agree it's cheating, an argument which makes sense to me would be that Skys' "Research Fund" is being spent on developing a new wonderdrug which isn't on the illegal list yet?
|
| |
|
|
| Mwuhi |
Posted on 10-07-2013 19:26
|
Stagiare
Posts: 179
Joined: 02-06-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
baggieboys32 wrote:
I'll join this topic by first saying: I am a sky fan
However, that being said I've spent this year with steadily less belief in them being credible, and Froome in this Tour has been a step beyond reality for me, I can no longer believe that he;s not doping.
I have a genuine question: When they are doing drug tests, are they just testing for incongruencies or for specific substances? Because if it's the latter would it be possible to get away with doping by using a new substance?
Secondly (Carrying on from Q1): When people first started using EPO etc, how were they treated? was it instantly banned and the riders with it? Because whilst I agree it's cheating, an argument which makes sense to me would be that Skys' "Research Fund" is being spent on developing a new wonderdrug which isn't on the illegal list yet?
In the early days they tested for specific substances if I'm correct. Don't know if they still do that. But you have a list of forbidden materials to use. As long as it is not that list, it is not officialy a dope. That is one of the reasons that EPO could be used, it was untracable. Will be the same for the new wonderdrug, if it is there. As they will see differences, but they won't know where those differences came from.
|
| |
|
|
| miggi133 |
Posted on 10-07-2013 19:35
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2992
Joined: 19-08-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Mwuhi wrote:
baggieboys32 wrote:
I'll join this topic by first saying: I am a sky fan
However, that being said I've spent this year with steadily less belief in them being credible, and Froome in this Tour has been a step beyond reality for me, I can no longer believe that he;s not doping.
I have a genuine question: When they are doing drug tests, are they just testing for incongruencies or for specific substances? Because if it's the latter would it be possible to get away with doping by using a new substance?
Secondly (Carrying on from Q1): When people first started using EPO etc, how were they treated? was it instantly banned and the riders with it? Because whilst I agree it's cheating, an argument which makes sense to me would be that Skys' "Research Fund" is being spent on developing a new wonderdrug which isn't on the illegal list yet?
In the early days they tested for specific substances if I'm correct. Don't know if they still do that. But you have a list of forbidden materials to use. As long as it is not that list, it is not officialy a dope. That is one of the reasons that EPO could be used, it was untracable. Will be the same for the new wonderdrug, if it is there. As they will see differences, but they won't know where those differences came from.
They still do! Afterall you can only test for substances that you know of/have a method to test for...
And just because he doesnt turn in a positive doesnt mean that he is not doping. Ever heard of diuretics and masking agents? Pretty sure Fränk Schleck can tell you tons about it (slowly they are discovering methods to discover them too...)
And yes, its not officially doping as long as it isnt on that list, but as soon as a "drug" shows performance enhancing effects, itll be put on that list. Why do you think that all professional athletes have to declare any perscrition drugs with their respective governing bodies, be it UCI or Iaaf or the IOC? So they can monitor what kind of medication is slowly trending throughout a field of competitive athletes...
|
| |
|
|
| Jorge2 |
Posted on 10-07-2013 19:36
|
Amateur
Posts: 12
Joined: 13-04-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Hi guys!
I usually read and today want to share my opinion.
I am a SKY fan, I have 30 years and I came from Spain.
I follow Sky since first seasons, when in the team was Lofvquist, Gerrans and Flecha.
Last year for me was unreal the performace, but this year all rider is a normal performace but Froome is out of control.
Remember that Froome never was a leader, even there was a photo of w/kg of team riders and froome only reached 5.9w/kg.
In this time trial with hard counter wind, the performance even better than Martin and 2 minutes better than other favourites is a joke.
I dont belive in this cyclins, is unreal. Sorry, im trying, but i cant. |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 10-07-2013 19:36
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 19134
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Mwuhi wrote:
baggieboys32 wrote:
I'll join this topic by first saying: I am a sky fan
However, that being said I've spent this year with steadily less belief in them being credible, and Froome in this Tour has been a step beyond reality for me, I can no longer believe that he;s not doping.
I have a genuine question: When they are doing drug tests, are they just testing for incongruencies or for specific substances? Because if it's the latter would it be possible to get away with doping by using a new substance?
Secondly (Carrying on from Q1): When people first started using EPO etc, how were they treated? was it instantly banned and the riders with it? Because whilst I agree it's cheating, an argument which makes sense to me would be that Skys' "Research Fund" is being spent on developing a new wonderdrug which isn't on the illegal list yet?
In the early days they tested for specific substances if I'm correct. Don't know if they still do that. But you have a list of forbidden materials to use. As long as it is not that list, it is not officialy a dope. That is one of the reasons that EPO could be used, it was untracable. Will be the same for the new wonderdrug, if it is there. As they will see differences, but they won't know where those differences came from.
Please stop embarrassing yourself by making claims that are very easily proven false. Read what I'm about to reply to someone else.
masch20 wrote:
issoisso wrote:
masch20 wrote:
People have different opinions on things and i accept them..
No you very clearly don't
well that's not for you to decide!
So you're saying you don't accept my opinion that you don't?
baggieboys32 wrote:
I'll join this topic by first saying: I am a sky fan
However, that being said I've spent this year with steadily less belief in them being credible, and Froome in this Tour has been a step beyond reality for me, I can no longer believe that he;s not doping.
I have a genuine question: When they are doing drug tests, are they just testing for incongruencies or for specific substances? Because if it's the latter would it be possible to get away with doping by using a new substance?
Yep. That's one of the possibilities with Sky.
baggieboys32 wrote:
Secondly (Carrying on from Q1): When people first started using EPO etc, how were they treated? was it instantly banned and the riders with it? Because whilst I agree it's cheating, an argument which makes sense to me would be that Skys' "Research Fund" is being spent on developing a new wonderdrug which isn't on the illegal list yet?
Yes, but mind you, that doesn't make it legal. It doesn't have to be on the illegal list to be illegal.
The anti-doping rules state that if any substance has two of the following three properties:
- Enhances performance
- Is harmful to health
- Brings the sport into disrepute
It is illegal. That legislation exists precisely so that you can't go 'well, the rules state no EPO. I'm using DynEPO which is second generation so it's legal'
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
