Evans should be the poster boy for age declination, or he is the only clean one.
But I would say that Contador was really good at the Vuelta last year so I doubt that he can become crappy just one year later. By some logic he would have been doped in the Vuelta and that the Spanish cycling thingy and whatever protected them.
I doubt that the cyclists have some super efficient, battery driven engine or something without it being out on the market. Cycling isn't formula one where they have a lot of money.
Btw, the Jamaican athletes (Powell and son on) who where caught a few days ago were not using performance enhancing drugs.
Have been following the threads / discussions a bit on the sideline against this year because of my job taking all the time, but here's a quick input:
Team Sky is being questioned - a lot. Pretty much can't do a relay at the front of the peloton without getting doping questions after the stage. I see people cheering for Contador and Valverde, convicted dopers.
During the Giro, I don't recall anyone saying a word about Nibali, and I don't think we have an "Astana doping thread" either even though that'd be very, very justified.
Yet here we are on page 100 of Team Sky doping, and what do we have? What's all the suspicion based on? That they're good and better than everyone else.
I can understand how that's suspicious. It looks very dodgy to me too. But I fail to understand why it has to take up SO much discussion, debate and time.
Example: When Froome won on Ventoux, the first thing that happened after the stage was that got an call from my boss, telling me to pretty much write that Froome is doped (or at least that there's a chance that he is).
Had Contador won that stage, we would have gone in crazy jubilant mode, writing songs about Contador's greatness like we did with Sastre in 08.
It's like we're missing that middle line. Same goes for this forum and Twitter in its entirety
CrueTrue wrote:
I can understand how that's suspicious. It looks very dodgy to me too. But I fail to understand why it has to take up SO much discussion, debate and time.
That's because many people are defending them. If we start a thread about Astana doping, everyone will agree they are on drugs, and it wouldn't reach page 10. Plus it's Sky the team which is dominating the sport for the 3rd year in a row, not Astana.
CrueTrue wrote:
Example: When Froome won on Ventoux, the first thing that happened after the stage was that got an call from my boss, telling me to pretty much write that Froome is doped (or at least that there's a chance that he is).
Had Contador won that stage, we would have gone in crazy jubilant mode, writing songs about Contador's greatness like we did with Sastre in 08.
That's because Contador rides for a Danish team. It's bending the truth to adapt it to the editorial line of the newspaper/TV station/whatever you (or any journalist) are working for. It happens everywhere.
CrueTrue wrote:
Have been following the threads / discussions a bit on the sideline against this year because of my job taking all the time, but here's a quick input:
Team Sky is being questioned - a lot. Pretty much can't do a relay at the front of the peloton without getting doping questions after the stage. I see people cheering for Contador and Valverde, convicted dopers.
During the Giro, I don't recall anyone saying a word about Nibali, and I don't think we have an "Astana doping thread" either even though that'd be very, very justified.
Yet here we are on page 100 of Team Sky doping, and what do we have? What's all the suspicion based on? That they're good and better than everyone else.
I can understand how that's suspicious. It looks very dodgy to me too. But I fail to understand why it has to take up SO much discussion, debate and time.
Example: When Froome won on Ventoux, the first thing that happened after the stage was that got an call from my boss, telling me to pretty much write that Froome is doped (or at least that there's a chance that he is).
Had Contador won that stage, we would have gone in crazy jubilant mode, writing songs about Contador's greatness like we did with Sastre in 08.
It's like we're missing that middle line. Same goes for this forum and Twitter in its entirety
You forget the reason why people are questioning Sky, its not because they won or are dominating every race they enter.
That happens with any strong team and most had probably thought back when Leopard-trek was formed that it would be what they would do.
Also last year the question wasnt that much about wiggins, most punters might be suspicious but anyone who knows something about cycling, could see that Wiggins was just that tad better and in the end we ended up with a pretty even podium, where the difference wasn't greater then it could be possible. Froome however was what sparked my suspicious he was super strong and could have won the tour if it wasn't because he was ordered not to.
And then we have this year, what he did on the TT, AC3 dom and on Mt.ventoux is something i have never never never seen a clean rider do, and i have followed cycling for 20years and not even Armstrong has showed the same on his doping height.
It was just insane and when everyone even the media who was up until Mt.Ventoux pro-froome begins to say "hmmm, ok we dont believe in fairytales" there is something to notice. The way he pulled Quintana and then rode away sitting down not evening looking like his puls was above rest, was in my eyes clear indication that something is fishy.
And then there is Porte who up until he signed a contract with Sky, was a decent flat cyclist and nothing more, but now he can ride away from people like Valverde, Rodgriguez and Contador in the Mountains.....
So you might be right that Froome and Sky is just better, but i also might be the queen of England.
That's because Contador rides for a Danish team. It's bending the truth to adapt it to the editorial line of the newspaper/TV station/whatever you (or any journalist) are working for. It happens everywhere.
You´re wrong.
Contador might have been doped before and its a good bet that he was.
But today i think his Vuelta last year and this years performance speaks for it self, that he is pretty clean.
Also look at the time diff. remove froome and we have a race where the top 5 is under 1½min apart.
CrueTrue wrote:
I can understand how that's suspicious. It looks very dodgy to me too. But I fail to understand why it has to take up SO much discussion, debate and time.
That's because many people are defending them. If we start a thread about Astana doping, everyone will agree they are on drugs, and it wouldn't reach page 10. Plus it's Sky the team which is dominating the sport for the 3rd year in a row, not Astana.
This is pointed juat as much at the journalists in France - hell of a lot doping coverage when Sky wins, none when Nibali wins the Giro.
Now, looking at facts, who of Froome and Nibali has the most dodgy and shady past and should thus be questioned the most?
kumazan wrote:
CrueTrue wrote:
Example: When Froome won on Ventoux, the first thing that happened after the stage was that got an call from my boss, telling me to pretty much write that Froome is doped (or at least that there's a chance that he is).
Had Contador won that stage, we would have gone in crazy jubilant mode, writing songs about Contador's greatness like we did with Sastre in 08.
That's because Contador rides for a Danish team. It's bending the truth to adapt it to the editorial line of the newspaper/TV station/whatever you (or any journalist) are working for. It happens everywhere.
I know - but the same goes for this forum or anywhere else I check. As long as a Sky-rider doesn't win we don't care whether it's a convicted doper with much more of a doping past than Froome. Doesn't make sense to me.
Jacdk wrote:
You forget the reason why people are questioning Sky, its not because they won or are dominating every race they enter.
That happens with any strong team and most had probably thought back when Leopard-trek was formed that it would be what they would do.
Also last year the question wasnt that much about wiggins, most punters might be suspicious but anyone who knows something about cycling, could see that Wiggins was just that tad better and in the end we ended up with a pretty even podium, where the difference wasn't greater then it could be possible. Froome however was what sparked my suspicious he was super strong and could have won the tour if it wasn't because he was ordered not to.
And then we have this year, what he did on the TT, AC3 dom and on Mt.ventoux is something i have never never never seen a clean rider do, and i have followed cycling for 20years and not even Armstrong has showed the same on his doping height.
It was just insane and when everyone even the media who was up until Mt.Ventoux pro-froome begins to say "hmmm, ok we dont believe in fairytales" there is something to notice. The way he pulled Quintana and then rode away sitting down not evening looking like his puls was above rest, was in my eyes clear indication that something is fishy.
And then there is Porte who up until he signed a contract with Sky, was a decent flat cyclist and nothing more, but now he can ride away from people like Valverde, Rodgriguez and Contador in the Mountains.....
So you might be right that Froome and Sky is just better, but i also might be the queen of England.
So in other words, you question Sky because they are strong and have lots of money.
CrueTrue wrote:
Now, looking at facts, who of Froome and Nibali has the most dodgy and shady past and should thus be questioned the most?
Both have a dodgy and shady past and present, but only one of them has experienced an improvement in his performance only ever experienced by heavy dopers. And only one of them, as far as I know, is climbing faster than Armstrong in his prime.
Not that I think Nibali is clean, mind you.
CrueTrue wrote:
I know - but the same goes for this forum or anywhere else I check. As long as a Sky-rider doesn't win we don't care whether it's a convicted doper with much more of a doping past than Froome. Doesn't make sense to me.
There were reactions when Kreuziger won AGR and when Luigi did the RvV-PR double. Not as much as with Froome though, but it helps that they're not as ridiculous.
Edited by kumazan on 16-07-2013 20:00
So in other words, you question Sky because they are strong and have lots of money.
Not really in other words i am suspicious of a performance that is on the outer limits and above what should be possible for a clean athlete.
I still have a vivid picture of the Mt.Ventoux stage and it was insane to see him sitting down and not even breaking a sweat, first go away from Contador, then go up to quintana, use him for abit and then ride away like the hill was flat and it was a track. A Quintana which people seem to agree on is one of the worlds best mountain goats right now.
And why the Sky thread is so long is because we have a ton of people on either side, most dont have the same connection with Nibali or Contador or Kreuziger, Valverde or Quintana. Who i have to admit also seems supecious.
Edited by Jacdk on 16-07-2013 20:08
kumazan wrote:
That's because many people are defending them. If we start a thread about Astana doping, everyone will agree they are on drugs, and it wouldn't reach page 10. Plus it's Sky the team which is dominating the sport for the 3rd year in a row, not Astana.
Pretty much.
CrueTrue wrote:
Have been following the threads / discussions
You say that, but then you say this
CrueTrue wrote:What's all the suspicion based on? That they're good and better than everyone else.
Which is a pretty strong indication you aren't following
CrueTrue wrote:
I can understand how that's suspicious. It looks very dodgy to me too. But I fail to understand why it has to take up SO much discussion, debate and time.
Because the few times we talked about Nibali, it ended quickly since most everyone agreed he was dodgy. Done. Also, nowhere near as much smoke around him as there is around Sky.
Yep, we talked a heck of a lot about Dr. Pepe Martà back then. But no kazakhstani fanboys crawled out of the woodwork with their version of 'They must be clean because they say they are!', so it didn't drag on
Edited by issoisso on 16-07-2013 20:09
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
So in other words, you question Sky because they are strong and have lots of money.
Not really in other words i am suspicious of a performance that is on the outer limits and above what should be possible for a clean athlete.
I still have a vivid picture of the Mt.Ventoux stage and it was insane to see him sitting down and not even breaking a sweat, first go away from Contador, then go up to quintana, use him for abit and then ride away like the hill was flat and it was a track. A Quintana which people seem to agree on is one of the worlds best mountain goats right now.
And why the Sky thread is so long is because we have a ton of people on either side, most dont have the same connection with Nibali or Contador or Kreuziger, Valverde or Quintana. Who i have to admit also seems supecious.
Again, I don't see any other arguments than that they're strong (and too strong to be believable)
And we didn't get an army of Italian fanboys to defend him either (maybe their fanboys are more cycling-educated than the average British one ?) and say we hate him because of his nationality and revolutionary training.
Meanwhile, Brailsford has apparently agreed to release power curves, AUT and bio-passport stuff to the UCI. I'll believe it when it happens, but that's rather encouraging for now.
Any clue if Froome has an AUT for whatever disease (bilharzia or other) ?
Funny comment about French journalists not picking at Nibbles. Giro ? That's a... wait, a cycling race or something, that gets a 20 seconds coverage every day in the sports news.
Tour de France ? Ah, that event so full of dopers, doping, dope, scandals and stuff.
What do you expect our journos and average people to talk about in these conditions ? At work I'm only getting comments about "the guy who won yesterday, he's gotta to be doped, right ?".
CrueTrue wrote:What's all the suspicion based on? That they're good and better than everyone else.
Which is a pretty strong indication you aren't following
CrueTrue wrote:
I can understand how that's suspicious. It looks very dodgy to me too. But I fail to understand why it has to take up SO much discussion, debate and time.
Because the few times we talked about Nibali, it ended quickly since most everyone agreed he was dodgy. Done. Also, nowhere near as much smoke around him as there is around Sky.
I may not be up to date on the latest arguments vs. Sky. Has anything happened since "Geert Leinders doped Rabobank's riders" or "His estimated watt numbers are inhuman"?
But I'm open minded. Bring me the up to date list of fool-proof evidence
So in other words, you question Sky because they are strong and have lots of money.
Not really in other words i am suspicious of a performance that is on the outer limits and above what should be possible for a clean athlete.
I still have a vivid picture of the Mt.Ventoux stage and it was insane to see him sitting down and not even breaking a sweat, first go away from Contador, then go up to quintana, use him for abit and then ride away like the hill was flat and it was a track. A Quintana which people seem to agree on is one of the worlds best mountain goats right now.
And why the Sky thread is so long is because we have a ton of people on either side, most dont have the same connection with Nibali or Contador or Kreuziger, Valverde or Quintana. Who i have to admit also seems supecious.
Again, I don't see any other arguments than that they're strong (and too strong to be believable)
- Promise to not hire any staff previously involved in doping. Hire one of the most notorious doping doctors of the sport's past 10 years
- Several on the team come from nowhere to become stars at the same time as a notorious doping doctor is hired with no progression, just instant metamorphosis
- Team refuse to release any blood values despite promising they would do so
- Refuse to allow an expert (Kimmage) to observe the team from the inside as they previously promised
- Promise to not hire any riders suspicious of doping, then go out and sign several riders that are listed in the 'overwhelming evidence' category of the blood passport leaked list plus having several others in that category already riding for them
- When called on it, claim they 'didn't know' about the notorious doping doctor and replace him with another one. With both they don't include their names in any list of team staff to try and disguise the fact
That's 5 more. Enough?
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
CrueTrue wrote:
Again, I don't see any other arguments than that they're strong (and too strong to be believable)
Don't you find the evolution on their stance on doping a bit shabby ? From a random team with a zero tolerance policy, no formerly doped personal, etc. to a team that says "you have to live with your time", starts crushing everything in Grand Tours with riders suddenly becoming thinner than ever, hide they have hired Leinders as a doctor, replaced him with another doping doctor.
Then they've been acting very secret about training, datas, etc. They seem to be changing a little bit about this now, so I'll keep my words.
On the other hand, Froome has reached the human limits, more or less, but he's not gone through the roof (yet), so there's still a tiny bit of plausibility in what he does. Still... say whatever you want about him, he's never really looked like the ultimate human being before 2011.
