so if anyone who beats Armstrong's time in mountains(mont ventoux),or even rides close to it is regarded as a doper? that was 10 or so years ago,now everything has evolved,bikes,food,humans,science and people are smarter than 10 years ago in improving cycling performance...which means sky has put the best effort and the most money in it and thats why they are in front of everyone else....records are there to be broken,they allways fall...so if someone beats froome time in 5 years is he gonna be regarded as a doper(if froome is not caught)?
And you are talking about their so called ''doctors'' who where bla bla bla involved in some kind of doping....i have a news for you-people changes...they might have made mistake once they wont do it again.
And if people who post arguments that sky is doped,would be so passionate in trying to see that sky might be clean they might change their views!
masch20 wrote:
so if anyone who beats Armstrong's time in mountains(mont ventoux),or even rides close to it is regarded as a doper? that was 10 or so years ago,now everything has evolved,bikes,food,humans,science and people are smarter than 10 years ago in improving cycling performance...which means sky has put the best effort and the most money in it and thats why they are in front of everyone else....records are there to be broken,they allways fall...so if someone beats froome time in 5 years is he gonna be regarded as a doper(if froome is not caught)?
And you are talking about their so called ''doctors'' who where bla bla bla involved in some kind of doping....i have a news for you-people changes...they might have made mistake once they wont do it again.
And if people who post arguments that sky is doped,would be so passionate in trying to see that sky might be clean they might change their views!
Now put you in their and switch it the other way around. Yup.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
CrueTrue wrote:
I didn't intend to start a discussion about whether I believe or don't believe Team Sky is clean. It looks very dubious to me, and that's pretty where I am at personally.
I'm a bit further, but my Catholic education has left some regrettable marks on me, a tiny it of my mind is always ready to believe in miracles.
CrueTrue wrote:
The point which I'm trying to make (but aren't doing so well ) is that the focus on doping questions on a team that's never been formally investigated and on a rider that's never been involved in any formal investigations - unlike, say, Nibali - is getting out of control.
I don't think Nibbles has been in any formal investigation, but I can't guarantee that I have my facts straight here. He's known for working or having worked with Dr Ferrari (wait, he might have changed according to Masch20), and riding for dodgy teams.
CrueTrue wrote:
It's almost overshadowing the race despite the fact that Froome may very well be the winner with least doping connections in recent time. I mean - the pressure on him, I feel, seem greater than the one that was put on Michael Rasmussen despite all that we knew about him back then.
I know. I almost want to defend Froome when all I ever hear about cycling at work is during the Tour de France and contains one of the following word : dope, doping, doper, dopehead.
I wish people would enjoy cycling.
Still, sometimes it seems too obvious, it was in Rasmussen's case, it's in Froome's. Live with it.
CrueTrue wrote:
And 2nd point - it's hypocritical to hope and cheer for riders like Contador and Valverde, then complain that a "doper like Froome" is winning.
There I fully agree.
But I can explain why. There's the style of riders of course (Sky are called cyborgs for a reason), whereas Contador keeps attacking even though it's vain.
Some French journalist came with an explanation of why that happens. People watch cycling and a likely scenario is expected to unfold (= favourite crushing the field in the end). Then what thrills them is the underdogs trying to mess up with that scenario. When that happens (defeated favourite) people are delighted. This year Froome is much stronger than his closest opponents, so it's not going to happen : lots of frustration.
masch20 wrote:
so if anyone who beats Armstrong's time in mountains(mont ventoux),or even rides close to it is regarded as a doper? that was 10 or so years ago,now everything has evolved,bikes,food,humans,science and people are smarter than 10 years ago in improving cycling performance...which means sky has put the best effort and the most money in it and thats why they are in front of everyone else....records are there to be broken,they allways fall...so if someone beats froome time in 5 years is he gonna be regarded as a doper(if froome is not caught)?
And you are talking about their so called ''doctors'' who where bla bla bla involved in some kind of doping....i have a news for you-people changes...they might have made mistake once they wont do it again.
And if people who post arguments that sky is doped,would be so passionate in trying to see that sky might be clean they might change their views!
*sigh* *yawn*
Edited by Aquarius on 16-07-2013 20:53
CrueTrue wrote:
And 2nd point - it's hypocritical to hope and cheer for riders like Contador and Valverde, then complain that a "doper like Froome" is winning.
Nah, I feel that everyone here is either cheering for Quintana or Mollema, both former Tour de l'Avenir winners.
CrueTrue wrote:
And 2nd point - it's hypocritical to hope and cheer for riders like Contador and Valverde, then complain that a "doper like Froome" is winning.
Nah, I feel that everyone here is either cheering for Quintana or Mollema, both former Tour de l'Avenir winners.
I'm still cheering for Andy
Anyway, it's human nature to root for the rivals of the rider you don't like/hate so it's not surprising.
"Cycling is now the the world's cleanest sport." - Chris Froome
masch20 wrote:
so if anyone who beats Armstrong's time in mountains(mont ventoux),or even rides close to it is regarded as a doper? that was 10 or so years ago,now everything has evolved,bikes,food,humans,science and people are smarter than 10 years ago in improving cycling performance...which means sky has put the best effort and the most money in it and thats why they are in front of everyone else....records are there to be broken,they allways fall...so if someone beats froome time in 5 years is he gonna be regarded as a doper(if froome is not caught)?
And you are talking about their so called ''doctors'' who where bla bla bla involved in some kind of doping....i have a news for you-people changes...they might have made mistake once they wont do it again.
And if people who post arguments that sky is doped,would be so passionate in trying to see that sky might be clean they might change their views!
CrueTrue wrote:
Again, I don't see any other arguments than that they're strong (and too strong to be believable)
Well, your welcome to prove that Froome is Clean.... i actually would like to hear your arguments for that other then "buuuuuuu, people are not saying the same about Contador, Valverde,Nibali, Kreuziger, Quintana and so on"
How you put is kinda right if you put it plain and simpel, but its more than that.
masch20 wrote:
so if anyone who beats Armstrong's time in mountains(mont ventoux),or even rides close to it is regarded as a doper? that was 10 or so years ago,now everything has evolved,bikes,food,humans,science and people are smarter than 10 years ago in improving cycling performance...which means sky has put the best effort and the most money in it and thats why they are in front of everyone else....records are there to be broken,they allways fall...so if someone beats froome time in 5 years is he gonna be regarded as a doper(if froome is not caught)?
And you are talking about their so called ''doctors'' who where bla bla bla involved in some kind of doping....i have a news for you-people changes...they might have made mistake once they wont do it again.
And if people who post arguments that sky is doped,would be so passionate in trying to see that sky might be clean they might change their views!
How much have humans evolved?
They have evolved in a way that they dont question what they take anymore... They just take it... (*cough*Tyson Gay*cough*)
EDIT: Forgot to add the emoticon so the Sarcasm could be recognised...
EDIT2: Oh and Mash... A few pages back, we discussed that when climbing, the new bikes dont make a difference what so ever... Especially since all bikes have to fulfill a minimum weight, which hasnt really changed in the last few years...
Edited by miggi133 on 16-07-2013 21:52
CrueTrue wrote:
Again, I don't see any other arguments than that they're strong (and too strong to be believable)
Well, your welcome to prove that Froome is Clean.... i actually would like to hear your arguments for that other then "buuuuuuu, people are not saying the same about Contador, Valverde,Nibali, Kreuziger, Quintana and so on"
How you put is kinda right if you put it plain and simpel, but its more than that.
You should try to read what I'm writing rather than what you want to believe I'm writing
I never claimed that Team Sky is clean: I see the same as everyone else and thinking "not normal" to myself.
masch20 wrote:
And you are talking about their so called ''doctors'' who where bla bla bla involved in some kind of doping....i have a news for you-people changes...they might have made mistake once they wont do it again.
Why would someone ever change what they are so good at?
masch20 wrote:
now everything has evolved,bikes,food,humans,science
Yes especially 'Food' and Science
masch20 wrote:
people are smarter than 10 years ago in improving cycling performance...which means sky has put the best effort and the most money in it and thats why they are in front of everyone else....
That doesn't look like you are trying to defend sky
But this part is one of the few parts that's right in your argumentation
Edited by Bikex on 16-07-2013 22:45
masch20 wrote:
so if anyone who beats Armstrong's time in mountains(mont ventoux),or even rides close to it is regarded as a doper? that was 10 or so years ago,now everything has evolved,bikes,food,humans,science and people are smarter than 10 years ago in improving cycling performance...which means sky has put the best effort and the most money in it and thats why they are in front of everyone else....records are there to be broken,they allways fall...so if someone beats froome time in 5 years is he gonna be regarded as a doper(if froome is not caught)?
And you are talking about their so called ''doctors'' who where bla bla bla involved in some kind of doping....i have a news for you-people changes...they might have made mistake once they wont do it again.
And if people who post arguments that sky is doped,would be so passionate in trying to see that sky might be clean they might change their views!
On what utopical planet are you living? Because it definitely ain't happening on this.
I didn't intend to start a discussion about whether I believe or don't believe Team Sky is clean. It looks very dubious to me, and that's pretty where I am at personally.
The point which I'm trying to make (but aren't doing so well ) is that the focus on doping questions on a team that's never been formally investigated and on a rider that's never been involved in any formal investigations - unlike, say, Nibali - is getting out of control.
It's almost overshadowing the race despite the fact that Froome may very well be the winner with least doping connections in recent time. I mean - the pressure on him, I feel, seem greater than the one that was put on Michael Rasmussen despite all that we knew about him back then.
And 2nd point - it's hypocritical to hope and cheer for riders like Contador and Valverde, then complain that a "doper like Froome" is winning.
Wow, exellent post, i agree with everything
I am also VERY sceptical of Sky, but I think the biggest point is the enourmous double standard in cycling regarding who to condemn or not to regarding dopers/likely dopers. It's quite disgusting,
masch20 wrote:
so if anyone who beats Armstrong's time in mountains(mont ventoux),or even rides close to it is regarded as a doper? that was 10 or so years ago,now everything has evolved,bikes,food,humans,science and people are smarter than 10 years ago in improving cycling performance...which means sky has put the best effort and the most money in it and thats why they are in front of everyone else....records are there to be broken,they allways fall...so if someone beats froome time in 5 years is he gonna be regarded as a doper(if froome is not caught)?
I don't feel like writing about something that has been mentioned several times, so here are some quotes:
Spoiler
Aquarius wrote:
dienblad wrote:
Brailford recently said, that one day, the riders will ride faster without doping than in the EPO-era. I think that is true, as the equipment gets better, the training methods get better, etcetera.
But to say that that time has come already??
[...]
But seriously, there will be riders in the (near?) future that will go faster and produce more Watt etcetera totally clean, than the doped riders. Only bad thing is that there will always be suspicion when they do that....
When you see the immense difference between EPO'ed riders and non-EPO'ed ones, it's really hard to believe that within a couple of years (at best), we've reached that level again.
In my opinion it'd take decades and decades to reach that level again (and I'm still very doubtful about it ever happening).
Given all the suspicion surrounding Froome and/or Sky (working in shabby places with a shabby staff), it's really, really hard to believe that we're here yet.
Aquarius wrote:
And yes, everything has improved, though they've been using wind turbines for cyclists since the late 70's. But that should show a general improvement (and it does), not turn a random lousy pro into an absolute world beater.
Also, for what reason on Earth do cyclists who've left Sky forgotten how to train properly ?
About the evolution of bikes:
issoisso wrote:
Go read Fred Grappe's study of bikes. He had several of his riders compare performance with a 1980 pro bike and a modern bike. '5w at most' was his conclusion. The real difference is in comfort.
Also here's something you can think of:
Aquarius wrote:
stephanovic wrote:
For the training part, the training has changed a lot in a few years, especially within the Sky team, so i am not that surprised they can ride better as a team as most teams, however even Sky can fail in doing so, looking back at the last tour stage.
Besides Sky's propaganda ("we train differently, we train harder" ), I'm still to see any evidence of Sky's novelty in terms of training. Surely you can come up with something ?
The sad aspect of cycling is that cyclists are totally brainless. Michael Rogers had benefited from that super training, but as soon as he left he's totally forgotten how to train efficiently. I wish he had a brain.
And the bad aspect with Sky is that they've only taught their leaders or the guys in their mountain train how to train. The others are just a bunch of random professionals...
Aquarius wrote:
I forgot to add, but it's been said several times, that only the core riders of the GT team(s) have improved in biblical proportions at Sky. Other riders (classics or not part of mountain trains) may have improved too, but nowhere near as much. That improvement is as much as I'm ready to believe in terms of hard training + marginal gains.
masch20 wrote:
And you are talking about their so called ''doctors'' who where bla bla bla involved in some kind of doping....i have a news for you-people changes...they might have made mistake once they wont do it again.
Funnily, what happened is exactly the opposite of what you wrote
(tip: it starts with "Fabio" and finishes with "tolucci" )
Additionally, no one hires a notoriously doping doctor "by mistake".
masch20 wrote:
And if people who post arguments that sky is doped,would be so passionate in trying to see that sky might be clean they might change their views!
Perhaps you should take a look at the first pages of this post, how 'passionate' Sky defenders changed their minds because pretty much all sensible Sky-pro arguments were quickly proved wrong...
ps.: why don't you answer the people who have answered your arguments before?
I don't base my support on who is doping, because apart from a few riders there just isn't any clarity, and supporting dopers who are getting away with it over dopers who got caught seems wrong to me.
Mainly I base my support on the following three factors:
1) South African
2) if the commentator doesn't like them/mention them.
3) If their doing well will make the race better to watch.
I supported Di Luca in the '08 and '09 Giro's for reason 3 alone. His downhill attack wih Salvodelli and his insane first half of the time trial were amazing irrespective of the drugs, and the reason I watch cycling.
It's why I though the crosswinds hurt the tour, because they killed Valverde's chances, and it's why I'm irrationally hoping issoisso is wrong about Contador. Because a massive attack on the first ascent of Huez would be fun to watch.
The debate about doping is only fun if you are not sure. once it's confirmed one way or another then I lose interest, but while their is speculation, the accumulation of evidence, suspicious photos, timings, odd quotes; that's where the interest is.
I haven't contributed much to this discussion recently, but I've been mulling over a long post which I will hopefully write on Thursday arguing for Froome (for a change)
Edited by mb2612 on 17-07-2013 00:03
[url=www.pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=33182]Team Santander Media Thread[/url]
I am also VERY sceptical of Sky, but I think the biggest point is the enourmous double standard in cycling regarding who to condemn or not to regarding dopers/likely dopers. It's quite disgusting,
Explanation is simple. If you love something, you tend to accept more excuses and believe in more than you theoreticaly should. But if someone spits on your face and claims its raining, than its a completely different story.
People tend to believe/accept the fact that Contador/Valverde/Nibali are clean/or accept that they are doped more than they accept Froome/Sky is that i.e Contador or Nibali were consider talented riders since their early age. they had some nice achievements when they were very young and also their progress was more consistent. So people didn't feel cheated that much when Contador was cought. Same applies to, let's say, Kwiatkowski. This guys made huge progres this year and looks like all-around machine in cycling. He can sprint, climb, does well on cobbles and in TT. Yet, you dont hear much about doping around him (which doesnt mean hes not doped). But he was considered very talented since he was 18-19, so for most of people his progress is more "natural".
When it comes to Froome, we are talking about the guy, who was nobody 2 years ago. And all of sudden, he became world beater, a dominator, who can outclimb anyone he wants. Ive been watching cycling for almost 20 years and seen all previous Froome-like dominators. And you know what? They all, with on single exceptions, sooner or later, has been caught on doping. So why should I believe that with Froome its a different story?
I don't believe in dominators in any endurance or strength based sport. Doesn't matter if it comes to cycling or i.e running (yes, for me Usain Bolt is doped as much as Armstrong was). With so advanced medicine (legal one), science and training methods, and with all that money that are invested in sport, and also taught by history, I just find it hard to believe, that any human being can be so much ahead of everybody else, that can beat them by minutes on every stage (when it comes to cycling) when rest of the participants is separated by seconds.
Edited by Abaddon on 17-07-2013 00:23
CrueTrue wrote:
You should try to read what I'm writing rather than what you want to believe I'm writing
I never claimed that Team Sky is clean: I see the same as everyone else and thinking "not normal" to myself.
Read my previous posts for the point I'm making.
I did read it but then i read the one you wrote as a comment to mine.
So ok i misunderstood you and sorry for that. And you do have a point, its just that with the others we know they are not kosher, with Sky i guess people want to believe fairytales.
You know what, there's a possibility Froome (not Sky, but Froome) is fairly clean. It may not be big, but there is is possibility.
If he's clean, I feel so bad for the guy. After his biggest victory ever, he only gets one question over and over, putting the sport itself in the shadow and going on about the dirt.
Saturday they ask him: are you clean?
Sundat they ask him: are you clean?
Monday they ask him: are you clean?
What's he gonna say? "no"? Even if he isn't clean, what do you think he'll say. Just stop asking. Gather evidence if you can, then come forward, stop accusing the papers are filled with doping accusations instead of the brilliance of the Tour. If that Ventoux victory was clean, it was one of the greatest climbs in modern cycling history and I loved to see it.
If later it turns out it was with doping, it sucks incredibly hard, but before we see any true evidence (mind you, not gossiping on sites or between journalists or not the press blowing up figures) it's just killing the sport to question it.
"Hey, he's doing well! Probably on doping..."
"Wow, Mollema is second. Hmm, he's probably doped out of his eyeballs"
"Quintana attacks! What an acceleration! He must be on EPO!"
Why are those journalists there? Go home and come back when you want to report on the Tour.
----
EDIT: don't get me wrong. I wouldn't put any money on Froome being clean, nor money on him being doped, I simply don't know. Only one person can answer that question. I also understand those questions must be raised, but now they're all everyone can talk about, which is ruining the sport even more than the dopers themselves.
Edited by Ian Butler on 17-07-2013 09:02
I understand CrueTrue's point of view. Basically he is saying there is a lack of objectivenes (even though humans never can achieve that fully), since there is a massive thread about Sky and no threads about all the other dopers. To boil this soup down to its roots, this thread and discussion is the same as Messi vs. Cristiano and Apple vs. Android fanboyism vs. skepticsm and critiscm. It is never ending..
And most forum members, do not have an incentive to keep that level of objectiveness.
As one pointed out, whenever somebody is extremely dominant, you want the underdogs to change the scenario. Armstrong was much hated 99-2005. But in 2009 he gained way more popularity, since he lost a lot of his invincibility.
One question: You work for tv2 right? (Or maybe it was just for a period?)
However you said your boss told you to write implicit that Froome was doped.
I think tv2's policy, or at least the commentators are way to naive and ignoring all evidence pointing to a doped performance. They keep talking about Sky's methods bla bla bla..
Edited by Ybodonk on 17-07-2013 09:28
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)
Really CT? You are cycling journalist, did you see the climbing times and wattage comparsions? Also Leinders, coming from nowhere, only GT core is above the rest and many more things. I wouldnt expectž you from all to be so surprised.
Edit: After reading the rest of discussion i see your point. But why so surprised to hear every day only about doping when we had last year Mr. Armstrong being exposed and stripped from 7 titles. I think it has to be expected, even more when Froome is challenging his times. You expect people to watch Tour after what happened and not talk about doping again and again. We are in dirty sport, talk gets dirty because of it...
Edited by Avin Wargunnson on 17-07-2013 09:27
