|
Sky Doping/Hate Thread
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 17-07-2013 04:08
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
CrueTrue wrote:
You should try to read what I'm writing rather than what you want to believe I'm writing 
I never claimed that Team Sky is clean: I see the same as everyone else and thinking "not normal" to myself.
Read my previous posts for the point I'm making.
I did read it but then i read the one you wrote as a comment to mine.
So ok i misunderstood you and sorry for that. And you do have a point, its just that with the others we know they are not kosher, with Sky i guess people want to believe fairytales. |
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 17-07-2013 09:01
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
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
|
| |
|
|
| Ybodonk |
Posted on 17-07-2013 09:17
|
Domestique
Posts: 510
Joined: 24-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
I understand CrueTrue's point of view. Basically he is saying there is a lack of objectivenes (even though humans never can achieve that fully), since there is a massive thread about Sky and no threads about all the other dopers. To boil this soup down to its roots, this thread and discussion is the same as Messi vs. Cristiano and Apple vs. Android fanboyism vs. skepticsm and critiscm. It is never ending..
And most forum members, do not have an incentive to keep that level of objectiveness.
As one pointed out, whenever somebody is extremely dominant, you want the underdogs to change the scenario. Armstrong was much hated 99-2005. But in 2009 he gained way more popularity, since he lost a lot of his invincibility.
One question: You work for tv2 right? (Or maybe it was just for a period?)
However you said your boss told you to write implicit that Froome was doped.
I think tv2's policy, or at least the commentators are way to naive and ignoring all evidence pointing to a doped performance. They keep talking about Sky's methods bla bla bla..
Edited by Ybodonk on 17-07-2013 09:28
|
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 17-07-2013 09:20
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
CrueTrue wrote:
Jacdk wrote:
CrueTrue wrote:
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
|
| |
|
|
| Waghlon |
Posted on 17-07-2013 09:30
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7694
Joined: 18-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ian Butler wrote:
What's he gonna say? "no"?
Sadly I doubt that many people willl be satisfied until this happens: https://imgur.com/...
THE THOMAS VOECKLER PROPHET OF PCM DAILY
 |
| |
|
|
| ShortsNL |
Posted on 17-07-2013 09:52
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 898
Joined: 17-11-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
I normally agree with you Ian and often think you've got excellent attitude by not dismissing every rider as doped, but I do disagree with you here.
The sceptical attitude is not killing the sport, it's cleaning it. With the change of perspective and the way the public condemns dopers now, it's good to have big pressure on the riders. It shapes their opinion to be strongly against doping as well (examples: De Gendt, Argos) and forces die-hard dopers to stay on their toes and think twice about doping.
The strong opinion of the public and the media to go against doping and to be sceptical when unbelievable performances happen creates pressure on the riders to not dope, which is good. |
| |
|
|
| Mwuhi |
Posted on 17-07-2013 10:07
|
Stagiare
Posts: 179
Joined: 02-06-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
Of course it is cleaning it, but they are doing it wrong. Instead of annoying riders with such questions and constantly talk about it, they should however indeed gather evidence. And not just do assuming things.
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 24-11-2024 06:01
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 17-07-2013 10:11
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
Mwuhi wrote:
Of course it is cleaning it, but they are doing it wrong. Instead of annoying riders with such questions and constantly talk about it, they should however indeed gather evidence. And not just do assuming things.
This!
Of course we need to be sceptical. But it's one thing to raise the question, another to annoy the riders to death with it. Because right now, it's the Tour de Doping, not the Tour de France. Instead of seeing: "Froome conquers Ventoux" in the papers, I read: "Froome vs Armstrong".
And that's not good for the sport, see? |
| |
|
|
| ShortsNL |
Posted on 17-07-2013 10:20
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 898
Joined: 17-11-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
If you're the strongest rider in the peloton you automatically get the most of the scepticism on you. It's expectable. Now if you've been dominating all year and are now dominating once again, clearly striking a gap between yourself and everyone else, the scepticism grows even further. Not only expectable, but also valid in my opinion.
Froome is on another level compared to everyone else. If he wants to satisfy the sceptics, he has to try five times as hard as the numbers 2-10 to show why he's not doping. Normal, logical, and acceptable in my opinion.
If he doesn't try five times as hard and then gets frustrated about the scepticism, well, that's his fault. |
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 17-07-2013 10:37
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
Just imagine for 1 seconds he is clean. Or wait, you imagine you're Froome and you're clean.
As a Brit (well...) you win on the slopes of the Mont Ventoux. You worked so hard for this and you did it all by yourself, winning here.
You're dead from exhaustion. There comes the press, you're ready to talk about writing history.
"Mr. Froome, are you clean?" 'Yes, next question' "Are you clean?" 'I said so, yes, next question?' "You're the first British person to win here. Are you sure you'll stay the first British person or will your victory be stripped?"
Like I said. OF course we have to raise the question. Once, twice, thrice, maybe once a day. But this is a witch-hunt. |
| |
|
|
| Pellizotti2 |
Posted on 17-07-2013 10:41
|
World Champion
Posts: 10121
Joined: 01-05-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
What's the point of imagining that he's clean when it's so obvious that he isn't?
|
| |
|
|
| Spilak23 |
Posted on 17-07-2013 10:42
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 22-08-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ian Butler wrote:
Just imagine for 1 seconds he is clean. Or wait, you imagine you're Froome and you're clean.
I'd say there is a 1% chance he is so why would I even imagine that?
Edit: Zabel'd
Edited by Spilak23 on 17-07-2013 10:45
|
| |
|
|
| tsmoha |
Posted on 17-07-2013 10:44
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 11819
Joined: 19-07-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
Pellizotti2 wrote:
What's the point of imagining that he's clean when it's so obvious that he isn't?
 this!
|
| |
|
|
| ShortsNL |
Posted on 17-07-2013 10:47
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 898
Joined: 17-11-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
I see your point man, from his perspective the scepticism is killing and not worth it if he's clean.
But that's a big if. A very, very big one.
I think Brailsford and Froome could have prevented the scepticism if they had been more open as to how they achieved such a massive difference in level in the first place.
One could argue that the winner should not need to show his competition his key advantage, but that only flies with me if the competitors are within reach of each other, where its a game of tiny margins and where each bit of legitimate advantage is not for the public eye. This is not the case as Froome and Sky have been mountains (pun intended) above the rest.
So then the question Brailsford asks is: Tell me then what do you want to see, instead of asking the same question over and over?
Well, the simple answer is: everything, and they should have started doing so at the start of this year when Sky already had an incredibly dominant 2012. The fact that they haven't done so is why Froome's performance is so unbelievalbe and why he is now getting so much scepticism.
Edited by ShortsNL on 17-07-2013 10:48
|
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 17-07-2013 10:59
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Okay, since you insisted, I'm imagining I'm Froome and I'm clean.
I'm now trying to understand why I'm the stupidest person on the planet who refuses to release any data that might help prove innocence, just like all the guilty ones do.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| samdiatmh |
Posted on 17-07-2013 11:17
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 892
Joined: 29-12-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
why don't journos just ask Brailsford to explain the fact that Froome's time up Ventoux was comparable to that of Lance (who by his own admission was on PEDs) and matched into what was decribed as a withering headwind? |
| |
|
|
| Waghlon |
Posted on 17-07-2013 11:19
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7694
Joined: 18-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
samdiatmh wrote:
why don't journos just ask Brailsford to explain the fact that Froome's time up Ventoux was comparable to that of Lance (who by his own admission was on PEDs) and matched into what was decribed as a withering headwind?
Because they will politely smile at you, and you will never get invited to their press conferences again, making your job really hard to do, which in turn leads to your boss replacing you for next years Tour.
THE THOMAS VOECKLER PROPHET OF PCM DAILY
|
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 17-07-2013 11:59
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Ian Butler wrote:
Just imagine for 1 seconds he is clean. Or wait, you imagine you're Froome and you're clean.
As a Brit (well...) you win on the slopes of the Mont Ventoux. You worked so hard for this and you did it all by yourself, winning here.
You're dead from exhaustion. There comes the press, you're ready to talk about writing history.
"Mr. Froome, are you clean?" 'Yes, next question' "Are you clean?" 'I said so, yes, next question?' "You're the first British person to win here. Are you sure you'll stay the first British person or will your victory be stripped?"
Like I said. OF course we have to raise the question. Once, twice, thrice, maybe once a day. But this is a witch-hunt.
Did you ever see in 100 years of Tour de France someone who won by 5-10 minutes (i think this will be the margin) and could be seen as clean rider? Doubt it, because in sport like cycling (especially in modern times), such a huge margins are not possible, if majority of opponents did not crash out.
If you on a second believe he is clean as you say, what do you think gives him a 5 minutes advantage.Training? Very naive, all riders train hard. He even does not have best team this year or best natural gifts for such a domination. They have money and great trainers, but on such a level to give him incredible advantage of several minutes? Impossible, in cycling for sure.
This is the hippie in you Ian. 
I hope Froome will be asked and bombarded 50times a day with these questions, maybe he will collapse because of it and will stop poisoning the sport, which should be now in rebuilding the trust of public after what happened with someone who was dominant on same level, before being exposed as biggest scum ever.
|
| |
|
|
| Heine |
Posted on 17-07-2013 12:50
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4116
Joined: 08-04-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Don't know if anyone has pointed to this, its a graph from an old interview with brailsford: https://www.cycles...hhires.jpg
It shows the expected progression of a rider, and where they see their riders at the moment. 1 is talents, 2 is strong riders in their prime, 3 is ageing riders still dokng well, 4 is riders well over their prime, that might be usefull do to experience but if not its time to let them go, 5 is riders that he beliebed would not become great riders but could be okay helpers. I cant recognice alle riders but notice froome...
|
| |
|
|
| hof |
Posted on 17-07-2013 12:53
|
Amateur
Posts: 10
Joined: 19-09-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
The way he sprinted op Ventoux looked like Rico sprinting up the mountains before tested positive |
| |
|
