|
Sky Doping/Hate Thread
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 17-07-2013 13:47
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16554
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 13638.70
|
OKay, I'm Froome and I clean.
Wow, I suck.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| ShortsNL |
Posted on 17-07-2013 13:51
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 875
Joined: 17-11-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
The whole science thing is something I only partially buy. Sure, you have a bigger budget, to spend on developing training and nutrition methods and doing rider analysis, but it's not like other teams don't do that at all:
"Sky is the best!"
>"Only because they're doping"
"No, they're not doping"
>"Then how do you explain their incredible dominance?"
"It's because they use science!"
Whenever I read stuff like this I always start facepalming. It's like 'science' is a magic word to people. Too many times, the word 'science' has been used to make a crooked theory seem straight. Just say that you're being scientific and people will believe even the weirdest things. Scientology comes to mind. Not to mention it makes the other teams in the WT sound retarded for not using that supersmart thing called science.
Every WT team uses scientific analysis to assess and improve rider performance. Sky may have the bigger budget and have different methods they keep hidden but until they become transparent it's impossible to judge to what extent their increased performance is from 'science' and how much actually comes from doping. |
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 17-07-2013 13:54
|
World Champion
Posts: 13662
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Also BMC has even more money and it does not help them to GC domination.Science is only for SKY i suppose?
|
| |
|
|
| BritPCMFan |
Posted on 17-07-2013 14:04
|
Stagiare
Posts: 245
Joined: 03-06-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
The power and blood data won't give away anything of their training methods. Brailsford implies it would just so he can have an excuse, but it's a blatant lie.
HTC did it and their success wasn't affected in the slightest.
Assuming that their methods aren't causing those values to be higher then expected.
I have no doubt the reason why they won't release the data is because we would see it as mutant. That would then lead to questions as to why, which would lead to the demands of the training data anyway, hence there is no point in them doing it, as the data would only be more "proof" of doping.
Like I said, not seriously defending because I can't really believe Froome is real but trying to provide a reasoned non-fanboy otherside XD
EDIT: @Avi: Money isn't everything. It takes one guy to have one bright idea. I believe the sky story is something along the lines of one genius guys though of some system 20 years ago and and collected data others didn't over the last 20 years which they are somehow using to get massive gains.
Edited by BritPCMFan on 17-07-2013 14:07
|
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 17-07-2013 14:05
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21379
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Also BMC has even more money and it does not help them to GC domination.Science is only for SKY i suppose?
Well to be fair, BMC just sucks  they don't seem to care about their riders and nobody seems happy there...
But I agree with what you said previously, it might be the hippy inside of me
I guess all I'm saying now is: instead of just asking constantly: "are you clean?", we must have an open, transparent system where the question need not to be asked. And until that moment comes, instead of asking Froome that question, find evidence. You won't get any evidence of doping by asking Froome or Contador Unless foam starts pouring out of his mouth when he tries to answer. |
| |
|
|
| BritPCMFan |
Posted on 17-07-2013 14:08
|
Stagiare
Posts: 245
Joined: 03-06-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ian Butler wrote:
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Also BMC has even more money and it does not help them to GC domination.Science is only for SKY i suppose?
Well to be fair, BMC just sucks they don't seem to care about their riders and nobody seems happy there...
But I agree with what you said previously, it might be the hippy inside of me
I guess all I'm saying now is: instead of just asking constantly: "are you clean?", we must have an open, transparent system where the question need not to be asked. And until that moment comes, instead of asking Froome that question, find evidence. You won't get any evidence of doping by asking Froome or Contador Unless foam starts pouring out of his mouth when he tries to answer.
Or he starts consuming copious quantities of steak. |
| |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 17-07-2013 14:56
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8205
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Waghlon wrote:
samdiatmh wrote:
why don't journos just ask Brailsford to explain the fact that Froome's time up Ventoux was comparable to that of Lance (who by his own admission was on PEDs) and matched into what was decribed as a withering headwind?
Because they will politely smile at you, and you will never get invited to their press conferences again, making your job really hard to do, which in turn leads to your boss replacing you for next years Tour.
And if anyone wants an example of this at work, read Walsh's Seven Deadly Sins.
|
| |
|
|
| miggi133 |
Posted on 17-07-2013 16:34
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2992
Joined: 19-08-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
ShortsNL wrote:
The whole science thing is something I only partially buy. Sure, you have a bigger budget, to spend on developing training and nutrition methods and doing rider analysis, but it's not like other teams don't do that at all:
"Sky is the best!"
>"Only because they're doping"
"No, they're not doping"
>"Then how do you explain their incredible dominance?"
"It's because they use science!"
Whenever I read stuff like this I always start facepalming. It's like 'science' is a magic word to people. Too many times, the word 'science' has been used to make a crooked theory seem straight. Just say that you're being scientific and people will believe even the weirdest things. Scientology comes to mind. Not to mention it makes the other teams in the WT sound retarded for not using that supersmart thing called science.
Every WT team uses scientific analysis to assess and improve rider performance. Sky may have the bigger budget and have different methods they keep hidden but until they become transparent it's impossible to judge to what extent their increased performance is from 'science' and how much actually comes from doping.
Well, if you look at it with a very broad focus, doping is also a science... At the very least, it is Pharmacology, which is indeed a science!
So coming with the argument that Sky has more money to invest in new sciences, we should not forget that every drug starts with a scientifc idea, and gets developed through experiments...
I think all those Sky fanboys think of theses new fancy "scientists" like Nutritionists or windtunnel engineering etc. when ever they use the word science, but completely forget that any drug or chemical company (bayer, gsk, Astra Zeneca to name only a few) are all investing in "sciences" too... 
|
| |
|
|
| BritPCMFan |
Posted on 17-07-2013 17:00
|
Stagiare
Posts: 245
Joined: 03-06-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
miggi133 wrote:
ShortsNL wrote:
The whole science thing is something I only partially buy. Sure, you have a bigger budget, to spend on developing training and nutrition methods and doing rider analysis, but it's not like other teams don't do that at all:
"Sky is the best!"
>"Only because they're doping"
"No, they're not doping"
>"Then how do you explain their incredible dominance?"
"It's because they use science!"
Whenever I read stuff like this I always start facepalming. It's like 'science' is a magic word to people. Too many times, the word 'science' has been used to make a crooked theory seem straight. Just say that you're being scientific and people will believe even the weirdest things. Scientology comes to mind. Not to mention it makes the other teams in the WT sound retarded for not using that supersmart thing called science.
Every WT team uses scientific analysis to assess and improve rider performance. Sky may have the bigger budget and have different methods they keep hidden but until they become transparent it's impossible to judge to what extent their increased performance is from 'science' and how much actually comes from doping.
Well, if you look at it with a very broad focus, doping is also a science... At the very least, it is Pharmacology, which is indeed a science!
So coming with the argument that Sky has more money to invest in new sciences, we should not forget that every drug starts with a scientifc idea, and gets developed through experiments...
I think all those Sky fanboys think of theses new fancy "scientists" like Nutritionists or windtunnel engineering etc. when ever they use the word science, but completely forget that any drug or chemical company (bayer, gsk, Astra Zeneca to name only a few) are all investing in "sciences" too...
Now we get to a whole can of worms though. We start getting to the, what is an unfair advantage debate.
Drugs are certainly part of science, but then not all drugs are PED's, Some drugs are totally legal to take whilst riding. Nearly every sportman in the world takes some kind of vitamin supplement to boost their levels of vitamin C and all that stuff. That's totally legal. Taking something that boosts your blood count is not though.
To be honest, I'm still not entirely clear what defines a PED. Does it only count if its on a list (And hence if Sky had somehow created a "new" drug, technically it would be legal?).
My gut it that is probably most specific then that (and probably has something about anything that directly modifies blood values). But what if a combination of legal substances caused an indirect change on these values. Would that still technically be a breech.
Its like with F1, when teams make a new car modification. Most the time, it is perfectly legal. They don't show it to the teams, because unless the team can identify it, they can't protest it. When they find out what it is, they do at which point one of two things happen.
Everyone goes ok, that is within the rules but is really not meant to be and is a loophole and we are now closing it, so you cannot do this anymore.
Or, everyone goes ok, thats within the rules and we can pretty easily copy that and probably do it better, so its all cool. And at the next race, everyone sports their own version of it.
Obviously in Cycling, the machine is lower % of performance and so the team focus more on the rider, so the modification apply to the rider and not the bike. |
| |
|
|
| Elton |
Posted on 17-07-2013 17:42
|
Under 23
Posts: 56
Joined: 16-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Sure they could be systematically doping everyone in SKY, but would it be a smart move to start firing people and pissing them off? |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 07-12-2025 11:17
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 17-07-2013 18:21
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Elton wrote:
Sure they could be systematically doping everyone in SKY, but would it be a smart move to start firing people and pissing them off?
Acutally i dont think Sky is doping everyone.
What i think happened is quite simple, Froome´s blood disease allows him to take medicine for it and also he has a pass to take something for this.
In the treatment of his illness he has found some kind of drug/treatment that makes him "increase" his bodies ability.
Is this doping yes, as it fullfills 2 of the 3 requirements but also its kinda not.
So Sky is not really doping but also why not take advantage of Frooms "treatment" |
| |
|
|
| ppanther |
Posted on 17-07-2013 18:23
|
Domestique
Posts: 475
Joined: 25-12-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Jacdk wrote:
Elton wrote:
Sure they could be systematically doping everyone in SKY, but would it be a smart move to start firing people and pissing them off?
Acutally i dont think Sky is doping everyone.
What i think happened is quite simple, Froome´s blood disease allows him to take medicine for it and also he has a pass to take something for this.
In the treatment of his illness he has found some kind of drug/treatment that makes him "increase" his bodies ability.
Is this doping yes, as it fullfills 2 of the 3 requirements but also its kinda not.
So Sky is not really doping but also why not take advantage of Frooms "treatment"
How do you explain Porte then? |
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 17-07-2013 18:26
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21379
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
In Froome's case, it reminds me of that athlete with the fake leg, who was in the semi-finale of the 100 meter sprint, or 200 meter or 400 meter, don't matter
When someone has a condition, or a leg missing or whatever, it's fair they compensate, but where does it end? If Froome would amputate his legs, we'd get a real FroomeBot, two alumium legs? |
| |
|
|
| ppanther |
Posted on 17-07-2013 18:28
|
Domestique
Posts: 475
Joined: 25-12-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ian Butler wrote:
In Froome's case, it reminds me of that athlete with the fake leg, who was in the semi-finale of the 100 meter sprint, or 200 meter or 400 meter, don't matter
When someone has a condition, or a leg missing or whatever, it's fair they compensate, but where does it end? If Froome would amputate his legs, we'd get a real FroomeBot, two alumium legs?
I hope he doesn't shoot his girlfriend then... |
| |
|
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 17-07-2013 18:32
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
ppanther wrote:
How do you explain Porte then?
The normal thing, training and Sky´s knowledge and approach to cycling.
His mountain performance and his pulls for Froome, does show and right now is +30mins on Froome.
But if he goes around and wins a GT i will have to revise that belief because Porte is nothing but a great helper and classic top 5 rider. |
| |
|
|
| miggi133 |
Posted on 17-07-2013 18:35
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2992
Joined: 19-08-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Jacdk wrote:
ppanther wrote:
How do you explain Porte then?
The normal thing, training and Sky´s knowledge and approach to cycling.
His mountain performance and his pulls for Froome, does show and right now is +30mins on Froome.
But if he goes around and wins a GT i will have to revise that belief because Porte is nothing but a great helper and classic top 5 rider.
I had a theory, albeit far fetched and a bit of a conspiracy theory, about that a few pages back...
Here a summary:
Maybe they order him to drop back, eventhought he still has enough left in the tank, cause it looks les supicious
|
| |
|
|
| cio93 |
Posted on 17-07-2013 18:42
|
World Champion
Posts: 10616
Joined: 29-10-2007
PCM$: 500.00
|
ppanther wrote:
Ian Butler wrote:
In Froome's case, it reminds me of that athlete with the fake leg, who was in the semi-finale of the 100 meter sprint, or 200 meter or 400 meter, don't matter
When someone has a condition, or a leg missing or whatever, it's fair they compensate, but where does it end? If Froome would amputate his legs, we'd get a real FroomeBot, two alumium legs?
I hope he doesn't shoot his girlfriend then...
Considering what she writes on twitter...
|
| |
|
|
| tsmoha |
Posted on 17-07-2013 18:44
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 11786
Joined: 19-07-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
Jacdk wrote:
ppanther wrote:
How do you explain Porte then?
The normal thing, training and Sky´s knowledge and approach to cycling.
Seriously? I mean, training? Come on. You guys always sound like "Sky is the only team to train hard and good". Every WT-team knows modern training, you really believe in Sky knowing so much more?
Also, Porte's pace on both Ax3 and Ventoux was so US Postally, that i could have put George Hincapie's face on Porte's and no one would have recognized a difference. Just don't trust this story, that today's generation is way cleaner than ten years back.
|
| |
|
|
| Spilak23 |
Posted on 17-07-2013 18:45
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7217
Joined: 22-08-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
I might actually kill her before Froome does. Damn she's annoying. It wouldn't surprise me if latter it turns out she secretly dopes Froome so she can get attention
|
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 17-07-2013 19:18
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21379
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
tsmoha wrote:
Jacdk wrote:
ppanther wrote:
How do you explain Porte then?
The normal thing, training and Sky´s knowledge and approach to cycling.
Seriously? I mean, training? Come on. You guys always sound like "Sky is the only team to train hard and good". Every WT-team knows modern training, you really believe in Sky knowing so much more?
Also, Porte's pace on both Ax3 and Ventoux was so US Postally, that i could have put George Hincapie's face on Porte's and no one would have recognized a difference. Just don't trust this story, that today's generation is way cleaner than ten years back.
Well, eveyrone that's seen Sky train admits they train so much harder than other teams. I've heard stories from riders bumping into Sky riders on their training and they were impressed that Sky was riding so hard on training. |
| |
|
