|
Sky Doping/Hate Thread
|
| alexkr00 |
Posted on 18-07-2013 17:56
|
World Champion
Posts: 13561
Joined: 05-08-2008
PCM$: 400.00
|
labete wrote:
Has anyone ever wondered why SKY hired Froome if he was so mediocre before 2011 Not a more respected rider / Tour de l'Avenir winner etc? And what did his contract look like then? And when did it change / improved?
Or why would SKY choose to develop Froome and Porte over other riders that have a better existing palmares?
Or why Barloworld threw him into the Tour de France in 2008 having previously ridden only one year pro in South Africa?
Because teams need domestiques as well?
Oh and again, if they knew he was such a talented rider, how come he didn't have a contract for 2012 prior to his Vuelta performance?
In their first season Sky were anything but a team for GT. Those might have actually been their best prototypes
It's indeed surprising that he made the 2008 tour team. I mean, Barloworld had so many top class riders in that team
Edited by alexkr00 on 18-07-2013 17:57
|
| |
|
|
| labete |
Posted on 18-07-2013 17:59
|
Amateur
Posts: 15
Joined: 30-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Wow. Hadn't seen that timetrial before. Still finished 18th mind, and look at the gear he was using. Him getting a British license also no doubt a big factor in his signature. Just had a look over some 2009 articles around time he was hired, Brailsford said Froome and Stannard were hired for having "ability" (well it couldn't be experience.) |
| |
|
|
| BritPCMFan |
Posted on 18-07-2013 18:11
|
Stagiare
Posts: 245
Joined: 03-06-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
alexkr00 wrote:
BritPCMFan wrote:
alexkr00 wrote:
IncredibleIan wrote:
Okay he is doping.
Sky is a team full of dopers and no one believes that training in the right way or using different techniques and analyzing everything like sky do makes any difference.
Let's put things in another perspective. Why would the other riders not train or why wouldn't their teams analyze everything and use those different techniques?
I've answered this a few time lately.
The story is, from the early 90's some geek in the British Cycling setup began collecting data, and has basically over the last 15-20 years developed a sports science system with very specific relation to cycling. With the Sky cash from the British sponsorship, this got highly developed and it is this that drove the leaps forward in british cycling, and now Sky Road Cycling.
As I've also said, I'm rather on the fence with as to what I believe. Its pretty out there, but if true it does make alot of sense and is fairly logical.
The problem is, with both sides of the argument is all ifs and whats and maybes. You can look at data all you like and there can be thousands explainations for it.
I can only assume their research is based on British riders.
I can't recall any top British stage racers in the past 20 years. And since that's the only department Sky have drastically improved in, how could that research help. How could that research be any good if they didn't base it on the best riders at that time?
It would be information about injuries, recoveries and stuff, you don't need peak athletes just large amounts of the right good controlled information. |
| |
|
|
| alexkr00 |
Posted on 18-07-2013 18:12
|
World Champion
Posts: 13561
Joined: 05-08-2008
PCM$: 400.00
|
https://www.cyclin...talia.html
Apparently he had knee problems, no mention of his disease though. Still it's pretty hilarious that this year's Tour de France winner need to hold onto a motorcycle to climb just 3 years ago
Edited by alexkr00 on 18-07-2013 18:13
|
| |
|
|
| labete |
Posted on 18-07-2013 18:13
|
Amateur
Posts: 15
Joined: 30-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
alexkr00 wrote:
Because teams need domestiques as well?
Oh and again, if they knew he was such a talented rider, how come he didn't have a contract for 2012 prior to his Vuelta performance?
In their first season Sky were anything but a team for GT. Those might have actually been their best prototypes
It's indeed surprising that he made the 2008 tour team. I mean, Barloworld had so many top class riders in that team
Relax a bit, they're only questions.
I think he was hired because he was an improving British timetrialist, and young rider with some experience and potential and SKY would not necessarily need anything else.
I guess Barloworld had their reasons but someone coming from such a weak background for the most important gig of the year still says something. At the very least that he could finish the damn thing.
What's your take on the choosing to develop him though? Other than the British thing, which is obvious. |
| |
|
|
| Spilak23 |
Posted on 18-07-2013 18:18
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7217
Joined: 22-08-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Barloworld had already sended their strongest squad to the Giro that year. Not easy making two gt teams out of 20 pct riders
|
| |
|
|
| labete |
Posted on 18-07-2013 18:21
|
Amateur
Posts: 15
Joined: 30-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Spilak23 wrote:
Barloworld had already sended their strongest squad to the Giro that year. Not easy making two gt teams out of 20 pct riders
That makes sense. |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 18-07-2013 18:29
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 19134
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
I love how these fanboys throw around that Sky has amazingly advanced methods with absolutely no proof whatsoever.
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
|
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 18-07-2013 18:30
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21379
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
Proof? Testimony. Everyone I've heard in interviews that's seen them train admits this.
Don't ask names, I hear things, I remember them, I don't know who said them. Probably José De Cauwer or something  |
| |
|
|
| Kimmage |
Posted on 18-07-2013 18:34
|
Under 23
Posts: 96
Joined: 06-07-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
I love how these fanboys throw around that Sky has amazingly advanced methods with absolutely no proof whatsoever.
Brailsford is literally God. He cannot lie. It's physically impossible for him. Do you need any more proof? |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 07-12-2025 20:11
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| labete |
Posted on 18-07-2013 18:38
|
Amateur
Posts: 15
Joined: 30-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
For such a long thread there is very little empirical data, and especially approach, on both sides. There should almost be a different thread where you need to supply references for your statement. Or only coherently structured arguments addressing more than one variable (i.e. dope). |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 18-07-2013 18:41
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 19134
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
labete wrote:
For such a long thread there is very little empirical data, and especially approach, on both sides. There should almost be a different thread where you need to supply references for your statement. Or only coherently structured arguments addressing more than one variable (i.e. dope).
We've been trying for 121 pages to coax either of those out of a Sky defender. Still nothing. You're welcome to try being the first.
All we've heard for 121 pages are the same hilariously silly arguments repeated over and over and over and over and over every 5 pages, always unsourced, all of them taken from the Armstrong phrasebook
Edited by issoisso on 18-07-2013 18:42
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
|
| |
|
|
| BritPCMFan |
Posted on 18-07-2013 18:43
|
Stagiare
Posts: 245
Joined: 03-06-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
I love how these fanboys throw around that Sky has amazingly advanced methods with absolutely no proof whatsoever.
As I said earlier, no-one has proof either way. We wouldnt have a 100+ page thread debating it otherwise. Its all ifs buts and maybes from all sides. |
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 18-07-2013 18:45
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21379
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
issoisso wrote:
labete wrote:
For such a long thread there is very little empirical data, and especially approach, on both sides. There should almost be a different thread where you need to supply references for your statement. Or only coherently structured arguments addressing more than one variable (i.e. dope).
We've been trying for 121 pages to coax either of those out of a Sky defender. Still nothing. You're welcome to try being the first.
All we've heard for 121 pages are the same hilariously silly arguments repeated over and over and over and over and over every 5 pages, always unsourced, all of them taken from the Armstrong phrasebook
Not a Sky-fan exactly, but where's your proof & source? And don't give me journalistic gossip or loose connection, hard evidence?
If there was, Sky would've been caught already.
Otherwise this thread wouldn't last for 100+ pages... |
| |
|
|
| tsmoha |
Posted on 18-07-2013 18:51
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 11786
Joined: 19-07-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
BritPCMFan wrote:
issoisso wrote:
I love how these fanboys throw around that Sky has amazingly advanced methods with absolutely no proof whatsoever.
As I said earlier, no-one has proof either way. We wouldnt have a 100+ page thread debating it otherwise. Its all ifs buts and maybes from all sides.
There's no "maybe" in Froome being a dope-head. The only "maybe" is in "maybe he will get caught some day".
|
| |
|
|
| Sankt Croix |
Posted on 18-07-2013 18:51
|
Junior Rider
Posts: 41
Joined: 07-07-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
I love how these fanboys throw around that Sky has amazingly advanced methods with absolutely no proof whatsoever.
I'm not at all a Sky fanboy, but I think these articles are very interesting.
Especially when a guy like Rogers talks about it, I think you (you generally ofc.) should listen.
Rogers telling about the advance: https://www.cyclin...g-up-to-do
Interview with Sky physiologist and trainer Tim Kerrison: https://www.guardi...CMP=twt_gu
Edited by Sankt Croix on 18-07-2013 18:52
|
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 18-07-2013 18:54
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 19134
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ian Butler wrote:
issoisso wrote:
labete wrote:
For such a long thread there is very little empirical data, and especially approach, on both sides. There should almost be a different thread where you need to supply references for your statement. Or only coherently structured arguments addressing more than one variable (i.e. dope).
We've been trying for 121 pages to coax either of those out of a Sky defender. Still nothing. You're welcome to try being the first.
All we've heard for 121 pages are the same hilariously silly arguments repeated over and over and over and over and over every 5 pages, always unsourced, all of them taken from the Armstrong phrasebook
Not a Sky-fan exactly, but where's your proof & source? And don't give me journalistic gossip or loose connection, hard evidence?
If there was, Sky would've been caught already.
Otherwise this thread wouldn't last for 100+ pages...
And that's the problem. Unless they're caught standing over the body with a smoking gun you refuse to be critical.
I get where you're coming from, but here's what you don't see: you're repeating the same mantra that most people have repeated for the past 20 years.
Do you like where it's gotten us? Do you like how entrenched the doping culture has become? Because it's the result of that look the other way attitude, that lack of critical spirit.
As Paul Kimmage said a couple weeks ago, what nearly killed cycling wasn't the doping. It was that people refused to be critical because they desperately wanted to believe in the fairytale that there are only a few bad apples and everyone else is clean as a whistle.
It's turned this sport worse and worse for 20 years, and you want to continue doing that? You're out of your mind.
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
|
| |
|
|
| labete |
Posted on 18-07-2013 18:55
|
Amateur
Posts: 15
Joined: 30-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
labete wrote:
For such a long thread there is very little empirical data, and especially approach, on both sides. There should almost be a different thread where you need to supply references for your statement. Or only coherently structured arguments addressing more than one variable (i.e. dope).
We've been trying for 121 pages to coax either of those out of a Sky defender. Still nothing. You're welcome to try being the first.
All we've heard for 121 pages are the same hilariously silly arguments repeated over and over and over and over and over every 5 pages, always unsourced, all of them taken from the Armstrong phrasebook
Not really a Sky defender. And its true people defending Sky, or making a counter argument, are not providing evidence (I assume they don't have it, safe assumption to make). But, its not much different on the otherside of the argument. The shooting down of "defenders" (or apparently those asking questions that can be interpreted as defending Sky) is what does most of the clogging up (along with repeated single line posts saying "Froome=doper", etc.) Really people should be welcoming questions as they can help create an argument. |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 18-07-2013 18:56
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 19134
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Sankt Croix wrote:
issoisso wrote:
I love how these fanboys throw around that Sky has amazingly advanced methods with absolutely no proof whatsoever.
I'm not at all a Sky fanboy, but I think these articles are very interesting.
Especially when a guy like Rogers talks about it, I think you (you generally ofc.) should listen.
Rogers telling about the advance: https://www.cyclin...g-up-to-do
Interview with Sky physiologist and trainer Tim Kerrison: https://www.guardi...CMP=twt_gu
Credibility.
Rogers can either say that or say that no, there is no scientific advantage to explain why he was doing better numbers on Sky than he was when he was on the T-Mobile doping program.
Kerrison will either say yes his methods are fantastic, or no they're like everyone else's. Ever heard a coach say the latter? 
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 18-07-2013 18:59
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21379
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
issoisso wrote:
Ian Butler wrote:
issoisso wrote:
labete wrote:
For such a long thread there is very little empirical data, and especially approach, on both sides. There should almost be a different thread where you need to supply references for your statement. Or only coherently structured arguments addressing more than one variable (i.e. dope).
We've been trying for 121 pages to coax either of those out of a Sky defender. Still nothing. You're welcome to try being the first.
All we've heard for 121 pages are the same hilariously silly arguments repeated over and over and over and over and over every 5 pages, always unsourced, all of them taken from the Armstrong phrasebook
Not a Sky-fan exactly, but where's your proof & source? And don't give me journalistic gossip or loose connection, hard evidence?
If there was, Sky would've been caught already.
Otherwise this thread wouldn't last for 100+ pages...
And that's the problem. Unless they're caught standing over the body with a smoking gun you refuse to be critical.
I get where you're coming from, but here's what you don't see: you're repeating the same mantra that most people have repeated for the past 20 years.
Do you like where it's gotten us? Do you like how entrenched the doping culture has become? Because it's the result of that look the other way attitude, that lack of critical spirit.
As Paul Kimmage said a couple weeks ago, what nearly killed cycling wasn't the doping. It was that people refused to be critical because they desperately wanted to believe in the fairytale that there are only a few bad apples and everyone else is clean as a whistle.
It's turned this sport worse and worse for 20 years, and you want to continue doing that? You're out of your mind.
Thanks for that. And here I was hoping this wouldn't turn personal.
Anyway, firstly, I don't know about the past 20 years, because I only started really following cycling 2 years ago.
Secondly, I'm critical. I see you laughing now, and it makes sense to you, sure. But there's a difference between critical and overly critical. But maybe I must explain something to you first: I tend to support minority mostly, when someone's under attack too much. So on this site, there's just so much hatred against Froome I feel bad for the man and I try to stick up for him. When I'm arguing with a Froome-fan irl, I raise questions myself, try to balance things out.
When 99% is saying he's doping and he's an asshole, I try to raise some questions because you're sending him to die without a trial.
When my friend says he's 100% clean, I ask him some tough questions about his performances because he's blind for criticism.
So my views here are not complete, since I tend to stand up for them more here, because they're under attack a lot more here.
Hope you understood that, since I've a hard time explaining it. |
| |
|
