|
Sky Doping/Hate Thread
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 18-07-2013 19:03
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 19134
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ian Butler wrote:
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.
As I said, I can see that. That's why I'm trying to explain to you why that attitude has brought us to the current state of affairs.
This discussion you see now has happened hundreds of times in the past years, over different riders and teams. The result was always the same. Always.
Over the years of seeing the exact same behaviors from the unrepentant dopers over and over you learn that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Eventually you can see who's clean, they're out there, they're winning big races.
And they're not Sky.
Ian Butler wrote:
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.
There's a reason for it.
Ian Butler wrote:
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.
Without a trial? Without a trial would be 1-2 pages of everyone agreeing. This is 121 pages, exactly the opposite.
Ian Butler wrote:
Hope you understood that, since I've a hard time explaining it.
I understand. Devil's advocate 
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 19:03
|
Amateur
Posts: 15
Joined: 30-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ian Butler wrote:
[quote]issoisso wrote:
It's turned this sport worse and worse for 20 years, and you want to continue doing that? You're out of your mind.
This is basically what I'm talking about. Not conducive to discussion. And wasn't it you who linked Leinders to the development of GAS6 without any source, and when someone tried to find it came up with a study he did not author and reference to a powerpoint discussing sporting ethics? |
| |
|
|
| BritPCMFan |
Posted on 18-07-2013 19:03
|
Stagiare
Posts: 245
Joined: 03-06-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
And that's the problem. Unless they're caught standing over the body with a smoking gun you refuse to be critical.
I get where you're coming from, but here's what you don't see: you're repeating the same mantra that most people have repeated for the past 20 years.
Do you like where it's gotten us? Do you like how entrenched the doping culture has become? Because it's the result of that look the other way attitude, that lack of critical spirit.
As Paul Kimmage said a couple weeks ago, what nearly killed cycling wasn't the doping. It was that people refused to be critical because they desperately wanted to believe in the fairytale that there are only a few bad apples and everyone else is clean as a whistle.
It's turned this sport worse and worse for 20 years, and you want to continue doing that? You're out of your mind.
Its that or we condemn the innocent.
You can ask questions. But that need to be good ones. Testing needs to be better, the people who are repeatedly asking, "are you doping" need to go away and think and little better. If the figures don't look right, why. What exactly do you think they are taking, how, and why arent they getting caught. And then bring in a test to catch them.
The problem is that testing is crap, and this goes for both sides. Unfortunately the only fair way to judge people is on the basis of tests. (Or an incredible amount of first hand witness testimony) Its why people that that obviously commited crimes still have trials and still get away with things sometimes.
With testing bad, there is no way to proof someone is cheating, and no way to proof you are clean. |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 07-12-2025 20:12
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 18-07-2013 19:09
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 19134
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
labete wrote:
Ian Butler wrote:
[quote]issoisso wrote:
It's turned this sport worse and worse for 20 years, and you want to continue doing that? You're out of your mind.
This is basically what I'm talking about. Not conducive to discussion. And wasn't it you who linked Leinders to the development of GAS6 without any source, and when someone tried to find it came up with a study he did not author and reference to a powerpoint discussing sporting ethics?
Powerpoint? WTF are you talking about?
For someone who talks of references you sure don't have any either. Show me where I mentioned a 'powerpoint discussing sporting ethics' 
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 19:10
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21379
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
issoisso wrote:
Ian Butler wrote:
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.
As I said, I can see that. That's why I'm trying to explain to you why that attitude has brought us to the current state of affairs.
This discussion you see now has happened hundreds of times in the past years, over different riders and teams. The result was always the same. Always.
Over the years of seeing the exact same behaviors from the unrepentant dopers over and over you learn that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Eventually you can see who's clean, they're out there, they're winning big races.
And they're not Sky.
Ian Butler wrote:
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.
There's a reason for it.
Ian Butler wrote:
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.
Without a trial? Without a trial would be 1-2 pages of everyone agreeing. This is 121 pages, exactly the opposite.
Ian Butler wrote:
Hope you understood that, since I've a hard time explaining it.
I understand. Devil's advocate
Fair enough. I'm new to the sport and wish to see it clean, but it's far from it.
I'm an optimist. I think it's getting better and I hope I'm right.
On the other hand, I don't have influence on cycling. If I was of importance (UCI or something), I'd be more critical and I'd delve deeper into it, obviously. But since I consider myself only a fan and amateur of cycling, I don't have every detail of every rider so I can only speak my own mind and try to defend the riders I believe in. When experts tell me otherwise with proof, I won't be in denial any longer.
And indeed, devil's advocate, that's the term for it  |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 18-07-2013 19:11
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 19134
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
BritPCMFan wrote:
You can ask questions. But that need to be good ones.
I'm pretty sure some very good questions have been asked. Repeatedly.
No answer has been given.
Or rather, no answer other than 'because SCIENCE!'
BritPCMFan wrote:
Testing needs to be better, the people who are repeatedly asking, "are you doping" need to go away and think and little better. If the figures don't look right, why. What exactly do you think they are taking, how, and why arent they getting caught. And then bring in a test to catch them.
Already been discussed. But we can't make tests for those substances, we're not in charge 
BritPCMFan wrote:
The problem is that testing is crap, and this goes for both sides. Unfortunately the only fair way to judge people is on the basis of tests. (Or an incredible amount of first hand witness testimony) Its why people that that obviously commited crimes still have trials and still get away with things sometimes.
With testing bad, there is no way to proof someone is cheating, and no way to proof you are clean.
Like I said, a positive is someone standing over the body with a smoking gun. That's not required to make a pretty strong case that OJ killed those two people.
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 19:11
|
Amateur
Posts: 15
Joined: 30-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
labete wrote:
Ian Butler wrote:
[quote]issoisso wrote:
It's turned this sport worse and worse for 20 years, and you want to continue doing that? You're out of your mind.
This is basically what I'm talking about. Not conducive to discussion. And wasn't it you who linked Leinders to the development of GAS6 without any source, and when someone tried to find it came up with a study he did not author and reference to a powerpoint discussing sporting ethics?
Powerpoint? WTF are you talking about?
For someone who talks of references you sure don't have any either. Show me where I mentioned a 'powerpoint discussing sporting ethics'
Okay, fair enough, I'll search back through the forum. But did you provide a source or not, as it is kind of a bold assertion without? |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 18-07-2013 19:15
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 19134
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
I have absolutely no idea. I see news, I post them if I think they're of interest and haven't been posted. Usually I go away, come back the next day and if I happen to catch a post saying 'source please' I'll post one if I still remember where I saw it, which is unlikely unless it was the previous day.
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Most times I simply don't even see the request for a source because I come into the forum and read the most recent posts in the most recent topics, obviously I don't read anything approaching every post made 
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 19:16
|
Amateur
Posts: 15
Joined: 30-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Heine wrote:
Crommy wrote:
arthon wrote:
Crommy wrote:
issoisso wrote:
News on the drug GAS6 that Thomas Frei mentioned when talking about Froome.
It's undetectable and has the same effect as EPO. It was developed by a belgian university team led by......Leinders.
EDIT: Belgian not dutch. Duh.
Bit late, but I can't find an single reference to this. Got a link?
Maybe this helps.
Leinders is not listed as an author on the paper. How is he linked to it?
At the clinic they said he's mentioned in a powerpoint presentation |
| |
|
|
| labete |
Posted on 18-07-2013 19:20
|
Amateur
Posts: 15
Joined: 30-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
I have absolutely no idea. I see news, I post them if I think they're of interest and haven't been posted. Usually I go away, come back the next day and if I happen to catch a post saying 'source please' I'll post one if I still remember where I saw it, which is unlikely unless it was the previous day.
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Most times I simply don't even see the request for a source because I come into the forum and read the most recent posts in the most recent topics, obviously I don't read anything approaching every post made
Fair enough. Another problem with a huge ungainly thread I guess. And I don't want to look like an asshole, I know you're a respected member of the forum and that your posts are often more interesting, better argued and sourced than others.
And to disagree someone else above the "innocent and proven guilty", etc. is fine, but shouldn't be allowed to stifle debate. Only it would be helpful if the quality of the debate could be better sometimes (less argumentative, more informative.) |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 18-07-2013 19:24
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 19134
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
labete wrote:
I don't want to look like an asshole
Not at all
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| labete |
Posted on 18-07-2013 19:27
|
Amateur
Posts: 15
Joined: 30-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Leinders is attending (i think?) the Ku Leuven faculty club 2013 though, some kind of 30th anniversary i think. So looks like he is (at least was) linked to the company. EDIT: Institute or University rather. Trying to read Google translated Dutch, missed the obvious.
Edited by labete on 18-07-2013 19:34
|
| |
|
|
| baggieboys32 |
Posted on 18-07-2013 19:29
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1951
Joined: 01-10-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-...power-data
All seen this? I don't know the implications, i've not studied it myself yet, but possibly fuel for the flames, or (hopefully) a nice bucket of water
|
| |
|
|
| Miguel98 |
Posted on 18-07-2013 19:33
|
World Champion
Posts: 10231
Joined: 23-06-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
They are after Vuelta 2011. Makes no difference. |
| |
|
|
| BritPCMFan |
Posted on 18-07-2013 19:34
|
Stagiare
Posts: 245
Joined: 03-06-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
Its post Vuelta 11. Basically, all it proves to people on the dope-froome camp is that his been doping at the same level since then. |
| |
|
|
| Ybodonk |
Posted on 18-07-2013 19:36
|
Domestique
Posts: 510
Joined: 24-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Iso or Aquarius can you explain the following for me.
I have been injured for 8 months (back thigh muscle completely teared apart), never recovered properly.
However last 2months I have been training a lot on the cross machine (the one where you kind of skiing). The highest avg Watt I have done was 287 for 16 minutes. Sometimes I make sprint intervals for 40 seconds of 400-500 watts 10 times with 1-1.30 break.
Whenever i try to go over to the bike, I cant an avg of just 200 watts for a couple of minutes ? Are there an explanation to this ? I mean im only using the legs in both cardio-machines, so why can i not convert the same power/energy into the bike ? |
| |
|
|
| Roo |
Posted on 18-07-2013 19:40
|
Stagiare
Posts: 218
Joined: 15-04-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Nothing will happen from that. They're all numbers from his dominating performances from Vuelta '11 until now. Sky are not worried about anything in that period as there's been no significant changes.
Those of us who've followed cycling for, 10, 15, 20 years have seen this same debate time and time again. And the answer has always been the same.
If we keep pushing the critical people away from the sport there's no way we'll ever see it clean. More people should be held accountable for what they've done incl. Directeur sportifs and the UCI.
And we're not being overly critical. We all agree a positive is needed to remove Froome from the sport. But not having tested positive certainly never meant a person didn't dope |
| |
|
|
| Roo |
Posted on 18-07-2013 19:45
|
Stagiare
Posts: 218
Joined: 15-04-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
BritPCMFan wrote:
Its post Vuelta 11. Basically, all it proves to people on the dope-froome camp is that his been doping at the same level since then.
It doesn't prove that, but it's pretty worthless.
You'd wonder why they don't release all the numbers they have on him though.
You're mistaking proof for evidence. There's no proof Froome is doping, but there's a lot of evidence |
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 18-07-2013 20:12
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4851
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ybodonk wrote:
Iso or Aquarius can you explain the following for me.
I have been injured for 8 months (back thigh muscle completely teared apart), never recovered properly.
However last 2months I have been training a lot on the cross machine (the one where you kind of skiing). The highest avg Watt I have done was 287 for 16 minutes. Sometimes I make sprint intervals for 40 seconds of 400-500 watts 10 times with 1-1.30 break.
Whenever i try to go over to the bike, I cant an avg of just 200 watts for a couple of minutes ? Are there an explanation to this ? I mean im only using the legs in both cardio-machines, so why can i not convert the same power/energy into the bike ?
1) How accurate are the measurements on the different gears ? What's the margin of error ?
2) There are 3 basic types of muscular contractions (concentric, eccentric, isometric), and more than a dozen of muscles on each leg, so the fact that you "use your legs" doesn't mean the same power and the same kind of contractions. Then it depends on your level of ability to determine how much muscular fibres you can recruit to produce an effort. The more you recruit, the more power the muscle produces. And, contrary to a rather common belief, the fact that all fibres move during an effort (concentric or eccentric) doesn't mean they're all recruited, those that aren't are just moving alongside. |
| |
|
|
| BritPCMFan |
Posted on 18-07-2013 20:16
|
Stagiare
Posts: 245
Joined: 03-06-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
Roo wrote:
BritPCMFan wrote:
Its post Vuelta 11. Basically, all it proves to people on the dope-froome camp is that his been doping at the same level since then.
It doesn't prove that, but it's pretty worthless.
You'd wonder why they don't release all the numbers they have on him though.
You're mistaking proof for evidence. There's no proof Froome is doping, but there's a lot of evidence
Its circumstantial at best.
Obviously the pre Vuelta data is gonna just look bad as that when he either a) started doping b) treatment for the medical thing he had kicked in. That why they wont release it. |
| |
|
