No but seriously what conclusive evidence is there that Sky dope? Otherwise it's all just accusations from jealous people who can't accept that Sky were the best team in the world for a period
TheManxMissile wrote:
No but seriously what conclusive evidence is there that Sky dope? Otherwise it's all just accusations from jealous people who can't accept that Sky were the best team in the world for a period
There is no conclusive evidence, only a bunch of indirect evidence/suspicion. Otherwise this thread wouldn't be a discussion but a one-page fact.
That said, there are some pretty strong arguments somewhere in these 149 pages, but I guess we'll never know 100% for sure (or maybe one day we will).
As already said many times in this thread there's no conclusive proof indeed. However, there's a lot of cicrumstantial evidence Sky, or at least its leaders, dope. The accusations, therefore, are in my opinion logical, but not necessarily correct.
e: Betancur'd, maybe Pozzato'd
Edited by Selwink on 27-01-2015 16:36
I think such a Sky Hate thread is bullshit. I think they dope, but so does every other WT team....Astana, Belkin, Etixxl, and more. Also, even if they dope, what performance enhancements does the rider have? 3%? 2%? 1%?
I think it's just sad that the cycling community tries to blame a team, and that meanwhile, the media is still putting their finger on cycling...I mean, how can a sport survive, if even the Fanbase tries to blame the riders. I live in Germany. In Germany, our state-run TV channels boycott cycling. Nothing on the TV, not even News about Kittels wins f.e., nothing. We have luck that we have Eurosport, who cover this.
But still, we sit here, hate on a team, while our media just searchers for a top story. Nothing is easier for the media, than just to relax and watch, how the fanbase blames the riders and then just to take our accusations and to put them in a story..."Cycling: More doping than ever." could be a typical Blockbuster storyline. And if the media finish off cycling, the fanbase will get smaller and smaller. And at some point, the sponsors of the cycling teams pull out. I love cycling. I don't want to lose it. But I think, if the fanbase is just hating above a team that dopes, while(in my opinion) everyone dopes, the sport can't survive for long.
Sorry for this post, but I get pissed of at such a thread.
In Germany, our state-run TV channels boycott cycling. Nothing on the TV, not even News about Kittels wins f.e., nothing. We have luck that we have Eurosport, who cover this.
TheManxMissile wrote:
No but seriously what conclusive evidence is there that Sky dope? Otherwise it's all just accusations from jealous people who can't accept that Sky were the best team in the world for a period
Christ almighty. Just because people think Sky are doping from some fairly logical inferences [and it's not hard to be cynical given that, as cycling fans, we've been burned quite a few too many times] doesn't mean that we're all sick with jealousy. As a Briton it would be quite nice to believe in Sky but I simply can't. That saddens me but I'm not seething with envy.
There is now way, in my mind, that especially Froome, Wiggo and Porte not has been doping/still are doping. Their sudden jump in performances and being able to conqueer the world on mountains is just not right. Sometimes, you just watch something which simply is too good to be true (the Ax-3-Domaines stage comes to mind, allthough it was one helluva stage which i enjoyed to watch from a pure cycling standpoint). I think thats how most casual cycling fans feel when they see something like that: hihglyy justified suspicion given the fact that we are dealing with cycling.
With that in mind, when you consider the amount of well documented (allthough to some extend bias, from some members on this scene on this topic) speculation on Leinders (and other doctors), Brailsford shadiness, W/kg etc etc.. it just smells
TheManxMissile wrote:
No but seriously what conclusive evidence is there that Sky dope? Otherwise it's all just accusations from jealous people who can't accept that Sky were the best team in the world for a period
Doesn't Cookson's son work for Sky?This is might explaining how they are not getting caught.
The user formerly known as 'The Schleck Fan' Gracias Alberto.
TheManxMissile wrote:
No but seriously what conclusive evidence is there that Sky dope? Otherwise it's all just accusations from jealous people who can't accept that Sky were the best team in the world for a period
You do realise this is the exact argument that Lance Armstrong fans used to use? I've always found this jealousy argument quite frankly childish
Edited by Crommy on 27-01-2015 21:09
Discussing doping always end up in pointing fingers at someone, this both make doping more popular with the riders, since it forces them to be something they couldn't be without.
Fact is that cycling has become Entertainment and the participators (the riders) are the ones we expect to perform, to be honest I think that the riders would prefer not getting doped, since it's both cheating and disgusting
It's not like every professional cyclists, became this profession just so they could sit with their blood next to them and bend all the rules you can get near
TheManxMissile wrote:
No but seriously what conclusive evidence is there that Sky dope? Otherwise it's all just accusations from jealous people who can't accept that Sky were the best team in the world for a period
Pointless and incorrect generalisations are really helping you here
I draw a logical conclusion from many pieces of corroborating evidence. Oh hang on, I'm a jealous and ignorant person throwing accusations around like there's no tomorrow.
Anyway I really have no idea why this thread is still going - by now most people should probably be in one of two camps - either 'Yes, evidence points towards the likelihood of doping' or 'No, I refuse to believe this and want to carry down what is likely to be an Armstrong-esque route of denial', and I highly doubt anything apart from something radical like a Froome positive test is going to change people's opinion on the matter.
Paul23 wrote:
I think such a Sky Hate thread is bullshit. I think they dope, but so does every other WT team....Astana, Belkin, Etixxl, and more. Also, even if they dope, what performance enhancements does the rider have? 3%? 2%? 1%?
I think it's just sad that the cycling community tries to blame a team, and that meanwhile, the media is still putting their finger on cycling...I mean, how can a sport survive, if even the Fanbase tries to blame the riders. I live in Germany. In Germany, our state-run TV channels boycott cycling. Nothing on the TV, not even News about Kittels wins f.e., nothing. We have luck that we have Eurosport, who cover this.
But still, we sit here, hate on a team, while our media just searchers for a top story. Nothing is easier for the media, than just to relax and watch, how the fanbase blames the riders and then just to take our accusations and to put them in a story..."Cycling: More doping than ever." could be a typical Blockbuster storyline. And if the media finish off cycling, the fanbase will get smaller and smaller. And at some point, the sponsors of the cycling teams pull out. I love cycling. I don't want to lose it. But I think, if the fanbase is just hating above a team that dopes, while(in my opinion) everyone dopes, the sport can't survive for long.
Sorry for this post, but I get pissed of at such a thread.
Your post reminds me of a quote from a book:
...But if cycling was full of hypocrisy, so too were neighbouring sports. The clients of Eufemiano Fuentes were reported to include footballers and tennis players, as well as track ad field athletes. Where was their public shaming? Where were their confessions? Will their names ever be known?... Cycling was the sacrificial lamb for other sports in doping.
The book is called Blazing Saddles and it's about the history of the tour de France, but from 1998-2007 (the book is a little outdated) it mostly talks about doping.
If you think about it like that, cycling, in a way, is an honest sport, for the fact that people actually confess and, either way, the best way is to support your favourite riders who are clean so far and hope there isn't any evidence, if there is, just move on to the next generation of young riders.
I read through the thread, looking for lluigis post. Didn't find it but:
Right now I'm wishing that I was on the forum then, because I have a lot of opinions about this.
I have decided that these are the only good posts in the thread:
Spoiler
TheManxMissile wrote:
Eden95 wrote:
Wiggins is fine, but Froome is dodgy. And also he looks like some kind of weird stick insect or spider or something. When I see him riding I feel like slapping him with a fish.
That bit i agree with, id love to slap someone with a fish
TheManxMissile wrote:
It is straight forward, either you doped or you didnt.
If a person tests positive they doped. If they didnt they didnt. If you admit it you doped.
Sky have tested positive, they are clean.
That's totally different. Your logic is flawed.
You took dope : you doped. You didn't : you didn't dope.
You're caught : it's proven you doped. You admit you doped : it's admitted you did. You didn't get caught and never admitted : there might be suspicions based on your performances or anything.
Doping is the action or will to enhance one's performances through banned substances or not yet commercialised medicines.
It's not the fact of being caught or not.
"Doping means to make use of physiological substances in immoderate quantity or abnormal method from healthy people whose only aim is to obtain an artificial increase of the performance during the competition"
I take part in local, sanctioned races. I use energy bars so i can ride faster and further. Am i doping?
Yes.
TheManxMissile wrote:
[quote]felix_29 wrote:
[quote]TheManxMissile wrote:
[quote]issoisso wrote:
That's not the definition of doping.
The definition of doping is in the UCI and WADA regulations.
It's simple. If doing something ticks off more than 1 of the following
1. enhances your performance
2. is potentially harmful to your health
3. is against the spirit of fair competition
Then it is considered doping and you can be charged. Easy.
Spoiler
Ste117 wrote:
More than half the peleton have most probaly dope/ failed a doping test at some point in their career. Some haven't and get cruelly witch hunted like Valverde, yes this again, you know I will defend him tooth and nail, I have been a fan of Valverde since 2006.
All I am going to say is "Innocent until proven guilty". Yes it is ok to speculate and have suspicions but until a test has been failed then we just have to agree that he might not be doping. The rest day will be key in all this, as riders under suspicion will get tested and found out.They always do on the rest days. Vino and Astana in 2007/Cofidis riders too. Contador in 2009.
In my personal opinion, I dislike Sky, just the way they ignore talent (Cavendish 2012 tour) and I dislike Froome, I just feel that he rides like Armstrong (not as in doping, just as in how he races and acts). I don't really like Wiggins, but as an Evans fan, I don't particularly like him for beating him, but I don't particularly like Contador either, so it's just based on how people ride and act for me, I like Evans, Schleck, Nibali, Cancellara, Pinot, Peraud, etc. I dislike it when a rather dopes, But I normally base my opinions of a rider on how they ride, I like watching Frank Schleck and Valverde, even though it's a little bit tainted because they doped.
And I think the only reasoning is, as Ste117 said, "Innocent until Proven Guilty."
This is just my personal opinion, I don't care if you disagree and I don't mean to offend anybody.
TheManxMissile wrote:
No but seriously what conclusive evidence is there that Sky dope? Otherwise it's all just accusations from jealous people who can't accept that Sky were the best team in the world for a period
Not sure if trolling, or doing an Armstrong-like blind fan...
Fight against doping will make sense and should be called for till there is one single person who wants and tries to use performance enchancing drugs.
Some people who came later to this dicsussion should know that SKY has its own thread and is hated also because how passionate they are in saying how clean they are, combined with their terrible computer style of racing via mountain trains.And not last because of how many blind fanboys they have/had here on the site. The discussions messed up other cycling threads, while nobody is defending Astana ,so why create thread for them?
Rupert Murdoch is laughing in your faces, while you massage your balls in awe of SKY power.
Edited by Avin Wargunnson on 28-01-2015 07:15
trekbmc wrote:
In my personal opinion, I dislike Sky, just the way they ignore talent (Cavendish 2012 tour) and I dislike Froome, I just feel that he rides like Armstrong (not as in doping, just as in how he races and acts). I don't really like Wiggins, but as an Evans fan, I don't particularly like him for beating him, but I don't particularly like Contador either, so it's just based on how people ride and act for me, I like Evans, Schleck, Nibali, Cancellara, Pinot, Peraud, etc. I dislike it when a rather dopes, But I normally base my opinions of a rider on how they ride, I like watching Frank Schleck and Valverde, even though it's a little bit tainted because they doped.
And I think the only reasoning is, as Ste117 said, "Innocent until Proven Guilty."
This is just my personal opinion, I don't care if you disagree and I don't mean to offend anybody.
First up it's good that you are expressing your opinion and don't be concerned that you are offending anyone, it's cycling afterall and not a personal attack.
Froome is nothing like Armstrong, dislike Armstrong greatly but he was a badass on a bike, Froome is like watching a giraffe in a blender.
Innocent till proven guilty doesn't work in cycling (sport in general), it's not like a court of law in most repspects and sometimes you can't prove absolute guilt when it comes to doping. You have to look at things like w\kg and avereage speeds, also sudden transformations like we have seen with Froome.
Hells 500 Crew and 6 x Everester
Don Rd Launching Place
Melbourne Hill Rd Warrandyte
Colby Drive Belgrave South
William Rd The Patch
David Hill Rd Monbulk
Lakeside Drive Emerald https://www.everesting.cc/hall-of-fame/
trekbmc wrote:
In my personal opinion, I dislike Sky, just the way they ignore talent (Cavendish 2012 tour) and I dislike Froome, I just feel that he rides like Armstrong (not as in doping, just as in how he races and acts). I don't really like Wiggins, but as an Evans fan, I don't particularly like him for beating him, but I don't particularly like Contador either, so it's just based on how people ride and act for me, I like Evans, Schleck, Nibali, Cancellara, Pinot, Peraud, etc. I dislike it when a rather dopes, But I normally base my opinions of a rider on how they ride, I like watching Frank Schleck and Valverde, even though it's a little bit tainted because they doped.
And I think the only reasoning is, as Ste117 said, "Innocent until Proven Guilty."
This is just my personal opinion, I don't care if you disagree and I don't mean to offend anybody.
First up it's good that you are expressing your opinion and don't be concerned that you are offending anyone, it's cycling afterall and not a personal attack.
Froome is nothing like Armstrong, dislike Armstrong greatly but he was a badass on a bike, Froome is like watching a giraffe in a blender.
Innocent till proven guilty doesn't work in cycling (sport in general), it's not like a court of law in most repspects and sometimes you can't prove absolute guilt when it comes to doping. You have to look at things like w\kg and avereage speeds, also sudden transformations like we have seen with Froome.
Might not of expressed myself perfectly there, by my comparison between them, I mean as in the control they assume of a race.
I guess you have to say something like Innocent until proven not innocent or innocent until there is a large amount of evidence. In cycling, but then you get cases like Frank Schleck's Xipamede case and Michael Rogers with Cleonbuteral (not sure how to spell that) and it's just case-by-case I guess.
Personally I have no idea if Froome dopes. For the sake of cycling I hope he doesn't.
trekbmc wrote:
Personally I have no idea if Froome dopes. For the sake of cycling I hope he doesn't.
I hate this opinion, which is very common. Cycling would benefit the most if all the dopers (former too) were caught and never allowed to be closer to a bike than 10metres and if sport was 100% clean, or at least close to that percentage.
Cycling has 0.00 credibility anyway, so we better start soon...
Honestly anyone who thinks that flying up the mountains Froome style is humanly possible without PEDs should probably change sport and go watch darts or whatever.
Edited by Avin Wargunnson on 28-01-2015 11:39
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
? (apart from the Leinders thing)
