CLURPR wrote:
Quote from first article:
'Team Sky’s Dr Steve Peters, the head of the medical operation', shows Leinders isn't running the show and is only working for Sky 80 days a year. I'm not saying he isn't involved in anything plus he isn't at the Tour de France and I don't think the other medical staff and Brailsford would let the others openly dope.
"Team Sky’s Dr Steve Peters, the head of the medical operation at the time, confirmed that the bacterial infection that killed Gonzalez was nothing to do with the virus that affected the riders"
When quoting something make sure you don't leave out words that can completely change the meaning of the sentence.
He still is head of the medical operation, thats why I left it out
CLURPR wrote:
Quote from first article:
'Team Sky’s Dr Steve Peters, the head of the medical operation', shows Leinders isn't running the show and is only working for Sky 80 days a year. I'm not saying he isn't involved in anything plus he isn't at the Tour de France and I don't think the other medical staff and Brailsford would let the others openly dope.
"Team Sky’s Dr Steve Peters, the head of the medical operation at the time, confirmed that the bacterial infection that killed Gonzalez was nothing to do with the virus that affected the riders"
When quoting something make sure you don't leave out words that can completely change the meaning of the sentence.
He still is head of the medical operation, thats why I left it out
My bad then. But the quote you used didn't prove that Peters still is the head of the medical operation (which was your intention I think)
CLURPR wrote:
Quote from first article:
'Team Sky’s Dr Steve Peters, the head of the medical operation', shows Leinders isn't running the show and is only working for Sky 80 days a year. I'm not saying he isn't involved in anything plus he isn't at the Tour de France and I don't think the other medical staff and Brailsford would let the others openly dope.
"Team Sky’s Dr Steve Peters, the head of the medical operation at the time, confirmed that the bacterial infection that killed Gonzalez was nothing to do with the virus that affected the riders"
When quoting something make sure you don't leave out words that can completely change the meaning of the sentence.
He still is head of the medical operation, thats why I left it out
My bad then. But the quote you used didn't prove that Peters still is the head of the medical operation (which was your intention I think)
I did say he was head of the operation in an earlier post on this thread
valverde321 wrote:
But he didn't use a smiley! It can't be sarcasm. (I honestly hope it is though)
It was
PS: I tend not to use smileys when being sarcastic as people get confused about whether I'm being serious
EDIT: He's helping the mechanics install secret, undetectable engines in the Sky bikes. You all have it wrong with him doping Sky up! He's actually discovered new ways of hiding mini engines in bikes Edited by CLURPR on 12-07-2012 01:47
My point was though, they either have a doctor or doctors full time already, why have another taking his/their job(s)? Or they have no full time doctors and only a few part time one.
Part time just seems like a "we visit him for his services every so often" kind of label.
Maybe its like that with all teams. But surely the riders want to have a doctor they trust and know, instead of some doctor that shows up occasionally.
valverde321 wrote:
My point was though, they either have a doctor or doctors full time already, why have another taking his/their job(s)? Or they have no full time doctors and only a few part time one.
Part time just seems like a "we visit him for his services every so often" kind of label.
Maybe its like that with all teams. But surely the riders want to have a doctor they trust and know, instead of some doctor that shows up occasionally.
I think Sky has one full-time doctor who is the riders main person for any medical stuff and they have 4 part-time doctors to help out every now and then incase the full-time one is busy and the part-time doctor may be slightly specialised in a certain area and they need to use harness his expertise. Such as the main guy would be at the Tour, while a part-time doctor is at the Tour of Poland helping out there. I'm guessing that they trust all the doctors they use, but I think the full-time doctor is the main guy for administering treatments and any other doctor stuff
Relating back to the staff riders trust part I'll use Wiggins as an example: He only really has major contact (outside of races) with Brailsford (he has been his coach for years), Sutton (he has been a lifelong friend to Wiggins) and Kerrison (the sports scientist who has formulated the plan and training for Wiggins to follow this year and is the guy who Wiggins credits with turning his career round, which is pretty funny as 2 years ago Kerrison knew nothing about cycling)
Edited by CLURPR on 12-07-2012 02:42
Bushwackers wrote:
I have a theory as to why Sky snubbed Danny Pate in the Tour team. He probably refused to take part in any of their enhancement, so they just refused to bring him. That would explain why he was on their A-team all year, but then didn't get selected for the Tour. Since most of the Sky team hasn't been at this level of dominance (while still riding extremely well) until now, it suggests that they have only started cheating for the Tour (perhaps to keep suspicions low for most of the season and reduce the risk of getting caught). When they tried to get Danny Pate to take part, he would have refused and that explains why they made the surprise decision not to bring him, which was against everyone's expectations.
Anyway, Porte was incredible yesterday, i cant believe someone can pull 25-30kms hard and droping leaders/climbers everywhere and than catch Nibali, who is motored by Sagan into the minute advantage and than suddenly looses it when pacing himself?
Edited by Avin Wargunnson on 12-07-2012 06:28
You can't. Plain and simple.
The non-existence of something can never be proven. Hence religions, etc. you can claim something is unlikely, but in the end you can never prove it and be 100 % positive against people who think otherwise.
drugsdontwork wrote:2. If you don't test positive an are not implicated by fellow teammates (a la Armstrong). At what point do you accept a sportsman is clean?
Just trying to establish what levels of proof or evidence different people here require.
Performances that are within normal human range.
Not working with shabby people (staff, doctors, trainers), teams, organisations. Not having a bunch of former-dopers-with-no-regrets as your team mates.
As long as those criteria are matched, I'm willing to believe a rider/sportsman is clean. But I'll change my opinion as long as they're not matched any more.
Bushwackers wrote:
I have a theory as to why Sky snubbed Danny Pate in the Tour team. He probably refused to take part in any of their enhancement, so they just refused to bring him. That would explain why he was on their A-team all year, but then didn't get selected for the Tour. Since most of the Sky team hasn't been at this level of dominance (while still riding extremely well) until now, it suggests that they have only started cheating for the Tour (perhaps to keep suspicions low for most of the season and reduce the risk of getting caught). When they tried to get Danny Pate to take part, he would have refused and that explains why they made the surprise decision not to bring him, which was against everyone's expectations.
Anyway, Porte was incredible yesterday, i cant believe someone can pull 25-30kms hard and droping leaders/climbers everywhere and than catch Nibali, who is motored by Sagan into the minute advantage and than suddenly looses it when pacing himself?
He's just that good. Who'd have thought when my favourite rider starts riding awesomly, I start linking him less and less.
In fact, I find Bushwackers' theory more logical than some of the arguments that popped up through these 27 pages so far. But in practice it didn't happen
lluuiiggii wrote:
In fact, I find Bushwackers' theory more logical than some of the arguments that popped up through these 27 pages so far. But in practice it didn't happen
I agree, i just needed to LOL, i almost spluttered my morning cofee on my account books
But Pate is fine, he is not the part of the gang from Tenerife...he is a born engine.
Edited by Avin Wargunnson on 12-07-2012 07:11
You can't. Plain and simple.
The non-existence of something can never be proven. Hence religions, etc. you can claim something is unlikely, but in the end you can never prove it and be 100 % positive against people who think otherwise.
drugsdontwork wrote:2. If you don't test positive an are not implicated by fellow teammates (a la Armstrong). At what point do you accept a sportsman is clean?
Just trying to establish what levels of proof or evidence different people here require.
Performances that are within normal human range.
Not working with shabby people (staff, doctors, trainers), teams, organisations. Not having a bunch of former-dopers-with-no-regrets as your team mates.
As long as those criteria are matched, I'm willing to believe a rider/sportsman is clean. But I'll change my opinion as long as they're not matched any more.
I tend to agree with these statements.
I have an issue with the guilt by association argument (e.g. Dr Geert Leinders) as it very rarely works the opposite way with sucessful sports people (i.e. they were a doper but must now be clean as they are working with people who have never been implicated in doping).
Smoku wrote:
in few days the luck may turn and BMC will start to dominate. Will you start accusing them as well?
Considering they're the Phonak team with a new sponsor, yes.
Besides, with this level of domination, any team is suspicious. Not that anyone has ever done what Wiggins is about to do, as I pointed before.
Yeah - it is suspicious. But just as much as any other over-expected result by any other team or cyclin. That's may point. It's sports. It may happen. In any other sport. Even not as much inpredictable as cycling. In ski-jumping there have been many surprising ups and downs over the past few years - old guys going in & out of blow in no time (Ahonen, Malysz and Amman ups and downs) - new guys emerging out of nowhere (most apparent is Schlierenzauer turning from a novice into multiple winner and all-time fauvorite in just half a season) - and still ski-jumping is much more predictable than road cycling.
Such things happen. And they happen more often in a clean sport than in a doped sport - that is most funny about your hatred.
Once again - I'm not saying they haven't doped - time will tell. I'm just saying that arguments you put up are not strong enough to do anything more than guess. And sometimes thay in fact may play towards completely opposite answers than you come up with.
Unless you're conspiracy teorists of course - in that case fine believe what you want to believe - just don't preach your religion where people want to discuss some facts.
Smoku wrote:
Yeah - it is suspicious. But just as much as any other over-expected result by any other team or cyclin.
No, it's not. As I've mentioned before, what Wiggins is about to do has never been done in the history of the sport!
Merckx. Coppi. Hinault. None of them!
Smoku wrote:
Such things happen. And they happen more often in a clean sport than in a doped sport - that is most funny about your hatred.
It's amazing how you can spew out random stuff as if it were a proven fact
Smoku wrote:
Unless you're conspiracy teorists of course - in that case fine believe what you want to believe - just don't preach your religion where people want to discuss some facts.
That's a fantastic thing to say considering you're the one who is avoiding the facts and just putting up opinions.
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
