Originally Posted by SJB 2007:
“Nothing like an co-sponsor losing the plot.”
“Nothing like an co-sponsor losing the plot.”
Wonder if he visits the Clinic too....
http://www.cyclismas.com/biscuits/ol...tter-meltdown/
The Pro Cycling Thread (Part 2)
15 of 279
Originally Posted by Lucidia2011:
“
Wonder if he visits the Clinic too....
http://www.cyclismas.com/biscuits/ol...tter-meltdown/”
“
Wonder if he visits the Clinic too....
http://www.cyclismas.com/biscuits/ol...tter-meltdown/”
Must be something he's taken....
I feel sorry for Froome and Brailsford. They are just victims of their own success in a sport that is now chronically riddled with suspicion.
If you look at a poll on the clinic, over half believe Froome's success is either down a new undetectable wonder drug that nobody else has access to, or Sky and the UCI are in cahoots when it comes to doping tests. It's all just a bit David Icke.
As I read somewhere else, how would cricket fans feel if France/Italy/Spain put their mind to beating England at Lords in five years, and managed it in three? And there I think is the major reason for all this vitriol.
If you look at a poll on the clinic, over half believe Froome's success is either down a new undetectable wonder drug that nobody else has access to, or Sky and the UCI are in cahoots when it comes to doping tests. It's all just a bit David Icke.
As I read somewhere else, how would cricket fans feel if France/Italy/Spain put their mind to beating England at Lords in five years, and managed it in three? And there I think is the major reason for all this vitriol.
As a long time follower of the England cricket team, I'd be amazed it took that long <tongue in cheek smilie>
Why do they think Froome/Sky have some new super drug? Is it the time gaps? The only thing is, when Virenque came second in 1997, he was over 9 minutes down on Ullrich. Regardless of what was going on in the yellow camp, does anyone seriously believe, given what went on the next year, that Virenque (2nd on GC, winner of KoM and combativety award) was riding purely on a can of Gatorade and a mint humbug? Or that there is still a drug out there that has escaped detection for 15 years?
I think a lot of what is happening this year is down to something happens every few years - a changing of the guard. The older names are tailing off for whatever reason, and the new names are just starting to come through. If you look at the top 10, it must come as a shock to a number of teams. I imagine if you'd said to the DS of Belkin they would be second on GC at the second rest day he would have laughed in your face. Or told Movistar that their number one rider wouldn't be Valverde then tatics on at least one stage would have been significantly altered.
(PS why would the UCI be in cahoots with Sky? That is genuinely baffling me?)
Why do they think Froome/Sky have some new super drug? Is it the time gaps? The only thing is, when Virenque came second in 1997, he was over 9 minutes down on Ullrich. Regardless of what was going on in the yellow camp, does anyone seriously believe, given what went on the next year, that Virenque (2nd on GC, winner of KoM and combativety award) was riding purely on a can of Gatorade and a mint humbug? Or that there is still a drug out there that has escaped detection for 15 years?
I think a lot of what is happening this year is down to something happens every few years - a changing of the guard. The older names are tailing off for whatever reason, and the new names are just starting to come through. If you look at the top 10, it must come as a shock to a number of teams. I imagine if you'd said to the DS of Belkin they would be second on GC at the second rest day he would have laughed in your face. Or told Movistar that their number one rider wouldn't be Valverde then tatics on at least one stage would have been significantly altered.
(PS why would the UCI be in cahoots with Sky? That is genuinely baffling me?)
Originally Posted by aggs:
“(PS why would the UCI be in cahoots with Sky? That is genuinely baffling me?)”
“(PS why would the UCI be in cahoots with Sky? That is genuinely baffling me?)”
Maybe they're all Lizards like the Royal Family
Originally Posted by aggs:
“Why do they think Froome/Sky have some new super drug?”
“Why do they think Froome/Sky have some new super drug?”
The way that Froome was able to accelerate ahead of everyone else on Mont Ventoux was certainly remarkable. Whether it should be considered as suspicious is perhaps a matter of opinion.
Originally Posted by John259:
“The way that Froome was able to accelerate ahead of everyone else on Mont Ventoux was certainly remarkable. Whether it should be considered as suspicious is perhaps a matter of opinion.”
“The way that Froome was able to accelerate ahead of everyone else on Mont Ventoux was certainly remarkable. Whether it should be considered as suspicious is perhaps a matter of opinion.”
Not really. Quintana did exactly the same thing, the difference is he did it further down the mountain and couldn't hold on. Froome waited, utilised all his team mates until they were completely spent then attacked. And note Froome wasn't the only one to attack in the last km either - Rodriguez came from nowhere.
Not rocket science, or any kind of suspicious science, just tactics that worked. Nothing different to what other clean riders have done in the past.
And of course many people are ignoring the simple fact that one person has to be the strongest - many different factors including metabolism, experience and training cause differences in the riders, that's just logic. And more often than not the strongest rider will be able to utilise that, and their team, and voila, they lead the race. Not hard to understand, and certainly not hard to understand that it's entirely possible to do whilst being completely clean.
But heaven forbid common sense, logic and cold hard facts prevail over suspicion and hysteria
Originally Posted by Mystical123:
“Nothing different to what other clean riders have done in the past.”
“Nothing different to what other clean riders have done in the past.”
But it's highly questionable whether there ever have been any clean riders in the past.
Originally Posted by John259:
“But it's highly questionable whether there ever have been any clean riders in the past.”
“But it's highly questionable whether there ever have been any clean riders in the past.”
Wow. That's a sweeping generalisation if ever I saw one. I can't believe anyone would be so cynical as to suggest that every cyclist who ever lived doped. Of course there were eras when most people did, but even then, there will have been ones who didn't.
It's like athletics - yes, plenty of failed drugs tests, but equally there have been plenty of astonishing performances over the years by people who did not dope.
All of this reminds me why I despair at many cycling fans - all the suspicion and constant negativity gives off such a pathetic image. Ok, there have been problems, and people have been caught, but to undermine the achievements of those who have never been proven guilty of anything is not right. It's not their fault that others chose to cheat. Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental rule of justice, and there's no justice in the attitude of very many cycling fans right now.
Also I note that you ignored my points about Quintana and Rodriguez, and the fact that I was talking about the tactical norms of racing, so what, exactly, are the counter-arguments to all of that to suggest Froome is doping rather than just that he played a sensible tactical game?
Originally Posted by Mystical123:
“Also I note that you ignored my points about Quintana and Rodriguez - do you think they're doping too?”
“Also I note that you ignored my points about Quintana and Rodriguez - do you think they're doping too?”
My opinion (which isn't worth much) is that all the riders at that level of the sport are doping but some are doping more effectively than others. I see doping as being an integral part of the sport, along with training, diet and other similar factors - not something to condemn as cheating. I see no difference in principle between taking a banned performance enhancing drug and eating a Mars bar, or training at altitude.
Originally Posted by swingaleg:
“Maybe they're all Lizards like the Royal Family”
“Maybe they're all Lizards like the Royal Family”
Indurain was - is he a back room boffin at Sky?
To me I don't think Sky are doping. The only real "evidence" is their results, someone has to win. There were always rumours about other riders but I have heard very little on any Sky riders or indeed many new riders of late. It's more likely that this is a cleaner peloton which is why some rides look comparatively brilliant. Froome has not come from no where and has always been a capable climber. He also was unable to do much more than sit in when Saxo attacked a few days ago.
Originally Posted by John259:
“But it's highly questionable whether there ever have been any clean riders in the past.”
“But it's highly questionable whether there ever have been any clean riders in the past.”
Chris Boardman was well known in the peleton to be clean - I remember reading an article that said everyone asked had him at the top of the definitely not on anything list.
I like to amuse myself by thinking that Team GB probably had their first offical tour winner in 1996.
Originally Posted by John259:
“My opinion (which isn't worth much) is that all the riders at that level of the sport are doping but some are doping more effectively than others. I see doping as being an integral part of the sport, along with training, diet and other similar factors - not something to condemn as cheating. I see no difference in principle between taking a banned performance enhancing drug and eating a Mars bar, or training at altitude.”
“My opinion (which isn't worth much) is that all the riders at that level of the sport are doping but some are doping more effectively than others. I see doping as being an integral part of the sport, along with training, diet and other similar factors - not something to condemn as cheating. I see no difference in principle between taking a banned performance enhancing drug and eating a Mars bar, or training at altitude.”
I have to say I feel sorry for you having such a negative image of the sport. And there's plenty of difference between taking a banned drug and developing efficient altitude training programmes (even going beyond the very basic fact that one's legal and one's not...), I'm staggered that you think they're similar!
Originally Posted by Omraf:
“To me I don't think Sky are doping. The only real "evidence" is their results, someone has to win. There were always rumours about other riders but I have heard very little on any Sky riders or indeed many new riders of late. It's more likely that this is a cleaner peloton which is why some rides look comparatively brilliant. Froome has not come from no where and has always been a capable climber. He also was unable to do much more than sit in when Saxo attacked a few days ago.”
“To me I don't think Sky are doping. The only real "evidence" is their results, someone has to win. There were always rumours about other riders but I have heard very little on any Sky riders or indeed many new riders of late. It's more likely that this is a cleaner peloton which is why some rides look comparatively brilliant. Froome has not come from no where and has always been a capable climber. He also was unable to do much more than sit in when Saxo attacked a few days ago.”
Exactly, well said.
Originally Posted by codeblue:
“Who has won the tour clean?
I cannot recall anyone in the last 20 years doing so?”
“Who has won the tour clean?
I cannot recall anyone in the last 20 years doing so?”
Wiggo didn't fail any tests.
The same for Andy Schleck in the year Contador was stripped of the title for eating his fictional steak, but brother Frank failed a test last year and was disqualified from the Tour which raises doubts.
Originally Posted by John259:
“Wiggo didn't fail any tests.
The same for Andy Schleck in the year Contador was stripped of the title for eating his fictional steak, but brother Frank failed a test last year and was disqualified from the Tour which raises doubts.”
“Wiggo didn't fail any tests.
The same for Andy Schleck in the year Contador was stripped of the title for eating his fictional steak, but brother Frank failed a test last year and was disqualified from the Tour which raises doubts.”
I was under the impression that one of the reasons Armstrong made his comeback was his contempt for the [clean?] Carlos Sastre's abilities in winning in 2008?
Originally Posted by codeblue:
“Who has won the tour clean?
I cannot recall anyone in the last 20 years doing so?”
“Who has won the tour clean?
I cannot recall anyone in the last 20 years doing so?”
Carlos Sastre.in 2008?
Cadel Evans in 2011 and baring in mind Wiggins won last year without being a known drug cheat maybe there is hope for very clean future...
Do many sprinters get caught or is it mainly the climbers/GC contenders?
Sprinters get caught as much as any other 'group'. Erik Zabel has at least one citation for his green jersey win (1996 for sure) that the Societe du Tour de France no longer consider him to be the winner, but the UCI have not changed the official status.
Originally Posted by The Wulfrunian:
“I feel sorry for Froome and Brailsford. They are just victims of their own success in a sport that is now chronically riddled with suspicion.
If you look at a poll on the clinic, over half believe Froome's success is either down a new undetectable wonder drug that nobody else has access to, or Sky and the UCI are in cahoots when it comes to doping tests. It's all just a bit David Icke.
As I read somewhere else, how would cricket fans feel if France/Italy/Spain put their mind to beating England at Lords in five years, and managed it in three? And there I think is the major reason for all this vitriol.”
“I feel sorry for Froome and Brailsford. They are just victims of their own success in a sport that is now chronically riddled with suspicion.
If you look at a poll on the clinic, over half believe Froome's success is either down a new undetectable wonder drug that nobody else has access to, or Sky and the UCI are in cahoots when it comes to doping tests. It's all just a bit David Icke.
As I read somewhere else, how would cricket fans feel if France/Italy/Spain put their mind to beating England at Lords in five years, and managed it in three? And there I think is the major reason for all this vitriol.”
Sadly it's 'it looks like Armstrong, it rides like Armstrong, it wins like Armstrong.... So it must be Armstrong.'
That lot over at the clinic just don't want to listen to the other side of the debate. I'm scared to post any kind of defence of Chris and Sky... It's a lost cause at the moment.
The more he tries to defend himself, the worse these allegations get.
Maybe it is time Sky let WADA monitor him or let a select group of unbiased journalists follow Sky around for the season.
It needs to be nipped in the bud once an for all... It's not fair on Chris or Sky. This is the greatest moment of his career and he is being labelled a cheat and a liar.
Just seem an interview with Nicholas Roche...........blimey, he sounds just like his dad !. Not just the accent but the pauses, the tone...............
Originally Posted by swingaleg:
“Just seem an interview with Nicholas Roche...........blimey, he sounds just like his dad !. Not just the accent but the pauses, the tone...............”
“Just seem an interview with Nicholas Roche...........blimey, he sounds just like his dad !. Not just the accent but the pauses, the tone...............
”
It wouldn't be a proper Tour stage this year without an early breakaway group with him, Peter Sagan and Jens Voigt ...
Not sure why I thought of this today but it's occurred to me that in the days before I started watching the Tour I wasn't at all clued up as to how it worked...........we only got a brief 30 second update on the radio sports news until C4 started showing some highlights
But I used to think that they set off each day in time order...........so on the radio they might say Froome has a 4 minute advantage on the second placed man and I assumed that at the start of the next day Froome would set off then the second man would set off 4 minutes later and so on down the field..............
I also used to think that for a sprint they all stopped and lined up and sprinted whatever the distance was.............
But I used to think that they set off each day in time order...........so on the radio they might say Froome has a 4 minute advantage on the second placed man and I assumed that at the start of the next day Froome would set off then the second man would set off 4 minutes later and so on down the field..............
I also used to think that for a sprint they all stopped and lined up and sprinted whatever the distance was.............
Bet some of the sprinters like that idea 
Have you read this http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Won-Yell...s=ned+boulting
Have you read this http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Won-Yell...s=ned+boulting
15 of 279
