fandacious Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 despite the fact that they don't have any grand tour winners or world champs yet. except wiggins who won 2012 tour de france
Tumbleweed Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 Definitely not making the same headlines as any cycling doping incident or suspicion does. Yet way more high profile. The media I peruse has certainly made a big deal about it. Much, much bigger than the Froome suspicions.
fandacious Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 Are you saying the issue of Bolt and possible dope use hasn't been questioned in the media? Maybe you don't read enough. this comes from a stupid tweet that andrew mclean posted last night. He's throwing all credibility away at the moment. same as he did with lance. Was quite funny to see him do an about turn once the truth about LA came out Lucky Luke. 1
gtr1 Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 The media I peruse has certainly made a big deal about it. Much, much bigger than the Froome suspicions.Maybe I'm reading/ watching the wrong media. What I saw was almost matter-of-fact. By the way the 2 were positive, and obviously denied and that was that.
Stretch Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 Are you saying the issue of Bolt and possible dope use hasn't been questioned in the media? Maybe you don't read enough. i think he is more referring to the intensity...a google search on chris f and the first suggestion is doping...wheras usian brings photography videos etc...but no doping
Lucky Luke. Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 No, I think you should. It sounds plausible to me, but whether it is the whole story is another matter. No, I think you should. It sounds plausible to me, but whether it is the whole story is another matter. Ok, I will deal with what I see as the issues one by one. 1. True or not, the story seems an obvious PR exercise to me, which is hard to deny given the timing. 29 August, Froomey takes the lead at the '11 Vuelta, and cycling pundits are shocked to see Wiggo's domestique, whose contract is likely not going to be renewed at Sky, winning this grand tour. The next day, surprise surprise, August 30 2011, is the day Sky PR breaks the story - the first time anybody in the public domain hears about the bilharzia - on the 29th, a google date range search shows absolutely no mention of it on the internet - only a lot of people asking 'is Chris Froome too good to be true??'. chris froome bilharzia - the day before the Vuelta leadchris froome bilharzia - the day after the Vuelta lead The day after, we are inundated with stories and media coverage of this miraculous story, of a guy with a debilitating disease, who overcomes the odds to rise to grand tour glory. Sound familiar at all? 2. The timing & origin of the diagnosis This story has been inconsistent. Some reports say a Sky blood screening picked it up, but Chris seems to say a Kenyan blood screening for the bio-passport was how he found out. Most reports say early December 2010. Late November 2010 - the 27th to be exact - is the day Chris rode for Daikin at the double century and they smashed the course record. I talked one of the Daikin guys that day and he looked ill, saying Chris sat on the front for most of the ride. They beat 2nd place Cape Town Market by 11 minutes. I've tried to piece this story together. Chris had come from Kenya earlier in the month where he'd been on his mtb doing a multi-day charity ride. It seems more likely to me - if he did get the disease - that he picked up Bilharzia in Kenya and it would take the disease at least 4-6 weeks to materialise. For there then to be a blood screening in Kenya in early December where Bilharzia was diagnosed, he would have to then travel back to Kenya from SA (apparently one of his brothers got married?) and be compelled to go for a UCI bio-passport screening. I'm not 100% sure how the bio-passport logistics work when in out of the way places. If anyone can tell me how the UCI would arrange a blood screening in Kenya for the bio-passport I'd be interested to know. I'd assume they wouldn't leave it up to the rider to pick a doctor and submit the results to them. Regardless of the accuracy of the Bilharzia story, if Chris only got Bilharzia late 2010, that still doesn't explain him struggling pre-late 2010, being DQ-ed from the Giro that year for hanging on to a car etc. All that said, I have to say he seems pretty likable, but this is pro cycling and the history of the sport compels me to challenge fairly outlandish stories that arise at very opportunistic moments. E1A104 and X-Man 2
Lucky Luke. Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 except wiggins who won 2012 tour de france Sure but wiggins has been put out to pasture in my opinion. We will see very little from him from now on, apart from the odd charity appearance, maybe some BBC chat shows, perhaps celebrity survivor or a commentary gig. Not much tv time racing a bike I'm willing to bet.
fandacious Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 Sure but wiggins has been put out to pasture in my opinion. We will see very little from him from now on, apart from the odd charity appearance, maybe some BBC chat shows, perhaps celebrity survivor or a commentary gig. Not much tv time racing a bike I'm willing to bet. the whole wiggins thing is a huge red flag in my book. Why was he suddenly retired with knee issues? And why havent we heard a single peep from him since the incident. Also, his and chris' public communications seem to have very much the same structure as that of one LA... wiggo blasting everyone for being bone idle wankers and not know what it takes to win a tour. Then suddenly he' irrelevant? Same story for chris. How dare we insinuate he doped?
Lucky Luke. Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 (edited) the whole wiggins thing is a huge red flag in my book. Why was he suddenly retired with knee issues? And why havent we heard a single peep from him since the incident. Also, his and chris' public communications seem to have very much the same structure as that of one LA... wiggo blasting everyone for being bone idle wankers and not know what it takes to win a tour. Then suddenly he' irrelevant? Same story for chris. How dare we insinuate he doped? I think we are on the same page - basically my opinion of wiggo is that he's cashed his chips in - keen to get out now while the going is good. And it's a smart move considering his age and abilities if you ask me. I think his anti-doping verve went down the toilet when he realised that he had one chance to win the tour and it required sacrificing those principles. He must have charged up big-time to lose all that weight whilst upping his power output. No doubt there was significant external pressure in the year of the London olympics, with his title sponsor being one of the world's biggest media companies with much to gain from his success. The UCI looked to be fully on board that bus as well. McQuaid basically announced Sky had won about half-way through the tour. Edited July 17, 2013 by Lucky Luke.
gtr1 Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 this comes from a stupid tweet that andrew mclean posted last night. He's throwing all credibility away at the moment. same as he did with lance. Was quite funny to see him do an about turn once the truth about LA came outNot on Twitter so dunno about Andrew's tweet !
Tumbleweed Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 i think he is more referring to the intensity...a google search on chris f and the first suggestion is doping...wheras usian brings photography videos etc...but no doping Not according to the search I just did.
stringbean Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 The credibility of Sky went south the day they appointed Rasmussen's ex doctor in the 2011/2012 season.
gtr1 Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 Not according to the search I just did.Ok, if you're intent on proving me wrong then I'll make it easy for you. I'm wrong. Happy ? IMHO and my perception, as wrong as it may be, a lot more seems to be made about suspicions of doping in cycling than in any other main stream sport. Even when other sports return positives.
stringbean Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 Who would of thought Armstrong,Ricco,Pantani,Alberto etc etc were all wrong.If only they had all just followed science( as sky claim to do) instead of doping they would of all performed much better.Sky would have us believe that if you just do things in a scientific way you will perform on par and even better than on dope. fandacious 1
fandacious Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 The credibility of Sky went south the day they appointed Rasmussen's ex doctor in the 2011/2012 season. also, david walsh was going to spend every day with sky in 2012. Then wiggo veto'd it and said he can only join them after day 8. why? Why did chris froome stop submitting his info to bike pure 18 months ago?
fandacious Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 Who would of thought Armstrong,Ricco,Pantani,Alberto etc etc were all wrong.If only they had all just followed science( as sky claim to do) instead of doping they would of all performed much better.Sky would have us believe that if you just do things in a scientific way you will perform on par and even better than on dope. wasnt that armstrongs selling point? Mr Millimeter... everything is done in a lab and a wind tunnel, thats how we are so successful
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now