Froome Braces for Doping questions

[Garfield2010]

A mediocre doping domestique is still not as good a good undoped GC rider.

 

People also questioned Astana because SEVERAL of their riders had been caught doping in the last few months and have a history of it with previous management members. They were at one stage not even going to make it to the tour, they almost lost their license.

Lets not forget that fact, not speculation, fact.

 

Not really an argument here.

 

The performance of Astana over the entire Giro, must surely be a bit more suspect than Sky's 1 day performance of yesterday?

None of Lance's teammates tested positive with him on the tour. Not testing positive does not mean you aint doping. Doping is an expensive art. Astana is doing it wrong thats all. Floyd Landis was a quality domestique as well. Or so all thought.

[Pure Savage]

None of Lance's teammates tested positive with him on the tour. Not testing positive does not mean you aint doping. Doping is an expensive art. Astana is doing it wrong thats all. Floyd Landis was a quality domestique as well. Or so all thought.

What if in 45 years Froome still had no positive tests? Will that be fine then? At what point do you accept he was just better than the other riders?

[Garfield2010]

For interest sake, what framework of references does the guys backing Sky without hesitation use?

[Garfield2010]

What if in 45 years Froome still had no positive tests? Will that be fine then? At what point do you accept he was just better than the other riders?

. If they dope they will eventually be exposed. Links to doctors, tests that will be done on archive samples, whistleblowers and guilt. The truth has a way of emerging eventually. Obviously if they are clean none of the above will emerge.

[shaper]

Garf, so guilty until proven innocent it seem???

[Patchelicious]

For interest sake, what framework of references does the guys backing Sky without hesitation use?

Backing Sky without hesitation? Dude, do you even hear the arguments you are making?

 

To answer your question though: Probably the "Innocent until proven guilty" one, the same one we all get judged on. The same framework you demand to be treated with when people accuse you of things.

 

By your logic: I can say that I think Garfield is a murderer. Now prove to me to that you are not a murderer.

[GaryvdM]

Also, to Sky's defence, there are no testimonials to the likes of Emma O'Reilly's and Betsy Andreu's yet.

 

There is a general lack of smoke.

 

(The only smoke is Dave Brailsford handling of their data leak.)

[Pure Savage]

Backing Sky without hesitation? Dude, do you even hear the arguments you are making?

 

To answer your question though: Probably the "Innocent until proven guilty" one, the same one we all get judged on. The same framework you demand to be treated with when people accuse you of things.

 

By your logic: I can say that I think Garfield is a murderer. Now prove to me to that you are not a murderer.

I thought he was a triathlete, not the murderous type.

 

It's the paraolympic sprinters you have to watch out for

[Garfield2010]

More like under suspicion until proven guilty. I find it amazing that you guys can argue like this given the history of the sport. Since 70% of all the winners tedted positive over the past 2 decades who am i to even ask a few questions?

[Garfield2010]

I should just accept everyone is innocent until proven guilty in what is a broken system born dead. I am not a sheep.

[Garfield2010]

By the way Tri testing for doping is even worse. Now there might be a massive can that needs to be opened

[Brickleberry]

What gets me is the blind emotion thrown I to cycling as if it is a sport above all others . Cycling like all sports is about money, one just needs to look at the actions of the UCI and various race organizers. These pages at full of opinion(none based on fact) about what PEDs can and can't do, show up on tests and don't show up. Yet people get upset about it when the topic is debated. I love sky, and I love watching cycling , however, my opinion based on what I have seen over the years, tells me these guys are all giving themselves an advantage somehow, some are just far ahead of the others in terms of how they achieve it and whether or not they test positive. However I find it fascinating that when other riders are that much stronger than others it's "doping" , but when it's sky it's a different story and how dare you say they are doping? I remember a little while ago how people reacted the same way when lance was accused. Either way, all will come out eventually. But no point getting so stressed and upset over a debate on a forum. Opinions differ and I assure you, just cos you believe something with all your heart, doesn't make it real.

[Pure Savage]

The problem though garf, it just sounds like a whining little kid that does not get his way everytime someone has a big win.

 

I think Sagan is doping, he has won three green jerseys in a row. He just hides it well by not winning every stage.

[GaryvdM]

What gets me is the blind emotion thrown I to cycling as if it is a sport above all others . Cycling like all sports is about money, one just needs to look at the actions of the UCI and various race organizers. These pages at full of opinion(none based on fact) about what PEDs can and can't do, show up on tests and don't show up. Yet people get upset about it when the topic is debated. I love sky, and I love watching cycling , however, my opinion based on what I have seen over the years, tells me these guys are all giving themselves an advantage somehow, some are just far ahead of the others in terms of how they achieve it and whether or not they test positive. However I find it fascinating that when other riders are that much stronger than others it's "doping" , but when it's sky it's a different story and how dare you say they are doping? I remember a little while ago how people reacted the same way when lance was accused. Either way, all will come out eventually. But no point getting so stressed and upset over a debate on a forum. Opinions differ and I assure you, just cos you believe something with all your heart, doesn't make it real.

 

Most of us are not stressed or upset. Just trying to have a robust engagement. Disagreement != upset.

[_C50_]

? Really? Who called them club riders.... they are world tour riders, but they are not greats! Quick, mention the names of the guys who have been banned in the last 12 months from Astana without googling it? Bet you cant, thats because they are not GC contenders, they werent good enough for it.

 

ai never mind, not worth it....

A few years ago Froome was going to get dumped by Sky.... Then he pitches up at the Vuelta that same year and comes 2nd. Would've won if he wasn't the domestique. Then 2nd at the TdF the next year. Again, could've been a win.

 

From just another World Tour rider to what? A world tour "great" at this rate. Talk about a transformation.....

[Thor Buttox]

More like under suspicion until proven guilty. I find it amazing that you guys can argue like this given the history of the sport. Since 70% of all the winners tedted positive over the past 2 decades who am i to even ask a few questions?

I think if you go back a good number of days on the Tour thread you'll see most of us who support Sky also hope that there is no doping going on. But there seems to be a lot of blind anti-Skyism stuff, but most of that is good natured since Stink-Off and Astanashing Domestiques have had actual doping in the past, whereas Sky just has thumbsucks and gossip.

 

What isn't under debate though is if Froome rides at 6.1W/kg he is still 10% less than the 6.7 of Lance and Pantani, and what we hope for most, in a sport tainted by doping, is that out guy is just better than the rest on a relatively level playing field.