Thor Buttox Posted July 28, 2015 Share Ok so if you had to say what you believe. Consider the history of the sport and then say what you "think". Do you think Sky is 100% clean? Yes or no?Ask a different question: what would you EXPECT to see in a team that was clean? What do we know: in the past teams doped climbers and you had people that were not climbers pulling up hills for day after day, with very few off days. I can remember Lance having one where he battled terribly. In this Tour, we had:1) Performance that dropped off markedly through a three week tour2) varying performance levels where clearly instructions were given to hang back on some days3) a team where not all climbers even performed once, let alone pulled for days Clearly, Berto and Froome fall into this category. But they were sick. But they had this. But they had that. Etc Belief is a funny thing. I believe it is less likely that they are doped to the gills now. I believe there is nothing to indicate your particular favourite is any more doped than anyone else. I believe anyone who thinks that teams should publish performance data during an event is naive. I believe if Sky doesn't come out and publish the data post-event, they are being disingenuous. And then I might think again. And I think Froome should do independent tests if he really wants to leave a legacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted July 28, 2015 Share Aren't you sick of all this BS? I always thought power meters were more trouble than they are worth, they should be banned by the UCI. That would end all the exspurt evaluations of power data along with energy drinks, gels, energy bars etc.... riders should ride purely on water and jam sandwiches supplied by UCI approved contractor, a basic bike computer which only shows time and speed no HR, no power, no team radios, no disc brakes.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAGecko Posted July 28, 2015 Share say what you "think". Do you think Sky is 100% clean? Yes or no? Ah, yes. Thanks for this. Do I think Sky is 100% clean? I don't know. Do you think Sky is 100% clean? No. That's the difference between us. You have condemned Chris Froome and the Sky team as drug cheats without evidence (and sorry chap, "Remember US Postal" is not evidence that Sky is doping). And I have not. This position allows me to watch cycling and all sorts of other sports with a great deal of joy and the mental freedom from the nagging doubt and truculent suspicion that characterises your spectatorship of the same event. Guess which one of us is the happier soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicoBoshoff Posted July 28, 2015 Share Ah, yes. Thanks for this. Do I think Sky is 100% clean? I don't know. Do you think Sky is 100% clean? No. That's the difference between us. You have condemned Chris Froome and the Sky team as drug cheats without evidence (and sorry chap, "Remember US Postal" is not evidence that Sky is doping). And I have not. This position allows me to watch cycling and all sorts of other sports with a great deal of joy and the mental freedom from the nagging doubt and truculent suspicion that characterises your spectatorship of the same event. Guess which one of us is the happier soul.Yeah, it really is bliss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield2010 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Well as far as data goes............ read Floyds book. He defends his date for that epic stage and he does it really well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield2010 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Ah, yes. Thanks for this. Do I think Sky is 100% clean? I don't know. Do you think Sky is 100% clean? No. That's the difference between us. You have condemned Chris Froome and the Sky team as drug cheats without evidence (and sorry chap, "Remember US Postal" is not evidence that Sky is doping). And I have not. This position allows me to watch cycling and all sorts of other sports with a great deal of joy and the mental freedom from the nagging doubt and truculent suspicion that characterises your spectatorship of the same event. Guess which one of us is the happier soul.I am very happy thank you. You cannot decide for me how happy I am. I watched every stage but I watched it for what it is. Guess who will be the unhappier soul should the bomb go off. Guess who will feel betrayed. I went through this a few times with Lance and then Floyd. I can only bang my head against the same wall so many times. The TDF is entertainment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted July 28, 2015 Share Ok so if you had to say what you believe. Consider the history of the sport and then say what you "think". Do you think Sky is 100% clean? Yes or no? Howzit GarF,I'll answer your question, even though its basically an impossible question...Yes I do. Now its your turn:Considering the history of social athletes, can you honestly say that you are 100% clean and never taken anything during training / racing that is on the banned list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pure Savage Posted July 28, 2015 Share Ask a different question: what would you EXPECT to see in a team that was clean? What do we know: in the past teams doped climbers and you had people that were not climbers pulling up hills for day after day, with very few off days. I can remember Lance having one where he battled terribly. In this Tour, we had:1) Performance that dropped off markedly through a three week tour2) varying performance levels where clearly instructions were given to hang back on some days3) a team where not all climbers even performed once, let alone pulled for days Clearly, Berto and Froome fall into this category. But they were sick. But they had this. But they had that. Etc Belief is a funny thing. I believe it is less likely that they are doped to the gills now. I believe there is nothing to indicate your particular favourite is any more doped than anyone else. I believe anyone who thinks that teams should publish performance data during an event is naive. I believe if Sky doesn't come out and publish the data post-event, they are being disingenuous. And then I might think again. And I think Froome should do independent tests if he really wants to leave a legacy. Hey, Hey, hey, don't bring your common sense to the hub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield2010 Posted July 28, 2015 Share This position allows me to watch cycling and all sorts of other sports with a great deal of joy and the mental freedom from the nagging doubt and truculent suspicion that characterises your spectatorship of the same event. Mental freedom you call it..................................... Very amusing By the way the Nkandla scandal is not really true. There was no corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield2010 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Howzit GarF,I'll answer your question, even though its basically an impossible question...Yes I do. Now its your turn:Considering the history of social athletes, can you honestly say that you are 100% clean and never taken anything during training / racing that is on the banned list? Not on purpose that I know of. But then again I don't have a team manager / doctor / dietician team around me to advise me on what I may or may not take. But no I have never taken any thing knowing it may enhance my performance unlawfully (except raw beetroot smoothies). But then again I don't get paid to cycle and I don't need to perform to ensure my contract gets renewed and my baby gets fed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicoBoshoff Posted July 28, 2015 Share I reckon one can sum up the position as follows: If cycling were the chronically cheating husband, the "hands off Sky / Froome" lobby is essensially the husband's friend calling the heartbroken wife a heartless wench for not trusting the husband even though his patterns haven't really changed, he still hangs out with the same people in the same places, gives the same excuses when he is home late with lipstick on his collar, still gives half-answers to simple questions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAGecko Posted July 28, 2015 Share Yeah, it really is bliss. Isn't it just. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicoBoshoff Posted July 28, 2015 Share Isn't it just.Totes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patchelicious Posted July 28, 2015 Share Really now? Yes really, please do not selectively quote me, I took the time to type a sentence that justified that statement directly after it. Ok so if you had to say what you believe. Consider the history of the sport and then say what you "think". Do you think Sky is 100% clean? Yes or no?If you want to use the history of the sport of the sport as a mechanism to judge, then you need to brand them ALL dopers. You cannot selectively attack just one team. If you want to brand Sky dopers because of Festina, Postal or general history, then you need to brand everybody..... BMC, FDJ, Orica etc dopers too, as well as Astana, Valverde and Contador too (oh wait). Thats been my point all along, you seem to be the only one who doesn't see it though. Yes/No? Do you think its that simple? We don't know! You can NEVER say for a FACT that somebody is clean. How can you prove that? What do I believe? I believe that people need to substantiate the statements they make. I make my assessments based on my best interpretation of the facts at hand at the time. If new evidence emerges then theories change, thats how the world works. Its simple, its not about being right or wrong which you seem so obsessed about, it is about facts at hand. You cannot change facts to support an opinion, but opinions can be changed based on the presentation of facts. Does Sky dope? I don't know, neither do you. What I do know is that a lot of the claims made against them were based on "thin evidence" and was pure speculation. I have said in a previous posts that the focus should be on discussing those points. If you can support an allegation with enough evidence, then surely I would have to believe the allegation? So we know that you believe SKY dopes, why do you believe that? It was a fantastic tour. I love the balance they have now. It really felt like a few guys could actually win it. If the alps had one more stage who knows...... Also the cobblestones and hilly finishes made for some exciting racing. They should include the team time trial every year.If its so balanced, why single out one team as dopers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAGecko Posted July 28, 2015 Share I reckon one can sum up the position as follows: <snip garbage> No you can't sum it up like that. Froome is not a proven philanderer, thus your assumption that he is now doping because he is repeating the same pattern is just so much rubbish. Pull in your neck feller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAGecko Posted July 28, 2015 Share Totes. Fully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.