Patchelicious Posted July 28, 2015 Share If Froome ever joins the list below, he will get the same bashing as these cheats from me: Alberto:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/alberto-contador-tests-positive-for-clenbuterol/ Valverde: (Handy having a doper helping Quintana in the mountains)http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/jun/01/alejandro-valverde-ban Scarponi:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/scarponi-admits-tests-with-dr-ferrari-to-doping-investigators/This is my point. People make more noise about suspects than those who have been convicted already. My biggest question is that how can a team like Astana who have had 5 riders busted in the recent past not get put under the same scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicoBoshoff Posted July 28, 2015 Share 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.Except, I made the comparison between the philanderer and cycling. I used the Froom lobby, because that's what's dominating this topic, but my skepticism applies to cycling. All forms of it. In fact, most pro-sport (barring shuttlecock). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJR Posted July 28, 2015 Share A quote from above mentioned article. This is the way to go for WADA. Get the drug makers involved. Perhaps even build an easily detectable tracer/marker into all the performance enhancing drugs. (Yes, like money marked with invisible ink to show under UV lights. Imagine a big arch of UV light at the finish of each stage! This part only tongue in cheek. ) "Drug makers are increasingly cooperating with the anti-doping authorities to stay one step ahead of cheaters. The drug companines began creating detection methods for drugs which may enhance performance before the compounds reach the market, because athletes were getting hold of drugs while they were still under development." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted July 28, 2015 Share 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. I forgot to say its a Yes or No question....You are a one man team (athlete, coach, manager all in one) and you cannot be 100% certain... So how do you expect anyone (including sky management) to be 100% certain that none of their riders (who contrary to popular belief are not under 100 % constant surveillance), to be 100% clean? It takes just one desperate drol in the team of how many (+/- 50?) if you include all their riders, DS's, coaches, Dr's, physio's .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patchelicious 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...Not quite on the mark, but I know what you are getting at. But we would be assuming guilt to support our speculation. Patterns are still similar in places, hence the speculation. I agree that because of the history people will be suspect, and will always be. I am. I just don't understand the Sky witch hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicoBoshoff Posted July 28, 2015 Share This is my point. People make more noise about suspects than those who have been convicted already. My biggest question is that how can a team like Astana who have had 5 riders busted in the recent past not get put under the same scrutiny.Probably because they're not winning the TdF. People like bringing down winners. The spotlight is already on them, so the criticism may as well join in on the fun. And yes, that sounds contrarion given my own stated scepticism, except, I don't have a problem with doping as such. I have a problem with the attitutde towards reasonable scepticism and the smugness with which alot of the success is enjoyed (yes that assumes my scepticism is founded, otherwise smugness turns to justified resentment). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted July 28, 2015 Share 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. Sorri Nail on the head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor Buttox Posted July 28, 2015 Share Hey, Hey, hey, don't bring your common sense to the hub.I shall balance it with 'Only Team Ce'vage dope. Purely based on continuous performance'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAGecko Posted July 28, 2015 Share Except, I made the comparison between the philanderer and cycling. I used the Froom lobby, because that's what's dominating this topic, but my skepticism applies to cycling. All forms of it. In fact, most pro-sport (barring shuttlecock). Nonsense. You mentioned Froome in the same argument. Can't have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAGecko Posted July 28, 2015 Share People like bringing down winners. Yes, there are a number of people like that on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patchelicious Posted July 28, 2015 Share Probably because they're not winning the TdF. People like bringing down winners. The spotlight is already on them, so the criticism may as well join in on the fun. And yes, that sounds contrarion given my own stated scepticism, except, I don't have a problem with doping as such. I have a problem with the attitutde towards reasonable scepticism and the smugness with which alot of the success is enjoyed (yes that assumes my scepticism is founded, otherwise smugness turns to justified resentment).I think this is a fantastic post! I think you are right as to why they are singled out. I also agree that there are fanboys who defend them blindly, just as there are haters who accuse them blindly, neither of which is conducive to a reasonable debate on the matter. A discussion around reasonable scepticism would be a breath of fresh air! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicoBoshoff Posted July 28, 2015 Share Nonsense. You mentioned Froome in the same argument. Can't have it both ways."If cycling were the chronically cheating husband, the "hands off Sky / Froome" lobby is essensially the husband's friend..." The cause for the scepticism in Froome and Sky is cycling's history - the two cannot be separated. Sorry, but 90% of this thread has been about Froome and Sky, so my reference was apt. Not my fault if your comprehension lacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAGecko Posted July 28, 2015 Share Not my fault if your comprehension lacks. No lack. Sorry Nico. Can't use that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rock Posted July 28, 2015 Share I'll come back to this thread after the press conference, tears, and book release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotSoBigBen Posted July 28, 2015 Share I wrote this on my Fb last week and I am still of this opinion ... "With my limited interaction with him at Anton's shop many years ago my heart would say no. I am not stupid and I'm sure everyone uses whatever is available within the rules and maybe not always the spirit of the rules of their chosen sport to win. A lot of the scepticism I suspect has to do with the not wanting to allow anyone else their 'place in the sun' attitude many South Africans have. More especially so for the pseudo experts on the local cycling 'fora'. As my good friend wrote this week ' go ride with him' ...... In the meantime I have enjoyed the spectacle that is the TDF as I do every year!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield2010 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Well yes I think most teams are still doping. However to do it "properly" you need a budget and unfortunately (or fortunately) not all teams can afford the best program (like Discovery could). Nibali, Contador are all dopers yes. The reason Sky gets singled out is because they are winning and most of their riders appears to be boxing above their weight (or in week 1 at least). Time will tell. If Sky are doping then eventually it will come out. All we need is one bitter teammate or a rider clearing his conscious in a few years from now. During a riders career and directly thereafter one can understand the silence as they are protecting fellow athletes but later on is when the truth comes out. It has nothing to do with not allowing other a place in the sun. Do you think Froome or Sky worries for one second about what I think? It is they that need to sleep at night not me. I just apply my logic by taking into consideration all things past and what I see. I still enjoy the tour and I think it was fantastic entertainment this year. I find the doping topic to be very interesting and enjoy reading all the books about it etc. Personally I think sport world wide is making use of illegal substances more than we think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.