Right to be cynical about Sky

Info request submitted to WADA and UCI. Just preparing a freedom of info to Sheffield Uni.

Quote:

What - that he beat Chris Froome by abut 1.5% or Lance by about 3% ?

not really. There was no race, no proper timing (LA did his effort well before GPS logging), and they were certainly no riding the same day, so you really cannot use this as evidence for doping.

Reading books about Fignon, LeMond etc, they all complained that when the EPO era started in the early 90s, suddenly big classics guys and no-hoper domestiques were climbing with them, sometimes dropping them. Hardly a scientific test, but I reckon you could approximate a big guy (e.g. LA in his pomp) climbing at the same rate as a skinny clean climber today. Probably. Maybe.
It's really hard to test, isn't it? Better training, nutrition, tech today vs turbo blood yesterday. The tech one must be a big thing. Totel anecdata, but I'm about 2kph faster on my summer fast bike (extremely lightweight carbon, stiff as fuck race machine) vs my winter bike (fairly lightweight carbon, not as stiff).

On a bad day on my CAAD10, I'm slower at climbing than I have been on good days on an old, late-70s, mid-end steel racer, which weighs nearly 3 kg more. On the flats and even mildly rolling roads, the 70s bike was pretty much as fast as the CAAD10. E.g. on a 7ish minute rolling road segment, the 70s racer was within 24s of the CAAD10 - and I had many more attempts on the CAAD10 to get lucky with the wind. The 70s racer also had a front wheel that likely hadn't had its front hub regreased in one or two decades!

I've since got a high-end v early 80s Italian steel race bike, which (amazingly) weighs only 1.2 kg more than the CAAD10. It'll be interesting to see how it compares to the CAAD10. Shouldn't be anything in it on the flats, and probably only a little behind on climbs.

Don't discount the old bikes!

Obree had a significant aero advantage, saved him tens of Watts at least.

Not quite sure I'd place full confidence in Boardman having been clean, given he's had at least two different problems that could be related to hormone abuse (indeed, one of his problems is staggeringly rare in fit young men, outside of hormone abuse).

I'm new to following this sport so need some help.

As I understand it Dave Brailsford came into British Cycling in '97, built up a support team that won many Olympic and World medals and in 2010 combined his BC responsibilities with running the Sky Pro Cycling using the same BC support team.

Does this mean that we need to be cynical about Hoy, Kenny, Pendleton et al, or are track riders clean while road are not? Then what about the likes of Thomas, Wiggins, Kennagh who competed in both disciplines? Or the BC riders who belong to pro road teams other than Sky?

Reading about Armstrong and USPS it's clear that there were rumours and whistle blowers from their earliest days. Sky/BC must have disgruntled ex riders/staff or maybe just people who would like to make a bob or two selling their stories to the papers. So where are the Sky versions of Emma O'Reilly, Betsy Andreu or David Walsh? Why hasn't, for example, Chris Hoy said anything when his reputation would be at stake?

Then Sky is a very wealthy corporation who has given its financial backing to a team that claims to be clean. I'd be astonished if the contracts of their employees involved in cycling did not include draconian penalties if the team is shown to be doping. Surely there is a huge risk of financial and reputational ruin to all employed by Sky Pro Cycling if there was any proof of team approved doping which outweighs or removes temptation.

'a good friend of mine's dad takes meds every day because his liver produces a female hormone'

Happens to us all, of course. All men produce, and need, 'female hormones'. But to different degrees.

wow. If you think that's clever, I advise you to spend the rest of your life in solitary confinement. Your mind might get blown apart by some other obvious facts.

Having read all the comments there is one strong underlying theme, all the greats dope. So why is LA the only one to lose yellow jerseys, surely they should virtually all be taken away?

In fact reading most posts I think we should ban competitive cycling it is so corrupt!

If this thread proves anything it's that doping in sport has really fucked up professional sport for a lot of people. It also proves that reading stuff on the internet means a lot of people don't believe anything any more.

For now, I'm gonna enjoy following the sport I love. Can I be 100% sure that Contador, Froome, Quintana and Nibbles trading blows up mountain passes are all doing it clean? Of course not. Does it add to the fun? Hells yeah.

And I guess, let's not forget - riders who doped include Anquetil, Coppi, Bartoli, Merckx, Fignon and probably Hinault. I don't exactly know what my point is, but it's something about the legends that bore our love for the sport being as complicit in the murky bits we now rightly want to throw out of it.

I'm not sure it's fair to call it rhetoric though; Sky genuinely are trying to do this zero tolerance thing. Turns out it's nigh-on impossible to do. At least they're doing something about the doping problem.