Right to be cynical about Sky

ianrobo wrote:

I should add i trust no one in any pro sport

Wow the long winter nights in your house must just fly by !

I've never known a more cynical person in all my life, if you dont trust anyone in pro sport why bother watching any of it and why bother commenting.

ianrobo wrote:

the facts back it up ...

Kenyan doping
Swimmers doping
mass doping in China, Russia, cycling
Jamaican sprinters
Drugs in all US sports
Tennis dopers

Do I need to go on ? you tell me stumps why you can be optimistic ?

Clear proof every single person in pro-sports is doping to me - and to think I originally wondered whether it wasn't just strange conviction beamed down that crept though the holes in the foil. I'm convinced.

ianrobo wrote:

Your post Pat is spot on. If other teams had dominated the Spring like Sky have can you imagine the reaction of Walsh and others.

What like Trek or Quick-Step ?

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

The main argument against Sky doping like any other team is that Sky say they don't. It's pretty ridiculous. You have to ask the question if you can dope and get away with it why wouldn't you?

...because there are some people who know the answer to that and some, clearly, who don't.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

The answer to that question, as poled to Olympians, is virtually 100% said they would.

Which poll was that ? Answers to variants of Goldman / Mirkin i've seen (including removing the terminal behaviour) haven't come up with anything remotely like that so i'd be interested to know some more. Any links please ?

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Given what people know about cyclings winners in recent history you'd have to suspect that you can dope and get away with it ipso facto.

You can watch sport in the belief that everyone is doping. The hard part is the damage that they do to themselves, and to people who try to emulate them.

Of course you can watch in that belief - where I part company with people who want to do that is when they try and portray (or worse, insist we take) their belief as fact to the wider world.

ianrobo wrote:

JTL was banned because of a blood doping violation, so we were told, well the UK Anti Doping shows it was EPO

...

Why the lie ?

What lie ? JTLs name was added to the list of banned riders with the reason "Biological Passport Finding" by the UCI who subsequently released a statement including this

A 2-year ban was imposed on the rider as a result of his anti-doping rule violation based on his Athlete Biological Passport. .

(my emphasis). The substance wasn't named at the time in the statement, but so what ? Is that what you're on about ? What part of this is related to Sky ?

stumps wrote:

Paul J wrote:

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).

Ooooooh you've opened a can of worms having a go at Boardman on here, he sits at Gods right hand according to some

In all honesty though you do get freakish illnesses, a good friend of mine's dad takes meds every day because his liver produces a female hormone, the consultant claims he's a walking miracle, but i know what your on about.

It was well known that there was doping in the Gan team, and yet Boardman has said nothing about it. He was there when it was all going on, and given the more or less proven link to Moser, whose time he beat, it is stretching credulity to say there is no whiff of suspicion about his career…..but who is going trash him when he was hardly the big winner in it all.

Big Mig was my favourite rider in the nineties. It was depressing to see him outstripped in the mid-90's. But when it comes down to it I have to question if it was likely that he never doped….and you hear the rumours here and there about dope and it seems likely that he probably did. He may have led the way for all we know.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Do you think that Sky is different to US Postal?

You think they're the same ?

fukawitribe wrote:

andyp wrote:

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.

OK - in simpler terms, you know what I was referring to when I said 'the same' - don't be an ass. Fair enough ?

By the same measure do you think that the equation I'm making is equally precise. Don't be an ass yourself. I'm saying that there are direct links between teams and in fact Sky have had US Postal employees in their mix. Effectively, its a big melting pot, but unless you remove all factors that led to doping your going to be competing in a doping sport and if your competing at the top end of this doping is pretty much on the cards. I don't bash Sky, they're all the same. But Sky are the ones rolling out the rhetoric which draws the criticism.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

Colin sees the devil in everyone it seems - I agree with some of what he says, but not his apparent unequivocal belief that he knows it applies everywhere.

We all know there is doping going on, and some teams or individuals seem more obvious targets than others, but there appears to be this naive belief that suspicion implies proof

You're putting words in my mouth.

To some degree, yes - but it is a belief based on comments from you in the past and also at the end of your reply here.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I don't think that Sky are any different from any other team. There is little proof that doping has been eradicated.

No-one is saying that doping has been eradicated in cycling - or did you mean eradicated in Sky ?

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

But I think it is naive to think that just because a team talks about being drug free that it is when the results do not indicate them to be second best.

Of course it would be naive to assume that without evidence - although I don't agree that winning implies they must be doping, if that was what you were implying. If so think that is one of the areas I guess we can agree to disagree.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Sky say they do blood samples to check their riders are clean. This seems like PR. The tests equally tell them that their riders are not in imminent danger of being caught.

..assuming they are doping...

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

You seem to be somewhat aware, but believe that the Sky policy means that they are 100% clean, but JTL was hardly a guarantee of that.

I agree that policy doesn't proof compliance - although JTL didn't dope with Sky, he was suspended by the them when the back-check against the biological passport data came to light and they sacked him when it appeared anomalous.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

The CIRC did little to prove any assertion that any team is drug free.

It did little to prove that every team isn't either...

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

It maybe done at an individual level or at a team level. We know the means and the reasons why, just not who, when and how much.

It's nice to believe the PR but only when the ADAs have a full and fool proof means of testing will you see doping eradicated. Until then you'll just see it by degrees.

Agreed.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I agree we're not going to see Riis or Armstrong like performances, but in order to compete, especially in stage races, you need to dope.

No, you don't - even in athletics there are some clean winners.

You think they'd be better off hiring people with no success?

fukawitribe wrote:

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Do you think that Sky is different to US Postal?

You think they're the same ?

They're blatantly not the same. Different personnel, different 'base' country. Both highly dodgy, mind.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

andyp wrote:

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.

OK - in simpler terms, you know what I was referring to when I said 'the same' - don't be an ass. Fair enough ?

By the same measure do you think that the equation I'm making is equally precise.

No I didn't - that was sort of the point.

fenix wrote:

You think they'd be better off hiring people with no success?

Garmin worked out he was seriously suspect, if Sky are meant to be at the forefront of anti-doping, they should have been more than capable of working out the same.

andyp wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Do you think that Sky is different to US Postal?

You think they're the same ?

They're blatantly not the same. Different personnel, different 'base' country.

Wow - how incredibly clever of you.

andyp wrote:

Both highly dodgy, mind.

Yes indeed, the evidence of prolonged and systemic abuse against Sky is clear for everyone to see.

You think they'd be better off hiring people with no success?

ianrobo wrote:

This story says why people are cynical

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/faster-than-lance-richie...

faster than LA ?? you have to query if you can be after what he did

If Quintana matched it would you say the same thing?

In 2013 Froome climbed Ax-3 Domaines quicker than Armstrong had done. Does that mean he must therefore be doping? If only it were that simple.

He was not fastest up Alpe d'Huez in the Tour that year so were all those in front doping?

This article discusses Nibali's similarly high w/kg climbing in the 2014 Tour, so was he doped?

Boardman and Obree both eclipsed Moser's (blood-doped) Hour record set at altitude. Boardman later beat records set by Indurain and Rominger. Nicole Cooke raced against and beat dopers. Does that make them all guilty? I'm sure it's happened in other sports too.

It's fine (and healthy) to be sceptical and I understand being cynical but your 'evidence' doesn't even qualify as flimsy IMHO.

Dropped wrote:

Freedom of Information Act only applies to UK Government organisations so any application to WADA and UCI would be entirely pointless.

Apologies, i didn't make myself completely clear. WADA have an information system whereby you can apply for info through their website. Likewise the UCI have a list of contacts for similar info requests.

stumps wrote:

Dropped wrote:

Freedom of Information Act only applies to UK Government organisations so any application to WADA and UCI would be entirely pointless.

Apologies, i didn't make myself completely clear. WADA have an information system whereby you can apply for info through their website. Likewise the UCI have a list of contacts for similar info requests.

Oh, right - I'll ask WADA for all Henao's data? Get real - have you heard of data protection?

However, Sky did state at the time that Sheffield Uni 'hoped' to produce a research paper based on their findings. Genuine question - does this paper exist?

BTW, didn't DB study for an MBA at Sheffield Uni?

bashthebox wrote:

Sky are remarkably more open than most other teams - it may just be because the media spotlight is always on them, but you see far more about Sky's training camps, nutrition, techniques, technology than any other team.
They do put themselves is a rather impossible position with the zero tolerance policy - pretty much anyone in their 40s/50s who would be suitable as staff would have been around or near doping during their career.
Interestingly, if you listen to the recent Telegraph podcast interview with Brailsford, he basically says there isn't enough evidence to conclusively say Knaven doped, and the man himself categorically denied it to Sky's management. To sack him on the basis of inconclusive evidence would be to open Sky up to an employment tribunal - you can't go sacking people for no good reason.

Haha, that's right - it could have been renal failure!

Sky fans are so funny!

BTW, have Sky ever released the Sheffield Uni research paper into Haeno and the effects of altitude training on altitude natives (as promised by DB)? Or has that slipped away and been forgotten about?

daddyELVIS wrote:

bashthebox wrote:

Haha, that's right - it could have been renal failure!

Sky fans are so funny!

BTW, have Sky ever released the Sheffield Uni research paper into Haeno and the effects of altitude training on altitude natives (as promised by DB)? Or has that slipped away and been forgotten about?

Submit a freedom of info request to WADA and the UCI as they have all the test results submitted by the Columbian authorities and Sheffield Uni in relation to Henao.

No doubt it was all clear or he would not have been allowed to join the team for the Tour De Suisse (rtc stopped him taking part). I wont hold my breath for an apology.

daddyELVIS wrote:

bashthebox wrote:

Sky are remarkably more open than most other teams - it may just be because the media spotlight is always on them, but you see far more about Sky's training camps, nutrition, techniques, technology than any other team.
They do put themselves is a rather impossible position with the zero tolerance policy - pretty much anyone in their 40s/50s who would be suitable as staff would have been around or near doping during their career.
Interestingly, if you listen to the recent Telegraph podcast interview with Brailsford, he basically says there isn't enough evidence to conclusively say Knaven doped, and the man himself categorically denied it to Sky's management. To sack him on the basis of inconclusive evidence would be to open Sky up to an employment tribunal - you can't go sacking people for no good reason.

Haha, that's right - it could have been renal failure!

Sky fans are so funny!

BTW, have Sky ever released the Sheffield Uni research paper into Haeno and the effects of altitude training on altitude natives (as promised by DB)? Or has that slipped away and been forgotten about?

From a legal point of view, with the evidence currently on had, yes it could have been renal failure or whatever bollocks is being said. I'd assume Knaven ad doped in the past, but the point is he's not admitting it and there's not enough evidence to say he was - so Sky can't lose him. That kinda suits them, I imagine - he's by all accounts a good DS and being forced to sack more staff is bad PR.
As for Henao - yeah I'd like to know what happened too. Simplest explanation, and most plausible, is that he went off for his winter hols and boshed a shit load of banned things. But I'd be far more fascinated if the high altitude explanation bore out - there's not been much in the way of studies of high altitude natives.

Beefy wrote:

Chapue it takes a bit of bottle to admit you read the Mail and even more to take what it says seriously

On a serious note, just because sky say they are clean shouldn't put them above suspicion though I would like believe in them

I agree re: The Mail. I was calling-out Sky re: Knaven over a year ago!

hammond83 wrote:

The question is can a clean rider beat a doped rider? I don't think so.

That's an incredibly simplistic comment - doping is not some sort of magic bullet which allows you to win races; you still have to have the training, the diet, the equipment, the team support, and the tactics. So yes, I'd say that a good clean rider could easily beat a bad doped rider.

Quote:

Greg Lemond constantly claimed that Lance's VO2 numbers were too low to be able to perform as he did. Also riders with a lower natural hct had more to gain by inflating it up to the magical 49.9% mark.

And how does Greg know this exactly? We're talking here about a bitter angry man with a massive axe to grind, he's not exactly a reliable impartial source of evidence - how does he know what LA's haemocrit levels were? And again, it's very simplistic - winning a bike race is not solely about VO2 Max.

All the comments on these doping threads repeat the same mantras, the same "oh I read it on the internet" or (even worse "oh I read it in the Daily Mail") so it must be true. No source, no citations. If this was Wikipedia, the page would have been taken down and that's saying something given that Wiki itself isn't allowed as a quotable source or valid reference in most schools!