Tour de France Stage 14: Victory for Steve Cummings while Chris Froome gains more time on his rivals

Kadinkski wrote:

For the record, it wasn't Colin that raised the fascinating subject of the top 20% of enduro athletes being dopers, that was me.

Got there just before me - found that thread a couple of minutes ago and realised my mistake, hence why i'm back here. Apologies Colin, I take that part back completely.

MercuryOne wrote:

... Anyway... After the usual scuffle over doping back to the news that Steve Cummings won a stage of the TDF! Steve?... Steve? Oh he went home an hour ago...

(It reminds me of the Judean People's Front - or the People's Front of Judea on the site sometimes.)

Good point

fukawitribe wrote:

MercuryOne wrote:

... Anyway... After the usual scuffle over doping back to the news that Steve Cummings won a stage of the TDF! Steve?... Steve? Oh he went home an hour ago...

(It reminds me of the Judean People's Front - or the People's Front of Judea on the site sometimes.)

Good point

Yes, very good point.

fukawitribe - no probs mate

HalfWheeler wrote:

@ Colin Peyresourde

If it's such a corrupt sport, from top to bottom, why the interest in it?

Because the outcome is not always certain. Cycling is no different to many other sports apart from the fact they actually catch dopers.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

If my explanation is a little simplistic for you there's a lot to encapsulate. Perhaps I will write a book about it some day, but I doubt that you will bother to read it. In my opinion you don't seem to have really studied or read around the subject - may be that sounds dismissive, but that's because I'm reflecting your attitude back at you.

It's simplistic in that you have repeatedly stated that all the teams are doping, that you don't believe anyone isn't and also that the top 20% of all endurance sports are on the juice. That's about as simple as it gets - i'm really not dumbing it down or exaggerating, that's what you say so please don't label this as my attitude. It's your stated position. I'm querying whether that is a likely scenario - that they're all doing it and yet we have such an anomalously low hit rate both currently (given the situation that all the winners are definitely on the sauce) and in the recent history. I'm positing it's highly unlikely that it's the case, and that's it's more likely that a significant proportion of the pro-peloton are in some way using PEDs, probably at a lower level than previously, almost certainly with some new variants of enhancements - and that some of them are clean and are still winning races and stages.

It's that last part that you seem to insist is absolutely and uncontroversially false. That's what I mean by simplistic - I would maintain that the world is seldom, if ever, that neat.

fukawitribe wrote:

It's simplistic in that you have repeatedly stated that all the teams are doping, that you don't believe anyone isn't and also that the top 20% of all endurance sports are on the juice. That's about as simple as it gets.

It's that last part that you seem to insist is absolutely and uncontroversially false. That's what I mean by simplistic - I would maintain that the world is seldom, if ever, that neat.

Interesting, because I've never ever stated it that way and do not recognise that as my opinion. I can believe that there are riders that rarely or occasionally dope. That the thing that holds them back is a lack of willingness to do the mixture of dope that will take them to the next level. I'm sure that the propensity to be a climber, a puncheur or a sprinter is based on the root ability of that individual to be that sort of rider, not what is contained within a needle. I am sure that all the athletes work hard to perform at the level they do. I cannot be 100% sure that they all dope, I cannot tell what dope they have taken, and when they are on it, but having watched the race for over 30 years the way the teams race, the way the top riders succeed and the way that riders do not struggle in the same way over the course of the tour I feel fairly certain that by the time you get to ride the Grand Boucle you'll know what preparation is and you'll have suffered so much that you'll want cortisone, or testosterone or whatever else your ex-doping DS is suggesting. I do not exactly blame the riders - Pandora's box is open. They ride in a dog eat dog competition where loyalty is limited to however many months/years contract you have left. If you don't win anything your career will be short and limited, and so temptation lies very cheaply within your grasp. Plus, you know it's pretty easy to pass the test. What are you going to do?

There's an often quoted survey which balloted Olympic athletes. It asked 'would you use PEDs if you knew you could get away with it?'. At least 80% answered 'yes'. It likely that they already do. The CIRC survey indicated that riders thought 9 out of 10 riders were doping (although another thought it was 2 out of 10). I think this says a lot about the mentality of sportsmen who are ultra competitive. Deep down there is no nice guy answering questions is demure and charming way, just someone interested in beating his rivals. It's no surprise to me that Mo Farah has been implicated by association. He's beating Kenyan known to be doping with EPO.....and how would you match that?

ianrobo wrote:

The point is valid about others. It is why I cheer Cav, Loved Cummings today, Like Dan Martin, all of these I believe to be clean.

Even Sagan I believe to be clean.

So therefore when you say a valid point I agree with just not with a lot of the other you make.

I think it weird that you choose to believe certain riders over others. There's as much motivation to cheat for Sagan as Contador, but the difference being that Contador's cheating wins him a Grand Tour, but Sagan will win Classics and stage wins. The focus is obviously on Contador, but there's no reason to assume that any of the others are not cheating because they have different goals, just that the media are less fixated.

What makes you think that someone who competes at the same speed (if not faster
than) as a rider who has used HGH, EPO and steroids can do without and compete.

PS I am cynical about all of them, but they usually end up proving me right. I've got to a point where I see the winners all as cheats, but that some have better doctors than others. A level playing field is found of sorts, but the point is still that we should strive for sport without drugs and that we are deprived of true sport, and deeper meaning to the struggle and suffering. Cheating is cheating even if it generates excitement. The worst thing is the expectation it puts on future generations to compete with or exceed.

I've heard some simplistic and naïve belief systems in my life but this one is waaay up there.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

ianrobo wrote:

The point is valid about others. It is why I cheer Cav, Loved Cummings today, Like Dan Martin, all of these I believe to be clean.

Even Sagan I believe to be clean.

So therefore when you say a valid point I agree with just not with a lot of the other you make.

I think it weird that you choose to believe certain riders over others.

I think it's utterly illogical that you think all people react to situations and events in the same way - that all riders have the same motivation and all decide to act in exactly the same way to achieve their ambitions.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

What makes you think that someone who competes at the same speed (if not faster
than) as a rider who has used HGH, EPO and steroids can do without and compete.

What makes you think that the ability of an individual to win stages and races is entirely down to physical strength and endurance ? Why do you think that teams or strategy have no effect on the outcome of races ? What makes you think that all riders are within 'doping' range of all the others - that athlete A cannot have the same performance clean as athlete B who dopes (presumably in such a way, and at such dosages and with such undetectable gains in performance that they are not caught or flagged) ?

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

PS I am cynical about all of them, but they usually end up proving me right. I've got to a point where I see the winners all as cheats, but that some have better doctors than others.

Well hubris aside it's a good religion. You believe all are doping so every positive is another piece of proof of your theory - every rider who escapes being caught is guilty but just evading the inevitable. The idea that it's all down to the quality of the doctors is priceless but at least can be bent to explain some of the complete failures to detect 99% of all doping, retrospectively in many cases.

All our opinions are based on conjecture to some degree, but I think that some are statistically more likely than others - this one strikes me as one of the more outlying data points.

fukawitribe wrote:

I've heard some simplistic and naïve belief systems in my life but this one is waaay up there.

Your reply followed mine so i dont know if your refering to me or someone else ?

If it was me then yes it is a very simplistic way of looking at things, in all walks of life you have people who have an inate ability to be very good at something but it needs the right group of people around them for them to fulfill that ability and i think Froome is one of those.

If thats to simplistic then i ask why the need to complicate matters ?

stumps wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

I've heard some simplistic and naïve belief systems in my life but this one is waaay up there.

Your reply followed mine so i dont know if your refering to me or someone else ?

If it was me then yes it is a very simplistic way of looking at things, in all walks of life you have people who have an inate ability to be very good at something but it needs the right group of people around them for them to fulfill that ability and i think Froome is one of those.

If thats to simplistic then i ask why the need to complicate matters ?

Sorry for the confusion stumps, it was Colin I was referring to (in the quotes after) not you. FWIW I agree with you, fortunate enough to have a friend who fitted the innate ability bit in athletics (400m and high jump) 35-40 years ago but more than that, partly didn't have the support environment/encouragement and partly couldn't be arsed Watching someone whose closest approach to performance drugs was rum and spliff obliterate people - good athletes, nationals even - who had trained and been coached for years was an interesting experience. It gets much closer the higher up you go, but some people do have a bloody good base..

ianrobo wrote:

So therefore when you say a valid point I agree with just not with a lot of the other you make.

Oh right. What points forced you to respond in such a shrill OTT manner?

HalfWheeler wrote:

A lot of the bullshit that Team Sky are dealing with in the media and on the road is pure xenophobia. The hate the English speakers for being so dominant. If Contador or Valverde (convicted cheats) or Nibali (riding in the cheats team of choice) was winning the race no-one would bat an eyelid.

Ah the standard reply from the Sky fan boys, who never ask themselves if this team was not British would you being saying the same thing ?

If a team was say based in Russia, employed a doping doctor for 'weighing' riders and had known dopers as employees despite all they say that you would be saying this.

Course not

ianrobo wrote:

HalfWheeler wrote:

A lot of the bullshit that Team Sky are dealing with in the media and on the road is pure xenophobia. The hate the English speakers for being so dominant. If Contador or Valverde (convicted cheats) or Nibali (riding in the cheats team of choice) was winning the race no-one would bat an eyelid.

Ah the standard reply from the Sky fan boys, who never ask themselves if this team was not British would you being saying the same thing ?

If a team was say based in Russia, employed a doping doctor for 'weighing' riders and had known dopers as employees despite all they say that you would be saying this.

Course not

I think the 'Sky fanboy' or 'Sky hater' comment is a weak insult. I have no allegiance to Sky or anyone else yet have had both thrown at me. It's a dick move and just shows the poster to be hiding behind something bigger.

I don't think Sky are clean. I don't think Astana, BMC, Etixx, Saxo-Tinkoff, Alpecin are clean (but they may have clean riders). But it seems ridiculous to pick on Sky. They don't win everything.

On the other hand there's part of me that thinks maybe direct action may make a difference. But the main part of me thinks Froome and co are being victimised.

ianrobo wrote:

HalfWheeler wrote:

A lot of the bullshit that Team Sky are dealing with in the media and on the road is pure xenophobia. The hate the English speakers for being so dominant. If Contador or Valverde (convicted cheats) or Nibali (riding in the cheats team of choice) was winning the race no-one would bat an eyelid.

Ah the standard reply from the Sky fan boys, who never ask themselves if this team was not British would you being saying the same thing ?

If a team was say based in Russia, employed a doping doctor for 'weighing' riders and had known dopers as employees despite all they say that you would be saying this.

Course not

A Sky fanboy? Hilarious. You know this from one reply? Oh dear...

I can't imagine devoting that much time to watching the pro scene (too busy training, working, getting on with life etc,) let alone being a Sky 'fanatic'. Not least because it's sponsored by the Great Satan himself (Murdoch).

As for a flag waving Brit? Even funnier, was only 10 months ago I was voting for Scotland to sail off into the sunset.

My problem with the vitriol being poured on Sky is that it stinks of hypocrisy. Convicted cheats in the media accusing them of foul play or goons at the side of the road watching actual cheats like Contador or Valverde race by but then target Froome and his teammates, accusing them of cheating without one scintilla of proof.

HalfWheeler wrote:

Convicted cheats in the media accusing them of foul play or goons at the side of the road watching actual cheats like Contador or Valverde race by but then target Froome and his teammates, accusing them of cheating without one scintilla of proof.

If you talk about ex riders most of them are ex cheats whether caught or not, inevitable.

But your point is totally valid, which is why I watched the Giro with Contador leading and Astana as the main team with laughter.

However if Froome is beating known dopers, lets face it so easy, what does that so to you ?

ianrobo wrote:

HalfWheeler wrote:

Convicted cheats in the media accusing them of foul play or goons at the side of the road watching actual cheats like Contador or Valverde race by but then target Froome and his teammates, accusing them of cheating without one scintilla of proof.

If you talk about ex riders most of them are ex cheats whether caught or not, inevitable.

But your point is totally valid, which is why I watched the Giro with Contador leading and Astana as the main team with laughter.

However if Froome is beating known dopers, lets face it so easy, what does that so to you ?

Hmm...so you think I'm making valid points but still took the opportunity to say the following;

"Ah the standard reply from the Sky fan boys"

"if this team was not British would you being saying the same thing...Course not"

Ok then. I wonder what your like when you disagree with people.