Page 428 of 456

Re: 2017 'PRO' cycling discussion.

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:26 pm
by spud
There's a reason Sky declined to be part of MPCC. Love how Sutton characterized TUEs as a tool to ensure that a pro raced at 100%. Like the rest of the peloton doesn't deal with the odd cold, niggling injury, or god forbid, and extra pound or two of weight. These guys can't help but shit where they eat.

Re: 2017 'PRO' cycling discussion.

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:28 pm
by tymon_tm
that's funny: Gaimon's BS story gets more publicity than Sutton's admission SKY does bend the rules :roll:

maybe we're slowly getting to the point where no one cares, just expects riders to look cool and win races - just like in the 80s or 90s. AFAIK looking at today's superheroes, and what's worse - so called "amateur" racers, masters, etc, - seing their progress and their results, I've no delusions we're back at square one, where it's just OK to do what's necessary to reach the goals. personally I'm not even sure any other way - like completely clean and honest way - would be acceptable for fans anyway. after all, we've (probably) seen clean (ish) cycling for a bit, and it truly is boring. hell, bring the gladiators back!

Re: 2017 'PRO' cycling discussion.

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:28 pm
by Weenie

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Re: 2017 'PRO' cycling discussion.

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:33 pm
by Kjetil
tymon_tm wrote:we've (probably) seen clean (ish) cycling for a bit, and it truly is boring.
Maybe we have, but this decade to me hasn't been more boring than the rediculousness of the nineties and naughties.

Re: 2017 'PRO' cycling discussion.

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:29 pm
by tymon_tm
I'm not talking last few years, rather the pre-SKY period, somewhere between late USPS/Puerto and the dawn of marginal gains

Re: 2017 'PRO' cycling discussion.

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:08 pm
by AJS914
Sutton's admission SKY does bend the rules


I read Sutton's statement and he didn't say that. He specifically said that they didn't cross the line. He said if they were 95% and had a niggling issue and a TUE was available to get them to 100%, he'd use it. His statement is not even newsworthy.

Re: 2017 'PRO' cycling discussion.

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:34 pm
by Kjetil
We, tymon, here's to Sky and boring races!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayHPWnb1ZRo

Re: 2017 'PRO' cycling discussion.

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:03 pm
by bilwit
AJS914 wrote:
Sutton's admission SKY does bend the rules


I read Sutton's statement and he didn't say that. He specifically said that they didn't cross the line. He said if they were 95% and had a niggling issue and a TUE was available to get them to 100%, he'd use it. His statement is not even newsworthy.


the media headline spin has taken it way out of context and viewership just eats this stuff up, it's pretty hilarious

Re: 2017 'PRO' cycling discussion.

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:29 pm
by tymon_tm
^the way I read this, they used TUEs whenever they felt they could improve athletes' performance. if we connect the dots, knowing what we know regarding the timing alone, I'd say it's justified to claim SKY did bend the rules.

the argument is TUEs were obtained legally, and that's probably true. but there's a flipside to that coin - the fact those TUEs were obtained in specific "windows", right before important races, begs the question of integrity.

Re: 2017 'PRO' cycling discussion.

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:31 pm
by maquisard
The reason why every one is talking about this as well is that it is Team Sky, a team founded on the basis of being cleaner that all others. When asked about the TUE issue last year Brailsford said the team did the right thing, the right thing being that they not only followed the letter of the law, but also were ethically clean. It is pretty clear they weren't.

Re: 2017 'PRO' cycling discussion.

Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:00 am
by TonyM
maquisard wrote:The reason why every one is talking about this as well is that it is Team Sky, a team founded on the basis of being cleaner that all others. When asked about the TUE issue last year Brailsford said the team did the right thing, the right thing being that they not only followed the letter of the law, but also were ethically clean. It is pretty clear they weren't.


They have their own ethics.....LOL....

Re: 2017 'PRO' cycling discussion.

Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:08 am
by Wookski
bilwit wrote:
AJS914 wrote:
Sutton's admission SKY does bend the rules


I read Sutton's statement and he didn't say that. He specifically said that they didn't cross the line. He said if they were 95% and had a niggling issue and a TUE was available to get them to 100%, he'd use it. His statement is not even newsworthy.


the media headline spin has taken it way out of context and viewership just eats this stuff up, it's pretty hilarious

Finally some common sense. Sutton made no admission beyond using TUE’s to treat sick riders. To extrapolate that into some sort of smoking gun is absurd- as if they’d make it that easy :roll:

Re: 2017 'PRO' cycling discussion.

Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:44 pm
by spud
Wookski wrote:
bilwit wrote:
AJS914 wrote:
Sutton's admission SKY does bend the rules


I read Sutton's statement and he didn't say that. He specifically said that they didn't cross the line. He said if they were 95% and had a niggling issue and a TUE was available to get them to 100%, he'd use it. His statement is not even newsworthy.


the media headline spin has taken it way out of context and viewership just eats this stuff up, it's pretty hilarious

Finally some common sense. Sutton made no admission beyond using TUE’s to treat sick riders. To extrapolate that into some sort of smoking gun is absurd- as if they’d make it that easy :roll:


Ahh, I see. You are perfectly comfortable with Sutton/Sky determining when an athlete is at only at 95%, and thus eligible for a little helper. Like the one time that I was able to hit 400 watts for 15 minutes, that's my 100%. So now that I can only hit 380, I'm clearly not at 100%, training isn't closing the gap, I must be "sick". So a little Tramadol, or steroid isn't doping, it's just keeping me healthy.

Just to frame things, I've never been, nor will I ever be elite. And I'm not even sure that I believe that some of this shit (salbutamol) works as a PED. But it's remarkable how many of these guys have asthma (I've been sent to the hospital with it) and use this stuff. it is suspicious how some of these directors seem to influence medical decisions, which are then carried out by Doctors who can't seem to remember facts about their patients.

Re: 2017 'PRO' cycling discussion.

Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:49 pm
by spud
Jess Varnish's suit against British cycling regarding being an employee vs contractor could be a watershed moment in the sport. If she wins, I'm guessing the whole program will be shrunk significantly due to costs associated with insurance, pensions etc.

Re: 2017 'PRO' cycling discussion.

Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:43 pm
by Leviathan
spud wrote:
Wookski wrote:
bilwit wrote:
AJS914 wrote:
I read Sutton's statement and he didn't say that. He specifically said that they didn't cross the line. He said if they were 95% and had a niggling issue and a TUE was available to get them to 100%, he'd use it. His statement is not even newsworthy.


the media headline spin has taken it way out of context and viewership just eats this stuff up, it's pretty hilarious

Finally some common sense. Sutton made no admission beyond using TUE’s to treat sick riders. To extrapolate that into some sort of smoking gun is absurd- as if they’d make it that easy :roll:


Ahh, I see. You are perfectly comfortable with Sutton/Sky determining when an athlete is at only at 95%, and thus eligible for a little helper. Like the one time that I was able to hit 400 watts for 15 minutes, that's my 100%. So now that I can only hit 380, I'm clearly not at 100%, training isn't closing the gap, I must be "sick". So a little Tramadol, or steroid isn't doping, it's just keeping me healthy.

Just to frame things, I've never been, nor will I ever be elite. And I'm not even sure that I believe that some of this shit (salbutamol) works as a PED. But it's remarkable how many of these guys have asthma (I've been sent to the hospital with it) and use this stuff. it is suspicious how some of these directors seem to influence medical decisions, which are then carried out by Doctors who can't seem to remember facts about their patients.

Suttons interview, as so many things in this case, is open to interpretation and hence merely serves to solidify the general publics already entrenched and polarized views. Think Kate Archibald was right to comment that Sutton using the term "marginal gain" in this context was, at least, poorly phrased. What I find more unbelievable, and more of a smoking gun is Dr Freeman continues to not be forced to answer at the UK Commons select committee due to "continued ill health" despite hanging around the track coffee shop, and that the company who supplied BC with testosterone patches "in error" basically told UK sport to bugger off in its inquiries.

Re: 2017 'PRO' cycling discussion.

Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:43 pm
by Weenie

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Re: 2017 'PRO' cycling discussion.

Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:47 pm
by boots2000
I just got an english translated copy of the Thomas Dekker book "Descent".

Seems to me that most/all teams were using cortisone with impunity- The Wiggins/Sutton thing is just internet babble in 2017.

5-10 years ago this would have never surfaced.