"PRO" Cycling Discussion

Questions about bike hire abroad and everything light bike related. No off-topic chat please

Moderator: Moderator Team

wingguy
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

KB wrote:I've said it before, there's a world of difference between saying 'i've never failed a dope test' as opposed to what Froome has said.


I'm not saying this in an anti-Froome way at all, but seriously, you people have got to let go of the canard that Armstrong only ever said he 'hadn't failed a test'. It's complete bollocks. Armstrong said many times, straight up, that he had never doped. The idea that committed dopers will draw the line at saying they don't dope, or that you can tell who's doping by how they handle the question 'are you doping?' is utter nonsense.

User avatar
MattSoutherden
Posts: 1378
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:22 pm
Location: London

by MattSoutherden

Ah yes, the great times of Hinault. A pro for 3 years and never even rode a grand tour. Then won 2 in one year.
Snacking on carrot sticks - Where did it all go so wrong?
-
Finsbury Park CC

by Weenie


KB
Posts: 3889
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 12:32 pm
Location: HULLGARIA UK

by KB

wingguy wrote:
KB wrote:I've said it before, there's a world of difference between saying 'i've never failed a dope test' as opposed to what Froome has said.


I'm not saying this in an anti-Froome way at all, but seriously, you people have got to let go of the canard that Armstrong only ever said he 'hadn't failed a test'. It's complete bollocks.

I never mentioned Armstrong by name; there's plenty of others who have used that epithet.

User avatar
tymon_tm
Posts: 2431
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:35 pm

by tymon_tm

KB wrote:Agree. There's been some pretty offensive stuff on here over the last year regarding Sky

(...)

I've said it before, there's a world of difference between saying 'i've never failed a dope test' as opposed to what Froome has said. So, for me I'll accept his result until WADA or some other agency with clout come up with evidence to suggest his results are not physically possible for an undoped rider.


the way i see it, is that for years, the governing bodies, agencies and so on haven't done anything to make cycling even remotely clean. that is if you call random suspensions, not followed by any proper investigation, a job well done. if it wasn't for Tygart's (personal?) crusade, Armstrong would still remain officially clean. remember that there was a federal investigation launched that came with nothing, nada, null.

IMO it's naive to think there's a room for trust in the system, where an athlete can get away with over a decade of undisturbed doping practices, a massive evidence is being destroyed, and those who choose to play fair, like Jaksche, are being exiled.

the lack of trust that we experience now is, of course, one of major consequences of Armstrong's fall. many fans feel deluded not by Lance himself, but the way his case was mishandled by authorities.
Last edited by tymon_tm on Mon Jul 22, 2013 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.

airwise
Posts: 1049
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:31 pm

by airwise

MattSoutherden wrote:So, basically, he improved year on year from when he turned pro?

2010 he was injured. Oh no, wait. That was all a front wasn't it.



There are some who will never change their bigoted positions.

It's gone along the lines of.

Ah but Sky employ Leinders - so they dispense with his services.

Ah! But they have Yates! - so they dispense with his services.

Ah but what about Rogers? - so they dispense with his services.

Ah but Wiggins came from nowhere - four times Olympic Gold Medallist and former GT contender.

Ah but Froome came from nowhere - all cyclists do at some point.

But he finished 84th (or something) - so do most domestiques.

Ah but they aren't being transparent - Walsh is embedded with them.

Ah but we haven't seen the data! - so they hand it over to an expert and offer it to others.

Ah but the data doesn't go back far enough. OH FFS F*** Off and get a life....

Pharmstrong
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:17 pm

by Pharmstrong

airwise, you forgot the classic,

"Ah but you're British and therefore totally blinkered by national bias"

KB
Posts: 3889
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 12:32 pm
Location: HULLGARIA UK

by KB

Tymon - Fair enough; it's right to be sceptical, but a lot of the comments on here have already decided that because Armstrong and just everyone from that era was on the juice, then all the present riders must be the same. That's not been skeptical, it's accusatory.

KB
Posts: 3889
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 12:32 pm
Location: HULLGARIA UK

by KB

Pharmstrong wrote:airwise, you forgot the classic,

"Ah but you're British and therefore totally blinkered by national bias"

So, what more do you expect Sky to do to win your confidence that they are clean?

Pharmstrong
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:17 pm

by Pharmstrong

KB wrote:
Pharmstrong wrote:airwise, you forgot the classic,

"Ah but you're British and therefore totally blinkered by national bias"

So, what more do you expect Sky to do to win your confidence that they are clean?


Oh, no. I'm British too. I think Sky, and Froome are clean.

ghisallo2003
Posts: 600
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 7:10 pm

by ghisallo2003

For those who believe that current riders are clean, are there any names from the late 90s that would shake your confidence? Are there any 'clean' riders with impeccable reputations, who, should they test retrospectively positively, would make you think again?

I think it is only rational for people to question after years of doping, and unfortunately it is exceptionally hard for Sky to say or indeed do anything that has not been said or done in the past. So we are rational to question and to frankly ignore much of what is said and done now.

As DB said, what can we do? Well he has not done many of the things along the way that were asked of him, and is not doing so now. He has not explained what happened with Sean Yates, not released power or blood values over a meaningful time period and not released to a wider audience. He has not allowed access to wider press.

Frankly in the absence of any verifiable data, and the difficultly of proving a negative, it all comes down to faith.

For me, I think that a cynical approach which attributes widespread cheating to human nature has been right for about 18 of the last 20 years...

User avatar
tymon_tm
Posts: 2431
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:35 pm

by tymon_tm

wow, first time i heard about it: :shock:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cas-rul ... not-doping" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

if it means anything, it's that athletes won't stop pursuing currently legal doping practices in order to win. funny how this news emerges in the heat of discussion whether Tour's been won cleanly

the answer most probably is: it's been won legally :thumbup:
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.

wingguy
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

KB wrote:
wingguy wrote:
KB wrote:I've said it before, there's a world of difference between saying 'i've never failed a dope test' as opposed to what Froome has said.


I'm not saying this in an anti-Froome way at all, but seriously, you people have got to let go of the canard that Armstrong only ever said he 'hadn't failed a test'. It's complete bollocks.

I never mentioned Armstrong by name; there's plenty of others who have used that epithet.


OK then, I don't think there is any proven doper who only ever said "I've never failed a test" and you could easily find examples of Froome or Wiggins pointing out that they haven't failed tests. It doesn't mean anything. Dopers will say they've never doped and they've never failed tests, non-dopers will say they've never doped and they've never failed test.

(And an epithet is a name or description, not just a common phrase. :smartass: )

User avatar
kbbpll
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:56 am

by kbbpll

I think a large number of people became Armstrong fans, not cycling fans. At least in the US. Yesterday a front page article on CBS News was a group of donors suing Livestrong. There was no mention of the Tour in the article despite the fact that the final stage was in progress. I found that quite irritating. Unfortunately the awareness of pro cycling among the masses in the US has disappeared along with Armstrong, except for any new gossip about the fallen doper.

Pharmstrong
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:17 pm

by Pharmstrong

ghisallo2003 wrote:As DB said, what can we do? Well he has not done many of the things along the way that were asked of him, and is not doing so now.


The thing is top level sport is as much business as it is competition. Sky are clearly preparing their athletes better, so for Sky to answer every question, to reveal every method is tantamount to doing their competitors R&D for them.

by Weenie


User avatar
kbbpll
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:56 am

by kbbpll

tymon_tm - I'm curious what UV blood treatment was supposed to do, considering that they ruled that it does not increase oxygen transfer.

Locked
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post