[daddyELVIS]

Watch the whole video of an interview with Sky’s performance guru, or forward to just before the 5.00 minutes where his body language and speech patterns suddenly change (in response to a certain question!).

For all the Sky fanboys out there, forget he’s Sky, and forget they are the ‘best of British’ – what is your over-riding feeling from 5.00 onwards?

Truth or Lie?

Topic

[Super Domestique]

Interesting article in this
Interesting article in this month’s Cyclist on the subject of Team Sky.

Also comments on the Cycle Show on Monday night.

[mooleur]

Some Fella wrote:daddyELVIS

Some Fella wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

And my opinion is that Froome’s performances cannot be fully explained by marginal gains.

Yes – you are correct – Froome’s performances cannot be fully explained by marginal gains.
But they can be explained by natural raw talent, hard graft, excellent training methods, a formidable and proven team behind him, the shortcomings of his rivals now they have been forced to race clean, the shortcomings of teams who are perhaps a year or more behind Sky in regards their methods and tactics *and* marginal gains.

No disrespect but if you are looking for dopers you are pissing up the wrong tree.

^^^ +1 – well said that.

I’m not a huge fan of Team Sky (bar the fact that we’ve a Manxie and some honorary Manxies in there) – but it’s quite obvious they have a brilliant knack for selecting raw talent and mixing that with some of the best coaching methods in the world.

Raaaaggghhhh at the sceptics! >.< Being better than people who dope only means you're better than people who suck, it doesn't necessarily mean you're cheating too.

[notfastenough]

No, no he isn’t the best
No, no he isn’t the best rider ever. He (and especially the team) had good days and bad days, but he was smart enough to peak for the start, so he had his good days while the others were still riding themselves into form. By the time they had that form, he’d sewn it up.

Don’t know why I’m even bothering responding, I don’t think you’re willing to listen to anything that you disagree with.

[Hector Ch]

To me, in the video, the guy
To me, in the video, the guy is “dancing” the whole time, licking his lips, pausing mid-sentence etc. The questions leading up to 5:00 are things he’s familiar with.

At 5:05, when the doping question is asked, he does take a swallow and pauses, stutters a bit trying to find what to say. Looks more like someone whose mind went blank when asked “the big question”.

Notice the interviewer asked a trick question.. He didn’t ask about Sky and doping, rather cycling and doping…

To me it looks like he’s just nervous as hell about being interviewed and then someone asks the “tough question” and the mind goes blank.. I’ve had this before personally.

[daddyELVIS]

Ok, I give up. Agree with
Ok, I give up. Agree with Kimmage – Froome is the best rider ever. That’s the only explanation, right?

[Cycle_Jim]

Kerrison is the reason that I
Kerrison is the reason that I believe sky are drug free. If it comes out that they are doping I will be sorely disappointed purely because the next gen of cyclists will be crushed as there heroes aren’t who they claim to be

[daddyELVIS]

Gotta say, Sky are standing
Gotta say, Sky are standing up well to the doping questions this year, a couple of wobbles from Froome, but all the ‘right noises’ from DB. His suggestions of TUE transparency is a good one, but releasing data files on power, etc to WADA is next to useless. If they are truly clean, then they need to be truly transparent – release blood profiles and other test results for each rider (all year round). They should lead the way, and other teams who don’t follow will then be accused of being dopers instead of Sky.

[700c]

Not fair!
Very few people in
Not fair!

Very few people in the UK are crying foul after Andy Murray’s great Wimbledon victory this year, so why should everyone be on Frome’s back after his great stage wins so far in the TDF.

I completely understand some scepticism for historical reasons, but when the testing regime is so much more rigorous in cycling than in, for example tennis, and team sky so upfront about their training and performance, why it’s frustrating that cycling gets singled out in this way.

I know this is always going to happen after the legacy of LA, and others, plus UCI’s previously dubious policing of the sport, but it does get my goat!

I’d say ours much more likely for British sportsmen in, say, athletics, to be found guilty of doping today, than it is for British cyclists.. 😉

[MattT53]

http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog
http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/7449/funny/simply-impossible-levels-of-journalistic-drivel/

[Some Fella]

daddyELVIS wrote: And my

daddyELVIS wrote:

And my opinion is that Froome’s performances cannot be fully explained by marginal gains.

Yes – you are correct – Froome’s performances cannot be fully explained by marginal gains.
But they can be explained by natural raw talent, hard graft, excellent training methods, a formidable and proven team behind him, the shortcomings of his rivals now they have been forced to race clean, the shortcomings of teams who are perhaps a year or more behind Sky in regards their methods and tactics *and* marginal gains.

No disrespect but if you are looking for dopers you are pissing up the wrong tree.

[daddyELVIS]

Super Domestique

Super Domestique wrote:

However I posted this in the comments on today’s stage in the news section and it seems relevant.

One thing I don’t get with all those so quick to shout ‘drugs’ at every win, etc
Why bother watching if it’s all doom and gloom?
posted by Super Domestique [1228 posts] 14th July 2013 – 18:43

I watch the sport because I love it. Not all doom n gloom for me, and my view on doping is quite broad-minded. I just can’t stand DB’s BS on the subject, and his BS has little contribution to the anti-doping debate. And my opinion is that Froome’s performances cannot be fully explained by marginal gains.

[Super Domestique]

I don’t think I should have
I don’t think I should have bothered posting above but I’ll leave it out of politeness. Clearly we differ in view.

However I posted this in the comments on today’s stage in the news section and it seems relevant.

One thing I don’t get with all those so quick to shout ‘drugs’ at every win, etc
Why bother watching if it’s all doom and gloom?
posted by Super Domestique [1228 posts] 14th July 2013 – 18:43

[The Rumpo Kid]

Super Domestique wrote:1) Tea

Super Domestique wrote:

1) Tea stop says ‘non-bike’ related stuff. This is clearly bike related.

2) that comment makes no sense.

3) I was bored by the point being missed.

My final comment was just showing that I knew ‘why’ you’d posted. However, the classic ‘tongue poke’ (I counted 2) is a sign of dislike. According to body language experts this stems from childhood and being fed food we didn’t like the taste of.

Just FYI… According to Social Anthropologists, poking out the tongue is the closest thing to the genital diplay of our Ape cousins that we clothed Humans have.

[Super Domestique]

1) Tea stop says ‘non-bike’
1) Tea stop says ‘non-bike’ related stuff. This is clearly bike related.

2) that comment makes no sense.

3) I was bored by the point being missed.

My final comment was just showing that I knew ‘why’ you’d posted. However, the classic ‘tongue poke’ (I counted 2) is a sign of dislike. According to body language experts this stems from childhood and being fed food we didn’t like the taste of.

[daddyELVIS]

Super Domestique wrote:1) so

Super Domestique wrote:

1) so biking content then.

2) so either all are doping at the top of GC or none are. That is what you are saying, right?

3) yawn.

I will agree he didn’t look comfortable BTW, although most in cycling don’t do except David Millar when talking on it tbh.

1) mainly doping related. Not sure where that goes. No ‘Clinic’ here.

2)Maybe, there’s a good chance. But that is not my point. You don’t know my stance on the doping / anti-doping debate – it may surprise you.

3)looks like you saw the error of your argument there 😉

[Author]

Replies