Right to be cynical about Sky

bikeboy76 wrote:Why are you

bikeboy76 wrote:

Why are you guys even watching this? 8}

watched cycling long before Sky arrived, and will watch long after they’ve gone. Doping will always play it’s part – I accepted that long ago! The difference here is when the shit-storm hits, the fallout will be massive (much bigger than when LA was popped!).

Why are you guys even
Why are you guys even watching this? 8}

We need to stop living in the
We need to stop living in the past. There is nothing wrong with remembering what has happened in history, otherwise we will never learn. But we can’t tarnish the current generation for what their predecessors did.

The sport of cycling needs to heal but it never will with the constant scab picking that some of the media and so called fans insist on doing. It is quite right that we seek to squeeze known cheats out from the sport, Astana & Vino are a case in point, so focus your energy on them. But the almost constant witch hunt for certain riders and teams that have never failed any sort of testing needs to stop.

It is as damaging to the sport to keep accusing innocent parties of cheating as it is actually having cheats in the game.

I’m no fanboy before that gets thrown at me. I like Team Sky and the way they brought the marginal gains thought process in to cycling. They have certainly created a more professional environment, and one that is now being copied by other teams. You will also find me cheering on other teams or riders that embrace the good things about cycling and a sport that can be such a joy to be part of.

Stop the hating or go find another sport.

Would this be the same Froome
Would this be the same Froome that was tested after every stage that he held the yellow jersey? And the same Froome that has never failed a drug test?

Just checking.

(Now waiting for the comments regarding the ‘missed’ drugs test must be a sign of guilt).

ianrobo wrote:Because EPO

ianrobo wrote:

Because EPO puts a different slant on it ? This was not a BP violation it was EPO use and there was a cover up.

If you read the full decision it’s crystal clear it was an ABP violation, and the conclusion was that the value were consistent with EPO use.

http://www.ukad.org.uk/anti-doping-rule-violations/download-decision/a/6605

Moreover, the period when the suspicious values were recorded was before JTL joined Sky.

My best guess is that because the UKAD database doesn’t have a field for ABP (look at the substance search dropdown box on the left of the violations page), whoever keyed in the data used the closest field available – EPO.

The face he was sanctioned isn’t really indicative of a “cover-up.”

If there was a cover-up, why did he get sanctioned?

If he’d tested positive for EPO – which is what you seem to be claiming – it would have been much easier to establish that as grounds for the sanction, rather than the ABP which as we’ve seen, including in this case, often results in a lengthy and costly legal battle.

It’s healthy to be sceptical, but looking for a conspiracy where in all likelihood none exists helps no-one.

ianrobo wrote:JTL was banned

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 ?

Colin Peyresourde wrote:The

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.