‘I got a full-on punch’ says Richie Porte about anti-Sky sentiment on stage 10

And that's where opinions differ and will never agree. A smoking gun proves nothing except that a gun was recently fired and you believe that something is true without evidence or a guilty finding and I choose that all are innocent until proven guilty.
The lack of clarity and dodgy story telling from Team SKY appears to raise enough suspicions for people to ask questions and while we're using smoke, there's no smoke without fire.
As I said earlier, it's interesting.[/quote]

Fear not. I have never accused Nibalu of cheating and I waited until Clenbutador was found to have cheated before forming my opinion. My comments are merely that compared to a positive A sample and several current team mates doping the case against Sky is much weaker and I would suggest even more unfounded. I really don't think there is more than heresay about Sky story telling (did you see them not get hit? Cannot prove that negative). Contador had a banned steroid in his blood stream.

Now, is it right to debate doping and team openess? You bet. Should the most successful riders be under scrutiny? You bet. But I just don't agree that Sky is particularly working to be secretive. If so why is brailsford calling for drug testers in teams? Why did they give all of froomes 2013 data for l'equipe to review? Why did they negotiate and for unrestricted access to the team for david Walsh? Why did they ask for and get more night time testing and more testing in Tenerife? Why did they bother letting the their best DS go when his doping past became clear despite many other teams employing unreformed proven dopers as DS to young riders? Have they got everything spot on? No. But do they look like they are trying harder than most teams? Hell yes. And are they dramatically more open than any of the systematic doping teams of the Armstrong era? You bet.

The dopers won for an era by stealing our admiration and their competitors prize money and glory. Those who assume anyone winning must be cheating hand them a second victory. I think you agree on this as per your not guilty comments. I will assume riders aren't cheating and teams are not evading deliberately until I see hard evidence of cheating. Ie. They get a positive sample or similar. If not then we all might as well go and support one of those other sports that has made much more effort to eradicate systematic doping, like athletics, or football, or baseball, or American football, or tennis....oh, hang on a minute.

Bagsy no return

farrell wrote:

Lets not forget that Sky and Walsh have previous for inventing and fabricating roadside abuse.l

I reckon you must be on shaky ground here. It will be as hard to prove that they definitely made something up that hasn't been filmed as proving it did happen.

Great to see sir Dave proposing drug testers get embedded in teams. Don't see any other teams being as bold as this to prove their legitimacy.

brackley88 wrote:

farrell wrote:

Lets not forget that Sky and Walsh have previous for inventing and fabricating roadside abuse.l

I reckon you must be on shaky ground here. It will be as hard to prove that they definitely made something up that hasn't been filmed as proving it did happen.

So the evidence of several hundred people that were there should be completely ignored because Sky and Walsh say so?

And if there was video footage that proved a rather huge chunk of their bollocks to be, well, bollocks would that suffice for you?

Sky are clever enough to know that they can throw stories out via many media outlets (I guess the clue is in the sponsor) and they will get lapped up as Gospel by many people, if they get pulled up on it they can quietly apologise - "for any offence" but never for the actual act obviously - but the lies get repeated so many times they become accepted as truth.

I'm not anti-Sky cycling, or anti-any Sky riders and I may have even wore a Sky casquette to work this morning, but some of the way they operate leaves a lot to be desired.

brackley88 wrote:

farrell wrote:

Lets not forget that Sky and Walsh have previous for inventing and fabricating roadside abuse.l

I reckon you must be on shaky ground here. It will be as hard to prove that they definitely made something up that hasn't been filmed as proving it did happen.

So the evidence of several hundred people that were there should be completely ignored because Sky and Walsh say so?

And if there was video footage that proved a rather huge chunk of their bollocks to be, well, bollocks would that suffice for you?

Sky are clever enough to know that they can throw stories out via many media outlets (I guess the clue is in the sponsor) and they will get lapped up as Gospel by many people, if they get pulled up on it they can quietly apologise - "for any offence" but never for the actual act obviously - but the lies get repeated so many times they become accepted as truth.

I'm not anti-Sky cycling, or anti-any Sky riders and I may have even wore a Sky casquette to work this morning, but some of the way they operate leaves a lot to be desired.

djfleming22 wrote:

I dont know about anyone else but i would hate for my children to read all the comments going on about people punching riders and throwing urine over them and nothing being done about it... the children are the ones we hope will look up too us, respect us and follow us in our sports and dreams... this just appalling behavior..

On another point Europcar are now leaving cycling and that team is looking for new a sponsor, would you put your money into a team for it to be treated this way.. these people need to wake up because before you know it the sponsors will have left and so will the children..

Best get them interested in athletics now. Piss and punches won't affect them there.
#Naïve

don simon wrote:

Quote:

So anyone here able to prove wrong doing? No of course you can't.

yet that didn't stop people calling Contador a doper before he was officially found guilty, or still calling him a doper or cheat in spite of him serving time and having no evidence.
Or the accusations against Astana and Nibali.

Funny old world, innit?

Hmm.. Perhaps not the best choice for proving your point since Contador was banned for doping as were several members of team Astana only recently!

don simon wrote:

Quote:

So anyone here able to prove wrong doing? No of course you can't.

yet that didn't stop people calling Contador a doper before he was officially found guilty, or still calling him a doper or cheat in spite of him serving time and having no evidence.
Or the accusations against Astana and Nibali.

Funny old world, innit?

I would argue that having a positive A sample reported (contador) and several team mates, including one who supported you to win the tour, test positive during the period you are in the same team (nibali) is significantly more of a smoking gun than riding with a high cadence and being better than others. If we assume success to be a de facto positive test I may have to reconsider my rarely successful efforts to get strava KOMs. And to move cat 4 to 3.

Chuffy wrote:

Some journalists and pundits are very willing to stir the pot, but back off in horror if anyone suggests that their comments might be feeding this ugly behaviour. It's the kind of disingenuous crap that the Daily Mail would be proud of...

Are these the same journalists that were stirring the pot for the likes of Armstrong and Contador?
Just sayin'.
As far as physical attacks- there is no place for that anywhere.
Booing is a little childish, but as Froome has demonstrated you can laugh it off or as Porte says that when challenged these people aren't even sure what they're actually booing or commenting on.
I think that the whole SKY thing is interesting this year and Team SKY aren't doing themselves any favours with their secrecy and leaks/hacks etc.

don simon wrote:

Chuffy wrote:

Some journalists and pundits are very willing to stir the pot, but back off in horror if anyone suggests that their comments might be feeding this ugly behaviour. It's the kind of disingenuous crap that the Daily Mail would be proud of...

Are these the same journalists that were stirring the pot for the likes of Armstrong and Contador?
Just sayin'.
As far as physical attacks- there is no place for that anywhere.
Booing is a little childish, but as Froome has demonstrated you can laugh it off or as Porte says that when challenged these people aren't even sure what they're actually booing or commenting on.
I think that the whole SKY thing is interesting this year and Team SKY aren't doing themselves any favours with their secrecy and leaks/hacks etc.

Firstly, no they are not the same journos who pursued armstrong. For example, David Walsh was given unrestricted access to Team Sky for a week...read his book. He got to clean the bus, speak to everyone without any supervision, look through the rubbish...go everywhere....so no, they are not all the same people.

Secondly, what secrecy? Not showing your power data from your training is the only thing I think you can point at, and you want to know why? Well...think about it, from the power data you can construct their entire training session plans...intensity, timing, recovery time, everything....and they have spent years working with Tim Kerrison and others to develop an unrivalled approach to conditioning athletes. Seriously, where else is the secrecy? They are open to speak to the press...they answer questions on doping every day without the 'I pity those who won't believe' rubbish. You can go ride with them. Froome asked for more night time testing and complained he was not tested enough in Tenerife. He has said he will be available for independent testing after the tour. He was the only rider to allow himself to be named as a witness in the CIRC enquiry (did I get the acronym right?).

Seriously....what else do you want? be specific.

The training data that most others don't release? (and yes, I know some do). Jeez..if we know froomes weight we can calculate his power reasonably accurately anyway...

That said, they should continue to be prepared to answer all questions about doping with openness and understanding of why they will always be asked....and it is a price of success to do that without getting pissed off.

brackley88 wrote:

The training data that most others don't release? (and yes, I know some do). Jeez..if we know froomes weight we can calculate his power reasonably accurately anyway...

and it was shown that the estimates by the likes of Dr Ferrari were accurate against the leaked data. The same people that Brailsford called 'pseudoscience'.

What we are missing are his Vo2 figures and it is laughable to suggest Sky never test for them. Do that test and then people will know

I listened to last night's Cycling Podcast and found Richie's words saddening. This is what the pseudo-scientists, the spiteful journalists and twitter/forum haters have helped create

ianrobo wrote:

What we are missing are his Vo2 figures and it is laughable to suggest Sky never test for them. Do that test and then people will know

I don't recall a single post of yours making these remarks about any other competitor, not even those who are known to have tested +ve. Pathetic.

Abuse of Sky includes cup of piss, hurled drinks can, one rider punched, two spat on. It's not unprecedented but no less appalling for that

— Matt Dickinson (@DickinsonTimes) July 18, 2015

Friends of yours?

Let me know your number in the next sportive and I will pop across and throw piss at you and punch you hard. I'm sure you'll understand.