So who won the tour from 1999 to 2005
2 lurkers |
80 watchers
Jul 2018
1:57pm, 6 Jul 2018
12,993 posts
|
Chrisull
This from Ross Tucker is very good - sure larks would beg to differ, but bottom line we can't just trust given recent history and we expect more transparency from Sky: sportsscientists.com |
Jul 2018
2:01pm, 6 Jul 2018
5,204 posts
|
larkim
Indeed you are correct - drivel as far as I'm concerned!
|
|
Jul 2018
2:18pm, 6 Jul 2018
12,994 posts
|
Chrisull
I'm not sure what you're objecting to here, he just says he expects better and that doping still continues: "There is also concern that under pressure from improved testing methods, doping behaviour has evolved. 2015’s CIRC report described the ‘medicalization’ of the sport. This confirmed what anti-doping expert Michael Ashenden warned when he said “…there are pockets of organised, highly sophisticated dopers, even within ‘new age’ cycling teams. Personally, I don’t accept that the ‘dark era’ has ended, it has just morphed into a new guise.” His words were echoed by Gert Leinders, a disgraced doping doctor who was hired by Team Sky, allegedly unaware of his doping past. His language was more provocative: “Think of it as shedding your skin. The snake gets a new skin, but underneath it remains the same snake. He takes his past and his problems along with him into the present”." and that Sky are not being transparent: "The most recent example concerns the assertions of Froome and Sky that the “facts are out there” regarding his controversially closed salbutamol case. This is false. We have very few facts. And Sky will not release them, instead saying that the UCI or WADA can explain the decision." |
|
Jul 2018
2:26pm, 6 Jul 2018
5,205 posts
|
larkim
But all of that is absent evidence. He believes Sky are dirty - though he has zero evidence on which to base that view. He believes others give accurate accounts of their accusations - without evidence. His is a faith based opinion on doping in pro cycling, but because he is a "scientist" and writes articulately he has established a cult following. Show me the evidence please!!! |
|
Jul 2018
3:38pm, 6 Jul 2018
12,996 posts
|
Chrisull
The evidence is history. Before Froome Carlos Sastre and Cadel Evans are currently the only two clean winners from the last 25 years (Wiggins TUE disqualifies him for me) . It really isn't faith based. Mine is called probability based. On the probability of the last 25 years! There are top 10s full of confessed and caught cheats. The entire US Postal team doped. Sky promised transparency. They failed to deliver. They employed a disgraced drug cheat doctor. They exploited TUEs. They employed riders who failed drugs tests in the past despite saying they'd never do that. It takes faith to believe they are clean. |
|
Jul 2018
4:22pm, 6 Jul 2018
5,206 posts
|
larkim
History is history. If Froome is the first and only clean winner of the TdF, your analysis wouldn't allow for that probability. But I agree it is faith based on all sides. I am certain I know less about the subject than Tucker does, and it wouldn't surprise me if I knew less than you do Chris! Specifically around Froome, I cannot conceive that someone as tested as him winning the title's he has won could possibly circumvent the current WADA systems without a conspiracy so deep and so large that it could not have a hope of avoiding detection. I believe (faithfully!) that things absolutely are different today than they were 10 years ago, so the old truths about "everyone doing it" are long gone. There are insiders who say that is so (and outsiders who claim that it is wrong). e.g. theguardian.com Where people like Tucker do a good job is keeping the sport on its toes. I do believe though that sometimes this creeps into vendettas and over-stepping the line where they deviate from their reputations for being fact-based, so articles like Tucker's one which are (in summary) saying "Armstrong doped, so Froome must be at it too unless he shows an itemised list of everything he's eaten or consumed in the last 12 years with accompanying video proof for every 24 hours of every day since he's been with Sky" are over the top. |
|
Jul 2018
10:01am, 7 Jul 2018
12,997 posts
|
Chrisull
But Tucker has never specifically said that. In fact he's always maintained Froome's performances are credible, but right on the edge of credibility. Froome of course has missed 2 drugs tests in a year in the past. The current tests still aren't good enough, we know that. The "Death of Marco Pantani" by Matt Rendell is really good at explaining why past tests were a joke and current tests, while better, are inadequate. These days it will be micro-dosing of EPO, which will be undetectable, and possibly even gene doping. It'll be cocktails of grey area drugs and small amounts of very illegal ones.
|
|
Jul 2018
11:43am, 9 Jul 2018
13,015 posts
|
Chrisull
Ok larks, so how about this article from Paul Kimmage then: independent.ie |
Jul 2018
6:24pm, 9 Jul 2018
948 posts
|
SailorSteve
Apposite article as far as I’m concerned Chris. Spot on. Remember that old saw about the probability of a chimpanzee typing a Shakespeare play? |
|
Jul 2018
6:25pm, 9 Jul 2018
949 posts
|
SailorSteve
And then the Complete Works......
|
Related Threads
-
Cheating in amateur sports
Apr 2017
-
Are you doping? Do you know someone who is?
Mar 2017
-
Tour De France
Aug 2020
-
Le Tour 2016
Jul 2016
-
Tour de France 2016
Jun 2016
-
T\'Tour in otley
Apr 2016
-
Le Tour 2015
Aug 2015
-
Le Tour 2014
Jun 2015
-
Tour of Britain
Jan 2015
-
Womens Tour Of Britain
May 2014
