Do you think Sky is cheating?

[CunegoFan]

[QUOTE=bicycletricycle;2205444
I guess I might be starting some **** with this thread, I swear I am not trying to troll or anything. I am genuinely curious about everyone's opinion. What do you guys think about team sky and doping, specifically do you think Froome and Wiggins doped/dope.[/QUOTE]

The question about Wiggins has been definitively answered: Bogus TUEs that did not meet at least three out of all four required WADA criteria given to the UCI knowing they would be rubber stamped while relying on Cookson to excuse it if anything came to light. It was the exact same playbook that has been used for decades to cover up corticosteroid use during a race.

[Fivethumbs]

Who here remembers Sky in its first year? Having such a big-money company getting into cycling was huge. Unfortunately they seriously under-achieved as their results were much less than was was expected of them. As a result they were not treated so nicely by the press. It created a lot of pressure on that team. How did they turn it around? I don't know but it sure looks very Postal-like. If you remember, from 1996-1998 U.S. Postal was nothing to write home about, even with Tyler Hamilton and Andy Hampsten.

[sfscott]

Just a thought. They have the strongest team for the GC and make the fewest tactical mistakes. Unlike, say Astana. Or BMC.

It also helps that Porte crashed out and so called challengers like Quintana and Contador don't have it.

But really. If Astana had a clue and stopped working for Froome, Aru might have had a shot.

[54ny77]

Here's the statistics on cheating in cycling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjvQFtlNQ-M

[holliscx]

The only thing we know with absolute certainty is that Jens Voigt never doped

[rustychisel]

Originally Posted by holliscx

The only thing we know with absolute certainty is that Jens Voigt never doped

why?

[holliscx]

Originally Posted by rustychisel

why?

I was being facetious suggest otherwise to anyone who's ever stepped foot near the peloton and they'll laugh your face off

[rustychisel]

aha. We appear to be on the same page, then.

[Cicli]

They all are. Some are better than others is all.
I hear its happened in the past as well.

[Jgrooms]

methinks thou dost protest too much?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brai...ws-journalist/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jumphigher]

I've read many books lately on the TDF, and coming from a shop backround in the 80's, I have to admit I'm pretty cynical about teams riding clean. Just doesnt seem possible at the level of the grand tours to ride/win without help. Personally I just accept it and enjoy the riders for what they are - great athletes.

[Joachim]

I would like to see anyone that says that Sky is doping, come forward with which substances they are 'allegedly' using and how they are avoiding the tests for said substances. Come with scientific facts. Otherwise it's just bar talk and letting subjective feelings about a team determine your opinion on doping. Might as well change this thread to 'Cyclingnews - Clinic' then and add to their crazy talk..

[jlwdm]

Sky has the largest budget. One thing I just read is that Sky does not develop talent. They buy already developed talent. I had not thought about this.

Also like Lance's teams they are totally committed to winning the Tour. No sprinter. No one getting in breaks to try to win a stage. No one trying to get the polka dot jersey with 2 points in an early stage. No green jersey chasers. There is only one prize. It is all about the team.

Jeff

[chiasticon]

while I don't honestly care, I will say that if they are doping, then those that leave their team clearly continue to do so. I say that because look at guys like Uran or Porte that were on Sky and now aren't, but who are still quite capable GC contenders.

my guess is, at the very least, they're pushing the limits of what's within the rules, just like everyone else.

[ColonelJLloyd]

Sports doping in the 60s, 70s and 80s was more interesting than it is today.