Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1000 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 24, 2012
71
0
0
Graham_S said:
The only other people I have seen put quotation mark around the word “science” like that were trying to convince me the world was 6,000 years old.
As much as I enjoy the comparison to the new earth nonsense, the main difference to me seems to be that here in these discussions science gets abused by both sides of the argument. As a bonus the 'sport scientist' generally seem to demand the right not be able to say much of anything about the subject of doping. And while I do agree that anyone 100% in this discussion can probably be ignored, I doubt you have issues with people who are 100% sure the world is older than 6000 years. Even if it would be more correct to go with 99.999...%.

Anyway, I'm no use to your actual question. As absurd as the discussion is at times, following the whole mess as it happens is a fairly big reason for my own opinions and doubts. It's like following the (un)happy marriage of cycling & doping through tabloid journalism. Nobody knows for sure what is going on and sometimes timing feels more important than the things being said. And there's no guarantees that we'll ever find out one way or the other.
 
Jan 8, 2014
68
0
0
Wow, thanks for all the responses. A lot there to digest. Everything I had previously read suggested cyclists were left to themselves for too much of their training.

Second thing that bothers me is the omerta thing, I understand how it worked before... say.... 2010ish as so many Journalists and fans were prepared to proactively turn a blind eye. But now? There are a lot of journalists who would love to blow Sky apart and a lot of cycling fans ready to listen. If there were obvious holes in the bilharzia then I would expect to see interviews with the world expert in the parasite splashed accross every website and sportspage, it's be a carreer maker. But all we get are anonymous people in forums. Same with getting the scoop from any ex-sky employee, carreer maker.

How many people would be in the know and be keeping quiet for Sky to be running an organised doping program? I imagine there would be serious money in the book deal for whoever spilled the beans first.


p.s For the guy who didn't realise, was being toungue in cheek about Quintana, his performance at such a young age was if anything more impressive than Froome's.
 
Dec 30, 2011
3,547
0
0
Graham_S said:
Wow, thanks for all the responses. A lot there to digest. Everything I had previously read suggested cyclists were left to themselves for too much of their training.
That depends on the team. I have mentioned reading some scary articles from BMC riders about their training regimes and the laid back nature of it. David Millar has also spoken about it. However, Movistar have been much better and most other teams are fast jumping on the bandwagon, including now also BMC considering the interviews they have done this season. Nevertheless one thing which can't be disputed is that Sky were first to monitor and scrutinise their rider's training intensely.

It will be interesting to see how the arms race now evolves with other team's catching on, but what is for sure is that Sky have a significant head start.
 
Mar 12, 2009
2,527
0
0
Froome19 said:
It will be interesting to see how the arms race now evolves with other team's catching on, but what is for sure is that Sky have a significant head start.
Sky's results (in stage races) improved dramatically after they brought in Dr. Leinders.

Now riddle me that.
 
Jan 8, 2014
68
0
0
peloton said:
Sky's results (in stage races) improved dramatically after they brought in Dr. Leinders.

Now riddle me that.
They were a young team that improved quickly over just a couple of years, fairly reasponable time scale to get over teething problems. Bit desperate to try to pin it all on Leinders.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
peloton said:
Sky's results (in stage races) improved dramatically after they brought in Dr. Leinders.

Now riddle me that.
Can just imagine him saying this 'Christoper/Bradley you are a great rider, you have the potential to be a champion you just have to be more healthy and professional' ;)
 
Jan 8, 2014
68
0
0
SundayRider said:
Is this 2001?? Change Sky to USPS and Froome to Armstrong and we are right back thirteen years!
Yes. Back with a dominant team that is innocent until proven guilty. But with a lot more people looking for mud to sling but not finding anything beyond a handfull of employees with dodgey pasts.
 
Jan 8, 2014
68
0
0
romnom said:
As much as I enjoy the comparison to the new earth nonsense
Thank you, I was very pleased with myself for that.

romnom said:
And there's no guarantees that we'll ever find out one way or the other.
Sadly true, but I didn't have some faith in the current generation I riders I wouldn't be able watch pro cycling.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
Graham_S said:
Yes. Back with a dominant team that is innocent until proven guilty. But with a lot more people looking for mud to sling but not finding anything beyond a handfull of employees with dodgey pasts.
Wiggins breakout performance in 2009 Tour de France, look at all the riders who finished either just in front or behind him, how can you possibly believe that was done squeaky clean? Especially since prior to that Wiggins had never ever shown any ability (beyond riding in the gruppetto) at challenging at Grand tour level.Wiggins was 29 years old in 2009 also.
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
well

SundayRider said:
Especially since prior to that Wiggins had never ever shown any ability (beyond riding in the gruppetto) at challenging at Grand tour level.Wiggins was 29 years old in 2009 also.
what do olympic gold medals mean to anyone anyway.........completely
overated!

Mark L
 
Jan 8, 2014
68
0
0
SundayRider said:
Wiggins breakout performance in 2009 Tour de France, look at all the riders who finished either just in front or behind him, how can you possibly believe that was done squeaky clean? Especially since prior to that Wiggins had never ever shown any ability (beyond riding in the gruppetto) at challenging at Grand tour level.Wiggins was 29 years old in 2009 also.
2009 was the year he lost a load of weight, previously he still looked like a track rider. If he had just been competing on the road for 10 years and came good at 29 you would have a point, but I think you are deliberately ignoring the obvious (although I am sure you think it is me ignoring the obvious!).
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Graham_S said:
2009 was the year he lost a load of weight, previously he still looked like a track rider. If he had just been competing on the road for 10 years and came good at 29 you would have a point, but I think you are deliberately ignoring the obvious (although I am sure you think it is me ignoring the obvious!).
Damn it, why didnt anyone tell Riis and Armstrong about this? If only they knew that losing weight can make one of the worst climbers in the peloton into one of the best in 1 year they could have won clean too.
 
Jun 22, 2009
334
0
0
Graham_S said:
was being toungue in cheek about Quintana, his performance at such a young age was if anything more impressive than Froome's.
Really, ya think? Honestly, the same is true of most of the peloton.
 
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Graham_S said:
Yes. Back with a dominant team that is innocent until proven guilty. But with a lot more people looking for mud to sling but not finding anything beyond a handfull of employees with dodgey pasts.
They may be 'innocent' as regards sanctions- but that does not mean they do not dope.

The handful of employees with a dodgy past is actually a very good place to start - particularly when Team Sky said they had no plans on ever hiring such people.
 
Wiggins became good because the peloton became clean.

2009 tour de France
1 Contador - doping
2
3 Lance Armstrong doping
4 Wiggins
5 Frank Schleck - doping
6 Andreas Kloeden - doping
7
8 Kreuziger - doping

KOM Delfino - doping

Crashed out contenders
Levi Leipheimer - doping
Denis Menchov - doping.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
Graham_S said:
2009 was the year he lost a load of weight, previously he still looked like a track rider. If he had just been competing on the road for 10 years and came good at 29 you would have a point, but I think you are deliberately ignoring the obvious (although I am sure you think it is me ignoring the obvious!).
Armstrong and Ullrich looked like track riders all of their careers didn't do them much harm. Even at their racing weights they were arguably bigger built than Wiggins was during his track years.
 
Jan 8, 2014
68
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
The handful of employees with a dodgy past is actually a very good place to start - particularly when Team Sky said they had no plans on ever hiring such people.
Yep, good place to start. But it is getting old now and hasn't really turned up anything substantial to suggest these guys were up to their old tricks.

I think it is clear that the sponsors believe in the recruitment policy more than the team do. Team seem more focused on the now than the past.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
ebandit said:
what do olympic gold medals mean to anyone anyway.........completely
overated!

Mark L
Not sure if your being sarcastic or not but track medals don't mean a lot in terms of road performance. Wiggins was hardly winning road time trials left right and centre was he.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
The Hitch said:
Wiggins became good because the peloton became clean.

2009 tour de France
1 Contador - doping
2
3 Lance Armstrong doping
4 Wiggins
5 Frank Schleck - doping
6 Andreas Kloeden - doping
7
8 Kreuziger - doping

KOM Delfino - doping

Crashed out contenders
Levi Leipheimer - doping
Denis Menchov - doping.
Think we can rule out A Schleck being clean also.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY