Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1018 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
maltiv said:
You think Sky were doped in 2010? The entire team was completely **** (except from EBH) and Sky riders shot out the back each time there was a bump on the road. This was before they hired Leinders and while Froome still was nothing but a below-average domestique.
Remember, 2010 is the year that Dave B and the team had a rocket up their **** from Sky about poor performance. Their own team docs alleged that their poor showing was due to everyone else being on the gear. They hired Leinders apparently because he knew who was upto what. Draw your own conclusions.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
Dazed and Confused said:
Sure he has improved. You would expect that from a rider his age. Steady improvement. Team history:

2014 Team Sky (WT)
2013 Sky Procycling (WT)
2012 Sky Procycling (WT)
2011 Sky Procycling (WT)
2010 Sky Procycling (WT)
2009 ISD Cycling Team (PCT)
2008 Landbouwkrediet - Tönissteiner
2006 Van Vliet - EBH Advocaten (CT)

Like I said he could very well be doping, but I see nothing which brings us close to defcon 1.

CQ performance:



Sure if he starts to drop everybody in RVV and/or PR with 5-50km to go or beat Boonen etc in a sprint, I'm not going to argue for his potential cleanness.
What makes you want to argue one way or the other with this particular rider? Surely winning a race isn't sufficient to warrant a whole new seam of scumbaggery?
 
SaxonUK said:
But you're missing an important factor - British riders aren't allowed to win and if they do they must be doping.
Thats such a troll post.

No one has even called Stannard a doper on here. I merely made the point that if people want to say underperformance in classics is suggestive of doping then they need to revise those arguments when Sky start to perform in classics.
To me the classics don't mean anything. But they clearly do to many, who pointed to SKy not winning cobbled classics as some sort of argument for cleanliness, so I'm wondering if these people will show some consistency in their arguments.

Of course its no surprise that people who don't understand why 2 riders ranked outside the top 500 turning into the 2 most dominant seasons in cq history while calling themselves UK Postal and working with Rabo's doctor, can't understand how discussions and arguments work.
 
del1962 said:
Or take an Irish Passport
Umm Mark Cavendish. Most dominant sprinter of last decade. Most wins of any pro in the last 7 years (maybe even decade).Most TDF stages since tv was black and white. Ranked most marketable cyclist in the world. Winner world championship, winner british athlete of the year.

Always in the (cycling) news, for winning, for losing, for turning up, for controversy.


BRITISH.

And yet, where are all his threads? I found one from last year with 100 posts, most of which don't even seem to be about cav, which was started by a fan of his and made the point that there are almost no cav threads in the clinic. Is he even in the top 50 most mentioned names in the clinic?

Out the window goes your argument.
 
The Hitch said:
Of course its no surprise that people who don't understand why 2 riders ranked outside the top 500 turning into the 2 most dominant seasons in cq history while calling themselves UK Postal and working with Rabo's doctor, can't understand how discussions and arguments work.
Froome scored 6 points more than Nibali last year.

I'd say that Gilbert '11 is among the 2 most dominant seasons in cq history.
 
Mar 8, 2010
244
0
0
Dazed and Confused said:
Sure he has improved. You would expect that from a rider his age. Steady improvement. Team history:
Like I said he could very well be doping, but I see nothing which brings us close to defcon 1.

CQ performance:
One interesting thing to notice about SKY is within the team a group of riders, usually British riders having lived in Tuscany, have experienced steady improvements while others, mostly foreigners like EBH, do not develop.
I remember Kimmage having asked a question on the topic before last year's Tour.
But was it really a stupid question ?
It could only be they have just had a great coach in Max Sciandri, the guy who is bringing along BMC, and the guy Bettini wanted to develop his young riders
http://road.cc/content/news/72630-paolo-bettini-wants-max-sciandri-reprise-his-gb-development-role-italy
 
Aug 24, 2011
156
0
0
The Hitch said:
Thats such a troll post.

No one has even called Stannard a doper on here. I merely made the point that if people want to say underperformance in classics is suggestive of doping then they need to revise those arguments when Sky start to perform in classics.
To me the classics don't mean anything. But they clearly do to many, who pointed to SKy not winning cobbled classics as some sort of argument for cleanliness, so I'm wondering if these people will show some consistency in their arguments.

Of course its no surprise that people who don't understand why 2 riders ranked outside the top 500 turning into the 2 most dominant seasons in cq history while calling themselves UK Postal and working with Rabo's doctor, can't understand how discussions and arguments work.
I apologise if it came across as a troll post I was just expressing my opinion on the name dropping in posts. Chris Boardman being mentioned and the insinuation that Stannard is doping (but yourself not implying that in your post even though it came across that way to me). I want to make it clear that I by no means think that Froome is clean or that Sky's tour squads are either but after Stannards win he seems to be added to that list of potentially doped riders.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
1
0
Ventoux Boar said:
What makes you want to argue one way or the other with this particular rider? Surely winning a race isn't sufficient to warrant a whole new seam of scumbaggery?
Your propaganda minister said that sky being bad in the classics is evidence they are clean. So obviously if they start doing well it must be evidence they are doping right?
 
SaxonUK said:
I apologise if it came across as a troll post I was just expressing my opinion on the name dropping in posts. Chris Boardman being mentioned and the insinuation that Stannard is doping (but yourself not implying that in your post even though it came across that way to me). I want to make it clear that I by no means think that Froome is clean or that Sky's tour squads are either but after Stannards win he seems to be added to that list of potentially doped riders.
Posters will have opinions on the matter when a rider performs well. This is the clinic, I see no harm in having different views.
 
Netserk said:
Froome scored 6 points more than Nibali last year.

I'd say that Gilbert '11 is among the 2 most dominant seasons in cq history.
Look at eficiency though. Gilbert raced 74 days, going all the way through his peak and even on the way down squeezing every point he possibly could even with low finishes. Both Froome and Wiggins quit for the season when they were at the height of their peak. In fact Wiggos last day on the bike was his most eficient getting 400 points winning the olympic tt. He then quits the season at 57 days , 14 or 23% less than Gilbert. Froome did 60 days only 3 days more than wiggins. Nibali who you say he only beat by 6 points did 23 days more. Froome did almost 30% less race days than Nibali and still beat him.

Cq eficiency rankings

Wiggins 2012 47.14
Froome 2013 46.1
Gilbert 2011 42.97
Rodriguez 2012 41.03
Nibali 2013 33.25
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
wait what? strong in classics == doping indicator?

do you have a link for that little tidbit of Walsh logic?
Sources are important, link?

Of course we have a link
http://journalvelo.com/daybyday/walsh-its-easier-to-dope-for-a-one-day-race-than-a-grand-tour/
Essentially Walsh contends that it is easier to dope for a one day race than a Grand Tour. His reasoning is that out of competition testing is far from foolproof so you can use doping to prepare for a one day race with a high degree of certainty you won’t get caught and time it right to be “clean” for testing at the race.

On a large stage race to successfully cheat you have to be doping during the race which vastly increases the risks of getting caught by routine testing.

Walsh’s examples of the “decline” of certain former Tour powerhouses and some classics performances this year certainly make this an interesting theory.
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=2&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://sportmagazine.knack.be/sport/nieuws/wielrennen/moeilijker-je-te-doperen-voor-grote-ronde-dan-voor-eendagskoers/article-4000290199866.htm?nb-handled=true&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=Newsletter-0&usg=ALkJrhjpi3XT5Dy4vrIhKNA-q9Q7CIXwhQ

So funny. A bit like the speeds are down lymeric we have heard from some peeps, not naming names of course.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Good doper, bad doper? We know this kinda logic from Walsh already. Well, he is only human.
Dan Martin is a good doper.:confused:

Walsh said he has heard stuff about Cancellara before.
 
I can't believe Stannard is 26. He looks like a 40 yr old dockworker. But I think his win was a result of his body fat not dope. He was hardly phased by the weather. GVA looked like death warmed over in the post-race interviews. Vanmarcke was probably strongest but spread himself too thin. Who else did Stannard beat? A bunch of second tier classics riders.

Stannard might be doping but this isn't the smoking gun.

edit: Sunday's performance is much more suspect. One team TTs away from the field? Hello, 1996. That's a topic for a different thread though.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
the sceptic said:
Your propaganda minister said that sky being bad in the classics is evidence they are clean. So obviously if they start doing well it must be evidence they are doping right?
Pitiful, fundamentalist, frat-boy hogwash. Try to think for yourself and you might just be worth an argument.
 
Dec 27, 2010
6,674
0
0
Dunno why you guys are so furious about Stannard winning. Van Avermaet did the last hour with one glove on, Stannard had two on. Marginal gains.
 
will10 said:
Dunno why you guys are so furious about Stannard winning. Van Avermaet did the last hour with one glove on, Stannard had two on. Marginal gains.
nice one about the marginal gains.

if he rode for [insert any pro cycling team name] he'd get much more fans, and less furious posts.

but that's why it was so nice to see him winning on saturday
 
pastronef said:
nice one about the marginal gains.

if he rode for [insert any pro cycling team name] he'd get much more fans, and less furious posts.

but that's why it was so nice to see him winning on saturday
What furious posts have there been against Stannard? The only ones I have seen are from people who's beef with him is that he's not on their cq team.

He's got loads of support including from people who don't like Sky, especially after MSR last year where he got just about as much credit as one can get for a 6th place performance.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS