Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1020 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
LaFlorecita said:
This probably

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=17412

Over 1/3rd of Mr Fingers's posts were made in this thread :D ;)
I count 58 different posters who have made over 100 posts in this thread. So what exactly is "the clinic?"

Also, I work it out hog has more posts in this thread on his own, than the bottom 523 posters put together (out of 805 posters in total)

Final statisgtic - I just wasted 10 minutes of my life
 
The Hitch said:
I count 58 different posters who have made over 100 posts in this thread. So what exactly is "the clinic?"

Also, I work it out hog has more posts in this thread on his own, than the bottom 523 posters put together (out of 805 posters in total)

Final statisgtic - I just wasted 10 minutes of my life
Just bunged the posters with over 100 posts into excel and tried to sort them into 'haters' (the Hog, Dear Wiggo etc), 'skybots' (Jimmy, MartinVickers etc) and neutrals who may or may not think Sky are doping, but probably are less 'involved' (in my own opinion) (Libertine, Ryo etc). It's obviously not scientific, and there's loads of posters that I bunged into neutral cos I can't remember what there position is (Caruut? Franklin? MastersRacer?), but the 'haters' had almost double the number of posts than the Skybots - 7,240 to 3,873. Make of that what you will!

But like you Hitch I've also just lost 10 minutes of my life. . .
 
RownhamHill said:
Just bunged the posters with over 100 posts into excel and tried to sort them into 'haters' (the Hog, Dear Wiggo etc), 'skybots' (Jimmy, MartinVickers etc) and neutrals who may or may not think Sky are doping, but probably are less 'involved' (in my own opinion) (Libertine, Ryo etc). It's obviously not scientific, and there's loads of posters that I bunged into neutral cos I can't remember what there position is (Caruut? Franklin? MastersRacer?), but the 'haters' had almost double the number of posts than the Skybots - 7,240 to 3,873. Make of that what you will!

But like you Hitch I've also just lost 10 minutes of my life. . .
Probably easier just to not label people "trolls" or "haters" and add some actual content.
 
RownhamHill said:
Just bunged the posters with over 100 posts into excel and tried to sort them into 'haters' (the Hog, Dear Wiggo etc), 'skybots' (Jimmy, MartinVickers etc) and neutrals who may or may not think Sky are doping, but probably are less 'involved' (in my own opinion) (Libertine, Ryo etc). It's obviously not scientific, and there's loads of posters that I bunged into neutral cos I can't remember what there position is (Caruut? Franklin? MastersRacer?), but the 'haters' had almost double the number of posts than the Skybots - 7,240 to 3,873. Make of that what you will!

But like you Hitch I've also just lost 10 minutes of my life. . .
Probably easier just to not label people "Skybots" or "haters" and add some actual content.
 
RownhamHill said:
Just bunged the posters with over 100 posts into excel and tried to sort them into 'haters' (the Hog, Dear Wiggo etc), 'skybots' (Jimmy, MartinVickers etc) and neutrals who may or may not think Sky are doping, but probably are less 'involved' (in my own opinion) (Libertine, Ryo etc). It's obviously not scientific, and there's loads of posters that I bunged into neutral cos I can't remember what there position is (Caruut? Franklin? MastersRacer?), but the 'haters' had almost double the number of posts than the Skybots - 7,240 to 3,873. Make of that what you will!

But like you Hitch I've also just lost 10 minutes of my life. . .
MastersRacer was like a pro Sky version of Hog, only 10 x more extreme and less intelligent. Never came back after a ban

Caruut is a classic hater like probably most people on the list.

Franklin is pretty certain Sky doped but still wants to see proof.

Ryo is not neutral in the slightest. He believes Sky is clean just as he believes everyone is clean because doping doesn't really work. he even guaranteed that both Sayer and Grabovski were clean.
He believes Pantani and Ricco and Vinokourov never benefited from doping and as a result no one dopes anymore because now they all know its useless.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
1
0
Ripper said:
Dum de dum ...

Well, today, tomorrow and Monday should clarify if all of Sky is running so much better than everyone else or not.

So far I've been somewhat relieved to see that they have not been tearing up the front of the field. Of course, the real racing starts today. If they have several riders in the top 10 today, then it's gonna start getting a little interesting.

On another note, did I hear that Porte's been down a few times?
A voice of concern...

Caruut said:
Mick Rogers is dropping Bobby Gesink :(

I heard Porte down 3 times.
Caruut said:
Now Richie Porte is dropping Scarponi and Sanchez. At least try and conceal it lads.
And so it begins

issoisso said:
I have the following statement to make on today's stage:

BAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Obvious doping is obvious.
Then again it was obvious a long time ago.

Oh wait, we can't talk about that, they're anglophones.
good post, issoisso. And thus a horde of skybots arrived and here we are, 20000 posts later
 
The Hitch said:
MastersRacer was like a pro Sky version of Hog, only 10 x more extreme and less intelligent. Never came back after a ban

Caruut is a classic hater like probably most people on the list.

Franklin is pretty certain Sky doped but still wants to see proof.

Ryo is not neutral in the slightest. He believes Sky is clean just as he believes everyone is clean because doping doesn't really work. he even guaranteed that both Sayer and Grabovski were clean.
He believes Pantani and Ricco and Vinokourov never benefited from doping and as a result no one dopes anymore because now they all know its useless.
What's his stand on Unicorns?
 
red_flanders said:
Probably easier just to not label people "trolls" or "haters" and add some actual content.
Don't disagree in general, but ermmm, yeah, this is the Sky thread, and I thought when in Rome?

Interesting though now I think about it, in my spreadsheet I didn't label anyone a 'troll' but an sb - a skybot - (a label I incidentally applied to my own modest 122 posts), you're a pretty fair-minded poster so not sure why you're assuming a Skybot is a synonym for a troll?

EDIT: Just for the avoidance of ambiguity the second paragraph is my own idea of a wry joke at the expense of this thread in general (as, to be honest, is my analysis), I'm not trying to pick a fight with you Red_Flanders. Or anyone else for that matter. Thank you.
 
love not war

red_flanders said:
Probably easier just to not label people "trolls" or "haters" and add some actual content.
blasphemy!

content? this is the team sky thread.....................if that rule was applied
how many posts would remain

....................hitch.............rownhamhill?

Mark L
 
The Hitch said:
MastersRacer was like a pro Sky version of Hog, only 10 x more extreme and less intelligent. Never came back after a ban

Caruut is a classic hater like probably most people on the list.

Franklin is pretty certain Sky doped but still wants to see proof.

Ryo is not neutral in the slightest. He believes Sky is clean just as he believes everyone is clean because doping doesn't really work. he even guaranteed that both Sayer and Grabovski were clean.
He believes Pantani and Ricco and Vinokourov never benefited from doping and as a result no one dopes anymore because now they all know its useless.
Thanks for the clarification. WRT Ryo (and Libertine, and Dr Mas and others for that matter) I know he 'believes' Sky are clean, I just don't think anyone familiar with his posting would have him down as a Skybot, so I left him out of the fray (just like I know Libertine and Dr Mas certainly think Froome, if not Sky, are definitely doping, they just don't present their arguments in quite as polarising a fashion as some others).
 
RownhamHill said:
Don't disagree in general, but ermmm, yeah, this is the Sky thread, and I thought when in Rome?

Interesting though now I think about it, in my spreadsheet I didn't label anyone a 'troll' but an sb - a skybot - (a label I incidentally applied to my own modest 122 posts), you're a pretty fair-minded poster so not sure why you're assuming a Skybot is a synonym for a troll?

EDIT: Just for the avoidance of ambiguity the second paragraph is my own idea of a wry joke at the expense of this thread in general (as, to be honest, is my analysis), I'm not trying to pick a fight with you Red_Flanders. Or anyone else for that matter. Thank you.
Mistake on my part. Updated. No fight intended, just putting the thought out there that identifying posters as in one camp or another is not only likely to be wrong 90% of the time, but clearly off-topic and as such rightly subject to moderation. As are my own follow-on posts.

Just trying to help us all self-regulate and make this a more useful place.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
For those complaining about content in this Sky thread, remember it is not like Sky spew enough laughable content themselves which has contributed to the length of this thread. ;)
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
I read Michael Calvin's recent book on scouting and data analysis in football and he knows this area well.

He said today Peters can make a difference and he has seen him reinvent careers. He's one of the respected football journalists so I would take a bit of credence in what he said.
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
2
0
The Hitch said:
MastersRacer was like a pro Sky version of Hog, only 10 x more extreme and less intelligent. Never came back after a ban

Caruut is a classic hater like probably most people on the list.

Franklin is pretty certain Sky doped but still wants to see proof.

Ryo is not neutral in the slightest. He believes Sky is clean just as he believes everyone is clean because doping doesn't really work. he even guaranteed that both Sayer and Grabovski were clean.
He believes Pantani and Ricco and Vinokourov never benefited from doping and as a result no one dopes anymore because now they all know its useless.
where? :rolleyes::rolleyes: stop spreading lies everywhere about me and about grabovski I said he was clean because your clinic "jesus christ" saint bassons said that throughout his life
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Ryo Hazuki said:
where? :rolleyes::rolleyes: stop spreading lies everywhere about me and about grabovski I said he was clean because your clinic "jesus christ" saint bassons said that throughout his life
So Grabovski is clean but Bassons not! You really know this sport.:rolleyes:
 
gooner said:
I read Michael Calvin's recent book on scouting and data analysis in football and he knows this area well.

He said today Peters can make a difference and he has seen him reinvent careers. He's one of the respected football journalists so I would take a bit of credence in what he said.
Oh, no doubt. I'm sure he can make a difference, and I'm sure he has done/continues to. But like many things with Sky, the problem is that the transformations that have happened on their watch have been so vast (and in some cases sudden) that it makes it difficult to believe any such factor that we have been advised of so far, even in combination, is legitimately responsible. As I've said before, I believe that Chris Froome did, quite genuinely, have bilharzia. I believe that for all the mockery they have received, some of Sky's marginal gains theories have indeed yielded incremental increases in performance (even though said marginal gains were trumped in huge quantities before the 2010 season, natch). And I'm sure training and psychological coaching has an effect as well (as long as that psychological coach isn't distributing Gute-Laune-Tee, whoops wrong thread!). But even all of these factors combined don't account for what I've seen from Chris Froome, because the change was not the gradual incremental aggregation of marginal gains and improved mental preparation that then enabled him to finally race with all the shackles off when the bilharzia was cured... it was one day the Froome that loses 20 minutes in hilly stages in the Tour de Pologne, and the next the Froome that rides GT winners off his wheel breathing through his nose.

There are many legitimate reasons that Sky have been able to produce improved performances from their riders. But none that they have presented to me so far are enough for me to swallow the extent of the improvements we have seen from Sky riders - bearing in mind the less sanguine other elements that have been discussed ad nauseaum such as the presence of Geert Leinders, Mick Rogers, Brailsford running away from questions he doesn't like and so on - and cast away the doubts that have been characterising my view of the team for over two years.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
Oh, no doubt. I'm sure he can make a difference, and I'm sure he has done/continues to. But like many things with Sky, the problem is that the transformations that have happened on their watch have been so vast (and in some cases sudden) that it makes it difficult to believe any such factor that we have been advised of so far, even in combination, is legitimately responsible. As I've said before, I believe that Chris Froome did, quite genuinely, have bilharzia. I believe that for all the mockery they have received, some of Sky's marginal gains theories have indeed yielded incremental increases in performance (even though said marginal gains were trumped in huge quantities before the 2010 season, natch). And I'm sure training and psychological coaching has an effect as well (as long as that psychological coach isn't distributing Gute-Laune-Tee, whoops wrong thread!). But even all of these factors combined don't account for what I've seen from Chris Froome, because the change was not the gradual incremental aggregation of marginal gains and improved mental preparation that then enabled him to finally race with all the shackles off when the bilharzia was cured... it was one day the Froome that loses 20 minutes in hilly stages in the Tour de Pologne, and the next the Froome that rides GT winners off his wheel breathing through his nose.

There are many legitimate reasons that Sky have been able to produce improved performances from their riders. But none that they have presented to me so far are enough for me to swallow the extent of the improvements we have seen from Sky riders - bearing in mind the less sanguine other elements that have been discussed ad nauseaum such as the presence of Geert Leinders, Mick Rogers, Brailsford running away from questions he doesn't like and so on - and cast away the doubts that have been characterising my view of the team for over two years.
Libertine, all fair points and well put and I agree, I don't think it accounts whatsoever for Froome's transformation.

Out of interest, I would still like to know what makes him so good and different to the rest. I just seen Gerrard in his England press conference today speaking very highly of him and I didn't know he was doing work at Liverpool now. Michael Vaughan(former England cricket captain) said he has seen in action and was impressed.
 
red_flanders said:
Mistake on my part. Updated. No fight intended, just putting the thought out there that identifying posters as in one camp or another is not only likely to be wrong 90% of the time, but clearly off-topic and as such rightly subject to moderation. As are my own follow-on posts.

Just trying to help us all self-regulate and make this a more useful place.
Shusssh. You're spoiling the punchline.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
some of Sky's marginal gains theories have indeed yielded incremental increases in performance (even though said marginal gains were trumped in huge quantities before the 2010 season, natch).
Do you mind enumerating which of these you feel yield marginal gains? And could you please clarify if said marginal gains differentiate Sky from other teams, or lift Sky to the same level as other teams?
 
Libertine Seguros said:
Oh, no doubt. I'm sure he can make a difference, and I'm sure he has done/continues to. But like many things with Sky, the problem is that the transformations that have happened on their watch have been so vast (and in some cases sudden) that it makes it difficult to believe any such factor that we have been advised of so far, even in combination, is legitimately responsible. As I've said before, I believe that Chris Froome did, quite genuinely, have bilharzia. I believe that for all the mockery they have received, some of Sky's marginal gains theories have indeed yielded incremental increases in performance (even though said marginal gains were trumped in huge quantities before the 2010 season, natch). And I'm sure training and psychological coaching has an effect as well (as long as that psychological coach isn't distributing Gute-Laune-Tee, whoops wrong thread!). But even all of these factors combined don't account for what I've seen from Chris Froome, because the change was not the gradual incremental aggregation of marginal gains and improved mental preparation that then enabled him to finally race with all the shackles off when the bilharzia was cured... it was one day the Froome that loses 20 minutes in hilly stages in the Tour de Pologne, and the next the Froome that rides GT winners off his wheel breathing through his nose.

There are many legitimate reasons that Sky have been able to produce improved performances from their riders. But none that they have presented to me so far are enough for me to swallow the extent of the improvements we have seen from Sky riders - bearing in mind the less sanguine other elements that have been discussed ad nauseaum such as the presence of Geert Leinders, Mick Rogers, Brailsford running away from questions he doesn't like and so on - and cast away the doubts that have been characterising my view of the team for over two years.
This all very fair minded analysis, but it only takes us so far though doesn't it? By this I mean, if Froome was clean until Summer 2011 and then went on the 'full programme' how come he became so dominant so quickly? There's plenty of riders that have been popped in recent years for EPO etc (Di luca and Santiwhat'shisname at the Giro) and while they were decent riders, riding decently, they weren't pulling up any trees in comparison to what Froome has done since 2011. It's hard to imagine that Froome just started to dope in the usual fashion, and uniquely became the dominant athlete he has - unless he really has got a completely free pass from the UCI, and no-one else is doping, or something similar - which stretches my own personal credulity as much as his rapid rise.

And it's in that central mystery - just how did Froome rise so high, so rapidly - that the interesting ambiguity arises.
 
RownhamHill said:
...unless he really has got a completely free pass from the UCI, and no-one else is doping, or something similar - which stretches my own personal credulity as much as his rapid rise.
The UCI has granted free doping passes before. They gave one to Armstrong, they would have given one to Contador if it hadn't leaked. Why not now?

ASO has done very well with public funds paying for a Grande Depart, and the UCI has granted a number of new, high-level races to the UK supported with public funds. It seems like everyone wins.

We know the second part isn't true either as other performances are almost matching EPO times.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts