Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1022 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Red Lobster said:
The idea that not all athletes respond the same to this program or that program has been touted as underpinning the entire discussion around doping. It's one of the reasons doping does not create a level playing field. It has been posited that Armstrong was one such "super-responder" ... i.e., even if everybody was doing more or less the same thing, Armstrong's physiology allowed him to enjoy a significantly more pronounced benefit from doping. And thus the rejection of doping, quite apart from any moral objections ... that is, we don't want procycling to be about who has the "best" reaction to various pharmacological substances. Makes some sense on an intuitive level: if your HCT is naturally 47, how much do you stand to gain by taking it to 49? Clearly the guy starting at 39 has more low hanging fruit to pick.

So maybe Froome is just the "super-responder" du jour, and his dramatic improvement as compared to DiLuca or whoever should not be so surprising.
implicit is, we dont recognise o2 carrying capacity as manifest talent, like say, Robbie Mcewen's jump and handling skills.

nb. the jump maybe a product of the hypodermic too. product/function
 
Red Lobster said:
The idea that not all athletes respond the same to this program or that program has been touted as underpinning the entire discussion around doping. It's one of the reasons doping does not create a level playing field. It has been posited that Armstrong was one such "super-responder" ... i.e., even if everybody was doing more or less the same thing, Armstrong's physiology allowed him to enjoy a significantly more pronounced benefit from doping. And thus the rejection of doping, quite apart from any moral objections ... that is, we don't want procycling to be about who has the "best" reaction to various pharmacological substances. Makes some sense on an intuitive level: if your HCT is naturally 47, how much do you stand to gain by taking it to 49? Clearly the guy starting at 39 has more low hanging fruit to pick.

So maybe Froome is just the "super-responder" du jour, and his dramatic improvement as compared to DiLuca or whoever should not be so surprising.
Maybe, but I don't really buy that as an explanation alone. I'm only half way through Cycle of Lies, but it's pretty clear that Armstrong didn't just transform overnight, mid-season, in the way Froome did (as others have pointed out literally in a month between the tour of poland and the Vuelta): Armstrong was working with Ferrari and EPO in the '95 tour and was still an hour and a half off the pace - it obviously took a lot of organisation and trial and error for Armstrong to realise the full advantages of his programme, not just some magic luck that he happened to be the best responder (even though perhaps he was and that helped as well).

So the idea that Chris Froome wakes up in July '11, thinks 'contract time is coming, best get on the EPO for the first time' and WHAM a month later he's more or less a GT winner (bar bonus seconds) having ridden half the race as domestique, and seemingly on his way to being the stand-out GC rider of his era, just doesn't ring true for me.

That's not to say he didn't start doing drugs then (if not before), or that I have any better explanation as an alternative - I don't. I'm just not sure that explanation is that convincing in and of itself.
 
King Boonen said:
Wiggins is a 4, Froome is an 7.
Wiggins closer to bassons than to Riis? Maybe you misread it as Basso?

To recap, bassons spoke out against Armstrong.
Wiggins -attacked people for speaking out against Armstrong.

Bassons - accepted he could not contend the tour de France without doping. Nowhere in dirty tdfs
Wiggins- believes he can beat everyone who is doping anyway. Comes 4th in arguably dirtiest tdf ever.

Bassons - sees that everyone is still doping and says so.
Wiggo- sees that everyone is still doping but claims they're all clean and attacks journos for focusing on that.

Riis-miraculously transforms to gt winner from nothing late in career.
Wiggins --miraculously transforms to gt winner from nothing late in career
 
The Hitch said:
Wiggins closer to bassons than to Riis? Maybe you misread it as Basso?
Nope, I think what Wiggins achieved is possible, in fact is the most likely of recent winners. He has the pedigree to be a GT rider, that is clear from his track performances, he worked very hard and he got a bit of luck with a course that suited him as a rider perfectly and opposition that just didn't seem to perform/weren't there. Since then he's not put the work in, lived the "Sir Wiggo" life a bit too much and been found wanting when things get tough.

It's people who repeat wins, on very varied courses, year after year that make me more suspicious.

I'm not saying Wiggins didn't dope, I'm just saying that I think what he achieved in 2012 is more likely than what Froome did. For reference I'd put Nibali around Wiggins too at the moment, although I think he's a much better road rider.
 
The Hitch said:
Wiggins closer to bassons than to Riis? Maybe you misread it as Basso?

To recap, bassons spoke out against Armstrong.
Wiggins -attacked people for speaking out against Armstrong.

Bassons - accepted he could not contend the tour de France without doping. Nowhere in dirty tdfs
Wiggins- believes he can beat everyone who is doping anyway. Comes 4th in arguably dirtiest tdf ever.

Bassons - sees that everyone is still doping and says so.
Wiggo- sees that everyone is still doping but claims they're all clean and attacks journos for focusing on that.

Riis-miraculously transforms to gt winner from nothing late in career.
Wiggins --miraculously transforms to gt winner from nothing late in career
Well if we're talking in terms of who is the biggest dirtbag then yes, I'll revise my numbers. In terms of the likelihood of doping I'll stand by them.
 
The Hitch said:
what luck did Wiggins get? He outclimbing Nibali so it clearly can't be the extra 40k of tt you are talking about?
Well it is I'm afraid, these things affect how the race is played out. He also outclimbed him on roads that are suited to people who can deliver over long periods, not guys who can go off the front hard but can't keep it up. Nibali threw in loads of attacks and yet only lost about 30 seconds total in all the MTF stages. If he hadn't lost over two minutes to Wiggins in the time trial then he could have held back and probably put time into him, although not much.

Wiggins win was a boring grind with a great support team backing him up, but of recent TdF wins I still see it as the most likely to be clean (That does not mean I think it was).
 
The Hitch said:
Riis only won 1 tdf as well. I don't see how a guy with 1 tdf and 2(1) other gt podium(s) is closer to bassons a guy who won 1 dauphine stage, than he is to a fellow tdf winner.
Riis was set as the limit to compare them to by someone else, not me. The implication being, I'm assuming, that Riis is guaranteed doping and Bassons is guaranteed not doping. I took it to mean we are not comparing riders individual talents and abilities to those two riders, which would be pointless.

For what it's worth I would have used Armstrong instead of Riis.
 
King Boonen said:
Wiggins win was a boring grind with a great support team backing him up, but of recent TdF wins I still see it as the most likely to be clean (That does not mean I think it was).
Having him closer to Bassons does make it seem like you think there's a higher chance that he is clean, than there is of him being dirty.

...

The reason Riis was 10 was because 10 years later there wasn't any official proof that he was doping, but it was so obvious that no one could have any doubt. So a 10 is being as certain as one can be without proof that said rider is a doper.
 
Netserk said:
Having him closer to Bassons does make it seem like you think there's a higher chance that he is clean, than there is of him being dirty.

...

The reason Riis was 10 was because 10 years later there wasn't any official proof that he was doping, but it was so obvious that no one could have any doubt. So a 10 is being as certain as one can be without proof that said rider is a doper.

I do think there is a higher chance of him being clean. I'm more optimistic than many here about doping (as I said, I'd put Nibali in the same bracket as Wiggins) and I don't think it is obvious he was doping considering the course, how it was ridden, other riders relative performances and the team backing him.

Froome is higher for me because he can seemingly outperform everyone at everything pretty much, with a weaker team than Wiggins had the year before.

Oh, and thanks for clarifying the limits, I understand that now.
 
Its not optimism to believe that a guy who having ridden 4 gts in his first 5 years on the road admitted publicly that the highest he could ever hope to acheive in a gt was a tt win, and told Kimmage privately that gts just weren't for him, then ends up riding Peyresoudes faster than Contador Rasmussen, winning an olympic tt while chronically underweight and winning every stage race he targets in a 5 month period.

Its insanity.

And the question of whether Wiggins doped really doesn't have much to do with how optimistic someone is about doping in the sport.

Plenty of us believe doping is far less these days than it used to be. For various reasons.

But Wiggins falls outside the curve on all of them. He's one of the few who continued to ride insane speeds while the rest slow down. He's one of the ones immune from fatigue. He's still practicing old school omerta. He's still praising the dopers while others speak out. He's the one that underwent an exclusively epo era transformation.

The very reasons that tell us the sport may be cleaner, uncover Wiggins as a total 1990's -2000's era cycling prototype.
 
The Hitch said:
Its not optimism to believe that a guy who having ridden 4 gts in his first 5 years on the road admitted publicly that the highest he could ever hope to acheive in a gt was a tt win, and told Kimmage privately that gts just weren't for him, then ends up riding Peyresoudes faster than Contador Rasmussen, winning an olympic tt while chronically underweight and winning every stage race he targets in a 5 month period.
So people can't change their minds or be wrong? It just indicates to me he is mentally weak, something that was clearly the case in the Giro.

Chronically under-weight? you're going to need to provide a link for that with exact numbers but based on his current stats that I can find his weight falls in the normal range for BMI.

Comparing times from different races is, frankly, ridiculous unless you can prove the exact physical condition of each rider, show how the stage was ridden in comparison to other years and show that the conditions had no effect or have been taken into account. I know people here love to reduce everything down to numbers and to treat people like robots, fact is it doesn't work like that. At best it gives a guide to what is happening, but I'll have a massive pile of salt with it.

But Wiggins falls outside the curve on all of them. He's one of the few who continued to ride insane speeds while the rest slow down. He's one of the ones immune from fatigue. He's still practicing old school omerta. He's still praising the dopers while others speak out. He's the one that underwent an exclusively epo era transformation.
Well that's why it's a curve, not everyone is the same, but I'm taking your word for it as I don't know the data. But Immune to fatigue was proved pretty wrong in the Giro last year, unless we are to believe that for some reason Sky decided to stop doping him even though many believe they have a free pass. If they did I can guarantee they would want Wiggins to win over Froome, he's a much bigger name.

As for Omerta, I didn't say he was nice or honest, but why would he speak out? Everyone who does gets accused of either covering up for their own doping, lying or in some extreme cases, racism. Wiggins loves the limelight, why would he jeopardise his position in the British public's view (who really could not give a crap about doping in cycling as a whole) just to get constantly accused of something? Better to be nice when asked and just leave it at that, the result is probably the same whichever way it works out.


The very reasons that tell us the sport may be cleaner, uncover Wiggins as a total 1990's -2000's era cycling prototype.
No, it doesn't. It is perfectly possible to view what Wiggins did as someone getting favourable conditions to their type of racing and working for it.

As an aside, I know someone who has played rugby union for England. If you had asked him at the start of his career if he would play for England he would have said no. He was struggling to find his best position and disagreed with his coaches on it. He's now a very success player who has only dropped down the pecking order due to injury, I'm sure he'll be back. Point is, he would have been wrong as well, as I'm sure many people are early in their careers.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
King Boonen said:
Nope, I think what Wiggins achieved is possible, in fact is the most likely of recent winners. He has the pedigree to be a GT rider, that is clear from his track performances, he worked very hard
Despite racing a 4km prologue (the exact same distance his "pedigree" was developed on) and getting his a55 handed to him?

Good grief.
 
Dec 11, 2013
1,138
0
0
the sceptic said:
Bassons 1
Riis 9
Wiggins 9.9
Dawg 10

How can Wiggins & Froome be more suspect than someone who has confessed?

Riis by definition must be a 10

Wiggins/ Froome can't rate any higher than 9.9999999999999999999999etc
 
Apr 23, 2013
103
1
8,835
the sceptic said:
Bassons 1
Riis 9
Wiggins 9.9
Dawg 10


Even for a hyperbole it's a bit silly to put Wiggins and Froome above Riis, isn't it? :rolleyes: Although it depends, are we looking at Riis with the knowledge of 1996, 1998, 2004, 2007? Since 2007 he is of the charts, in 2004 he would have been a 10, given the facts that the stories about him were widely known at the time and it was clear that EPO was used en masse in the 90s. Before that, well it depends on what you knew, but I'm sure not many people would have given him a 10 in 1996. Not compared to the amount of Froome sceptics these days anyway.

It is nice though to quantify things. :D I would give Froome 8, and Wiggins 7. 2014 Contador gets an 8 too, losing some points compared to 2011 for being not so strong last year and my general naivete about rider's intentions after a suspension. But no performance of Froome wil get him a 9 (let alone a 10). I don't think it adds much to Froome's case that he is already doing 6,7 w/kg and so on. We already know what he is capable of.
 
So Contador is an 8 but was even higher in 2011. How come Froome is only an 8 too then? Surely if Contador was at least a 9 in 2011 Froome is at least a 9 now too? Or do you consider pre-2012 Contador more suspicious than post-2011 Froome?
 
tweak37 said:
Even for a hyperbole it's a bit silly to put Wiggins and Froome above Riis, isn't it? :rolleyes: Although it depends, are we looking at Riis with the knowledge of 1996, 1998, 2004, 2007? Since 2007 he is of the charts, in 2004 he would have been a 10, given the facts that the stories about him were widely known at the time and it was clear that EPO was used en masse in the 90s. Before that, well it depends on what you knew, but I'm sure not many people would have given him a 10 in 1996. Not compared to the amount of Froome sceptics these days anyway.

It is nice though to quantify things. :D I would give Froome 8, and Wiggins 7. 2014 Contador gets an 8 too, losing some points compared to 2011 for being not so strong last year and my general naivete about rider's intentions after a suspension. But no performance of Froome wil get him a 9 (let alone a 10). I don't think it adds much to Froome's case that he is already doing 6,7 w/kg and so on. We already know what he is capable of.
Check post #24256.

10 years from 1996 = 2006 = before he confessed.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
1
0
TailWindHome said:
How can Wiggins & Froome be more suspect than someone who has confessed?

Riis by definition must be a 10

Wiggins/ Froome can't rate any higher than 9.9999999999999999999999etc
false confession maybe?

but seriously, the question was who is the most suspicious and Riis is not as extreme as Froome and Wiggins.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS