Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1030 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
The Bikeradar simple jacks still haven't addressed why Wiggins' blood values spiked in 2009 after the rest day.

Or why he said he felt lance and alberto were both innocent.

Nor have they addressed why the passport didn't work for Alberto or FRank.
 
The Bikeradar simple jacks still haven't addressed why Wiggins' blood values spiked in 2009 after the rest day.

Or why he said he felt lance and alberto were both innocent.

Nor have they addressed why the passport didn't work for Alberto or FRank or lance...
 
Parker said:
They did. And Armstrong - 37 and away from the Tour for four years - beat him. Of course, he had an expensively assembled team to ride on the front to control the pace so he wasn't too vunerable. If only Wiggins had that in 2012 so he could focus on beating people in TTs.
So who was better in the mountains and TTs when they raced against each other?
 
Parker said:
If only Wiggins had that in 2012 so he could focus on beating people in TTs.
How expensive was wiggos 2012 team?

Richie porte - on a buyers market, a lot less than Peter Velits.
Chris Froome, bought for minimum wage.
Michael Rogers, long time from his best, hardly super domestique numbers.
EBH - bought for sprinting abilities, not to drop gt riders on mountains.
Cavendish - bought to sprint.
Eisel - bought to help Cav in sprint.

Yep, such an expensive mountain team :rolleyes:
 
In fact how many other TDF winners had balance their team with a sprint train dedicated to a totally different rider.

A team devoted to "marginal gains", doing every possible little thing apart from doping to get every ounce of an advantage they can, that wastes half their TDF team to begin with on a sprinter.

To quote Kimmage: : I saw a peanut stand, heard a rubber band, I saw a needle that winked its eye.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
1
0
TailWindHome said:
Would that be the post were he possibly back tracked from the hyberbolic greater than Armstrong to a more reasonable pretty close to an (aged) Armstrong?:p

I'm happy to take The Sceptic's next post at face value. If I've misinterpreted or misrepresented his view then apologies.
You need to chill and stop twisting and vortexing.

I simply said that Wiggins performed on a level pretty close to Armstrong.
 
The Hitch said:
How expensive was wiggos 2012 team?

Richie porte - on a buyers market, a lot less than Peter Velits.
Chris Froome, bought for minimum wage.
Michael Rogers, long time from his best, hardly super domestique numbers.
EBH - bought for sprinting abilities, not to drop gt riders on mountains.
Cavendish - bought to sprint.
Eisel - bought to help Cav in sprint.

Yep, such an expensive mountain team :rolleyes:
Uh.

Porte was highly sought after in 2010. I am pretty sure his first contract with Sky was a good 6 figure sum.

Froome's new contract after the Vuelta should also be quite substantial.

Rogers should also be reasonably expensive based on the talk at the time he had to "leave" Sky.

It was a reasonably expensive team from a 2012 perspective, but of course nowhere close to Contador-Armstrong-Klöden-Leipheimer-Zubeldia
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Digger said:
The Bikeradar simple jacks still haven't addressed why Wiggins' blood values spiked in 2009 after the rest day.

Or why he said he felt lance and alberto were both innocent.

Nor have they addressed why the passport didn't work for Alberto or FRank or lance...
Yes, he did say he thought Contador might be innocent but he also said this.

“Sportswise, though, it is not a good thing that a bloke who tested positive four times* is in the race. It is also bad for all those teams that are fighting to be clean as is the case with my team, Sky.”
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/8735/Wiggins-and-others-worried-about-Contadors-participation-in-Tour.aspx

His comments after the 2011 Tour even though he crashed out early.

"Whether he's innocent or guilty or whatever, it's almost irrelevant now," he said. "A decision needs to be made either way. It's not fair on the events he's competing in. He had an outcome on the Tour de France last week, one way or another.

"He wasn't the best Contador we've seen, but him attacking on the Telegraphe changed the whole race. Voeckler went after him, Voeckler cracked and Voeckler probably lost the opportunity to be on the podium because Contador was in that race.

"Is that fair? Should he be in the race? If he's innocent, fair enough, he should be allowed to race. But if he's not and this decision hasn't been made, then essentially he's been affecting the outcome of every race he's ridden for the last six months - and that isn't fair.

"That changes peoples lives, changes people's careers, changes people's salaries and Voeckler's missed the podium of the Tour de France."
http://www.espn.co.uk/cycling/sport/story/102843.html

You can't just take one statement and take it to one line of argument to suit your own at the expense of another.
 
roundabout said:
Uh.

Porte was highly sought after in 2010. I am pretty sure his first contract with Sky was a good 6 figure sum.

Froome's new contract after the Vuelta should also be quite substantial.

Rogers should also be reasonably expensive based on the talk at the time he had to "leave" Sky.

It was a reasonably expensive team from a 2012 perspective, but of course nowhere close to Contador-Armstrong-Klöden-Leipheimer-Zubeldia
I don't see why Froome should count, and he's the most expensive of the 3. expensive assembled team is when you go out and buy an expensive rider, not when after in September after everyone has signed teams for the new season one of the riders deemed surplus to requirements suddenly becomes the best rider in the world.
 
The Hitch said:
I don't see why Froome should count, and he's the most expensive of the 3. expensive assembled team is when you go out and buy an expensive rider, not when after in September after everyone has signed teams for the new season one of the riders deemed surplus to requirements suddenly becomes the best rider in the world.
I understand what you are saying. But whatever the reason in 2012 Froome had a high market value even if he was developed in-house.
 
The Hitch said:
How expensive was wiggos 2012 team?

Richie porte - on a buyers market, a lot less than Peter Velits.
Chris Froome, bought for minimum wage.
Michael Rogers, long time from his best, hardly super domestique numbers.
EBH - bought for sprinting abilities, not to drop gt riders on mountains.
Cavendish - bought to sprint.
Eisel - bought to help Cav in sprint.

Yep, such an expensive mountain team :rolleyes:
Porte - big money. Even in 2010 Sky were offering three times what Saxo were.
Froome - low contract renewal offered in 2011 - refused - massive hike after 2011 Vuelta
Rogers - 2010 he was 23rd on CQ Ranking - that's top money
EBH - a domestique de luxe, like Cancellara for CSC/Saxo
Sivtsov - you forgot him. Top ten in the Giro. Not cheap.
Cavendish & Eisel - OK, they may not have contributed power

I refer you to Vaughters's tweets about it.

And you have to remember all the other riders who rode in stage races and controlled them, thus conditioning the peloton to expect it. And the other riders that could pick up points so they could fully commit their best riders to one race.
 
gooner said:
Yes, he did say he thought Contador might be innocent but he also said this.



http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/8735/Wiggins-and-others-worried-about-Contadors-participation-in-Tour.aspx

His comments after the 2011 Tour even though he crashed out early.



http://www.espn.co.uk/cycling/sport/story/102843.html

You can't just take one statement and take it to one line of argument to suit your own at the expense of another.
Is this clear enough for you:

“I don’t think Contador is guilty. I am a big fan of his.'

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/othersport/254654/Bradley-Wiggins-angered-by-farce

Lance, similar.
 
I’ve always been a bit of a fan of Lance and have sided on the side of innocent until proven guilty with him. There isn’t an athlete or a cyclist out there that isn’t more tested than he is, certainly since his comeback, he’s probably been the most tested cyclist in the pro peloton and you take that on face value and that he’s never failed a drugs test and until he does he’s clean. That’s how I’ve always had as a stance on Lance.”


:eek:
 
Digger said:
I’ve always been a bit of a fan of Lance and have sided on the side of innocent until proven guilty with him. There isn’t an athlete or a cyclist out there that isn’t more tested than he is, certainly since his comeback, he’s probably been the most tested cyclist in the pro peloton and you take that on face value and that he’s never failed a drugs test and until he does he’s clean. That’s how I’ve always had as a stance on Lance.”


:eek:
Saying what you want, when you want isn't a problem - it's easy - right up to the point that people start paying attention to you.
UCI_Overlord found that out. People lapped up what he said without question until he stole your money.
 
The Hitch said:
Armstrong got banned for a lot of ****. I doubt it was the million to one blood values on its own since Ashenden already said the epo tests were a million to one against Armstrong and everyone ignored it and kept saying - no failed tests.

But its a moot point since Wiggins doesn't fall under USADA, nor do any non Americans.

SO its actually the opposite, an argument against the credibility of the blood passport, or at least the blood passport under the UCI, that a guy - Armstrong, with blood values that were 99.999999% dirty, did not get pulled up on it. Only another organization that most riders are not held accountable to, eventually did.
Of course I'm aware of the other stuff Armstrong got banned for, and of course it's a moot point how much USADA's actions affected non Americans - this whole conversation hinges on moot points doesn't it (sorry to be a pedant but you may want to look the meaning of moot point up, it's commonly misused.
.)

The simple point I'm making is that changes in testing regimes and protocols might have had an effect on the pelotons preponderance to dope, and that might have made it easier for an outstanding clean athlete to compete, which might in turn have encouraged Wiggins (who might be an outstanding clean athlete if his 2006/07 were clean) to concentrate on GC with some success (indeed in a cleaner peloton it's exactly the kind of results (in the abstract) you might expect from some riders). All i'm doing is presenting a plausible picture (there are other plausible pictures of course).

So, to then suggest Armstrong is some kind of evidence against that picture is quixotic. A guy who in the earlier 'era' rides absolutely roughshod over anti-doping to the degree that he has unprecedented success in the history of the sport, comes back a worse rider (could be age, could be less doping, could be both) and subsequently gets banned for life. Now if you were a clean rider what would you make of that?

And I take your earlier point about 2009, but still was it as drug addled as - say - 2005, when the top five were all subsequently banned for blood doping, (I think) and Landis was doing DIY blood transfusions into orange juice cartons - compare that to what Contador and Schleck popped for; while it might be doping it's not necessarily to the same degree (and again, might not have quite such a dispiriting effect on a clean competitor).

I don't know if the peloton is actually any cleaner than 2006, but I don't find it implausible that it might be.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Digger said:
Is this clear enough for you:

“I don’t think Contador is guilty. I am a big fan of his.'

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/othersport/254654/Bradley-Wiggins-angered-by-farce

Lance, similar.
I did say he said that.

Now will you admit he said this or are you only going to admit one? Admit one selectively and I know clearly where you stand.

“Sportswise, though, it is not a good thing that a bloke who tested positive four times* is in the race. It is also bad for all those teams that are fighting to be clean as is the case with my team, Sky.”
I watched that press conference at the time after his Dauphine win and he was far from happy.

Another one, on the eve of the Tour on the subject of Contador.

Wiggins branded the situation a "shambles and a farce", but is more positive about the new 'No Needle Policy', which prohibits any injections without medical necessity.

However the Londoner, third favourite to win the yellow jersey, says talk is cheap unless the authorities are committed to policing it properly.

"The needle ban is fantastic but at the (recent) Dauphine (race) there was no sign of it being policed," Wiggins revealed.

"It would be great on the Tour if they actually started raiding teams to see that people are actually toeing the line - as medical people in our team are adamant teams are still continuing to use syringes for recovery."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/cycling/bradley-wiggins-wants-jail-for-tour-736705

He deserves huge criticism for the Lance one but I strongly disagree with the Contador one. Wiggins is an idiot but I notice a theme here where one line of his statements are produced to push a certain position while at the same time not taking what he has said elsewhere to judge him more appropriately.
 
Parker said:
Saying what you want, when you want isn't a problem - it's easy - right up to the point that people start paying attention to you.
UCI_Overlord found that out. People lapped up what he said without question until he stole your money.
:D

not my fault your boy told Walsh he joined in with vilifying landis because it was 'gang mentality'...real hero!!
 
gooner said:
I did say he said that.

Now will you admit he said this or are you only going to admit one? Admit one selectively and I know clearly where you stand.



I watched that press conference at the time after his Dauphine win and he was far from happy.

Another one, on the eve of the Tour on the subject of Contador.



http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/cycling/bradley-wiggins-wants-jail-for-tour-736705

He deserves huge criticism for the Lance one but I strongly disagree with the Contador one. Wiggins is an idiot but I notice a theme here where one line of his statements are produced to push a certain position while at the same time not taking what he has said elsewhere to judge him more appropriately.
I don't think he's guilty negates everything above here by a mile...I mean how much more definitive did you want his answer!!!
 
Digger said:
:D

not my fault your boy told Walsh he joined in with vilifying landis because it was 'gang mentality'...real hero!!
Basically, the things you demonise him for are:

1. Changing his mind as facts and time change (2007-2012)
2. Being diplomatic and not inserting himself into an argument (Not calling everyone dopers)
3. Backing his friends in an argument (Barry)
4. Not trusting the motives of people who have previously slagged him off. (Kimmage)

Basically he's human. Are you?
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Digger said:
I don't think he's guilty negates everything above here by a mile...I mean how much more definitive did you want his answer!!!
Is the comment I posted strong doubt on Wiggins part with Contador?

Yes or no. Simple answer.

I already knew and acknowledged Wiggins's comment that you referred to.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS