Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Netserk]

Guys, do you believe Basso was clean for his Giro win after releasing his passport back in 2010?

I agree it would be welcomed to see it with Froome but would it really help change our minds in the process if it was somehow along the lines of OK, I have strong doubts.

No I don't think he was clean. See my earlier reply to Jimmy. Releasing data or not doesn't change the likelihood of him being clean. What the data says on the other hand....

 

[Justinr]

Photos required to verify that

They're in my private collection ...

 

[Digger]

Right - if you are clean, why wouldn't you release this data?

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Right - if you are clean, why wouldn't you release this data?

Because the data is complex and open to misinterpretation, no-doubt accidentally, by people who can sell a few papers in July. And since the only people who care are a few wingnut conspiracy theorists who will never be satisfied, there's no upside.

No brainer.

 

[the sceptic]

Right - if you are clean, why wouldn't you release this data?

they are afraid that some pseudo-scientists will make it out htat sky are doping. but wait.. isnt that exactly what is happening right now anyway?

I think the truth is very simple. Since they are so secretive about it, it can only mean releasing the data would make Froome look even worse than he already is. If it could make Froome look good, they would have Walsh write articles left and right about it.

The silence is damning.

 

[Benotti69]

Because the data is complex and open to misinterpretation, no-doubt accidentally, by people who can sell a few papers in July. And since the only people who care are a few wingnut conspiracy theorists who will never be satisfied, there's no upside.

No brainer.

Who is going to misinterpret it? Ashenden or fans? Well if fans misinterpet it big deal. But if Ashenden comes out and calls doping well then they are rightly f***ed. That is the reason they dont release it, because there are real sports and blood analysts out there who can spot the doping.

Sky dont give a fig about fans. Why did they give Froome's numbers to Grappe? because Grappe got it so 'wrong' (but for USPS and ASO got it right) on Armstrong at a time when most saw the 'duck' he was but wanted to believe it was a 'goose' laying golden eggs for cycling.

Plenty of fans calling Sky dopers and they dont sue! Plenty on Twitter calling them dopers. Litigation laws in England would be easy to sweep all these people up and Sky win hands down.

No Sky dont release the data as that data would show what lots have been saying.

Sky dont do transparency even though this was their mantra in the beginning.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Who is going to misinterpret it? Ashenden or fans? Well if fans misinterpet it big deal. But if Ashenden comes out and calls doping well then they are rightly f***ed. That is the reason they dont release it, because there are real sports and blood analysts out there who can spot the doping.

Sky dont give a fig about fans. Why did they give Froome's numbers to Grappe? because Grappe got it so 'wrong' (but for USPS and ASO got it right) on Armstrong at a time when most saw the 'duck' he was but wanted to believe it was a 'goose' laying golden eggs for cycling.

Plenty of fans calling Sky dopers and they dont sue! Plenty on Twitter calling them dopers. Litigation laws in England would be easy to sweep all these people up and Sky win hands down.

No Sky dont release the data as that data would show what lots have been saying.

Sky dont do transparency even though this was their mantra in the beginning.

Shout out for ranting man, swinging at syringes in the corner. What was that?

"Who'll misinterpret..." before comprehensively distorting reality through the lens of a fundamentalist agenda. Have a word with yourself.

 

[Justinr]

Sky dont give a fig about fans. Why did they give Froome's numbers to Grappe? because Grappe got it so 'wrong' (but for USPS and ASO got it right) on Armstrong at a time when most saw the 'duck' he was but wanted to believe it was a 'goose' laying golden eggs for cycling.

Ho ho, very good ...

 

[Benotti69]

Shout out for ranting man, swinging at syringes in the corner. What was that?

"Who'll misinterpret..." before comprehensively distorting reality through the lens of a fundamentalist agenda. Have a word with yourself.

So your response is to attack the poster not the post.

Attack the messenger, but ignore the message.

Armstrongs fans all did that

 

[TheGame]

Sky dont do transparency even though this was their mantra in the beginning.

Not the beginning. Transparancy "started" in early 2011, somewhere round then.

 

[Benotti69]

Not the beginning. Transparancy "started" in early 2011, somewhere round then.

Try and find Paul Kimmage's interview with Brailsford written for the Sunday Times. Back in 2010 i think. Brailsford clearly outlines to Kimmage about 'complete transparency'. Kimmage said to Brailsford the line about seen to be doing the right thing and doing the right thing are very different.

I found this Kimmage quote from an interview with Shane Stokes

“The only thing I ever hoped about Sky is that they were transparent. I didn’t care if they won the Tour or not, but that they adhered to the principles that they laid out when they started. They said they’d be completely open and that hasn’t happened. So why should you give them the benefit of the doubt?”

“I suppose that was an awareness for me that they were not practicing what they preached. You purport to be this, let’s see what you got, and suddenly when they were asked to back it up, they back down.”

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...n-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx

Why give them the benefit of the doubt? Bang on. From what we know about this sport, Why give them the benefit of the doubt?

They spelled out they were going to be different, but it turns out they aren't.

 

[Justinr]

And how many times do old samples get retested? They got a Aicar test done now right. It's widely know that Aicar was being used in 09. Did they bother to re-test any samples and catch a bunch of guys? Of course not.

I guess they might have problems sanctioning a rider for a substance that wasn't banned at that time. 2010 onwards then yes it would be a clear doping violation.

 

[Benotti69]

I guess they might have problems sanctioning a rider for a substance that wasn't banned at that time. 2010 onwards then yes it would be a clear doping violation.

No. WADA code covers any PED including those it does not know about. See Marion Jones.

 

[Justinr]

No. WADA code covers any PED including those it does not know about. See Marion Jones.

Ah yes i forgot about that bit - in that case it makes no sense not to retest. Why the do they specifically name drugs then - just to be belt and braces?

 

[King Boonen]

Ah yes i forgot about that bit - in that case it makes no sense not to retest. Why the do they specifically name drugs then - just to be belt and braces?

The WADA code gives examples and in some cases specifics as certain compounds in certain classes may have a performance enhancing effect and some may not.

The WADA code specifies that any compound not approved for human use by a relevant regulatory body is banned, but if something is approved and not banned they cannot ban it and then retroactively test for it.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

So your response is to attack the poster not the post.

Attack the messenger, but ignore the message.

Armstrongs fans all did that

Get a grip. You responded to my brief, cogent answer to Digger's touchingly naive question with unrelated wing-nutty misrepresentations. Rather as predicted.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

He kind of did because he started Sky whose aim was to "create the first British winner of the Tour de France within five years". At the time Wiggins was about the only rider who would fit the bill, but I don't think he actually mentioned Wiggins name at the time - probably because he was riding for another team.

Do you find it strange that Wiggins signed a 2 year contract with Garmin, knowing full well 100% that Sky would have a team in his second year of said contract?

Surely, if DB thought Wiggo could do anything on the road worth paying for he would have told Wiggo to sign a 1 year so there were no problems getting on the Sky team the following year?

Wiggo was nowhere near anywhere the person they were expecting to take to the Tour as a winner.

His 4th place is the only reason Sky wanted him as badly as they did, ending up paying a premium in transfer fees to Garmin.

And the kicker for me: Garmin DIDN'T TRAIN HIM. SKY DID!

BAhahahhahahahahahahaaa

Oh god.

You could not write a more farcical time line IF YOU TRIED.

 

[martinvickers]

Do you find it strange that Wiggins signed a 2 year contract with Garmin, knowing full well 100% that Sky would have a team in his second year of said contract?

Surely, if DB thought Wiggo could do anything on the road worth paying for he would have told Wiggo to sign a 1 year so there were no problems getting on the Sky team the following year?

Wiggo was nowhere near anywhere the person they were expecting to take to the Tour as a winner.

His 4th place is the only reason Sky wanted him as badly as they did, ending up paying a premium in transfer fees to Garmin.

.

Eh? Does that not rather presuppose that Garmin were happy to give the guy only a one year contract? You speak as if Garmin had no say in the contract?

 

[Butterhead]

Nope I wasn't going to say that. I've never been caught speeding but that doesn't mean I don't speed.

And to BYOP - can I prove 100% they aren't cheating? No of course not. But I believe they are clean - I've followed Sir Dave, etc. and his aims, etc. for years which is why I believe. Look back at what he and Boardman did with the track - every single element of the bike was analysed to see how it could be improved, e.g. seat bolts place in different positions because it was more aerodynamic.

Damn, people's naivety never ends to amaze me.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

e.g. seat bolts place in different positions because it was more aerodynamic.

This makes me sad. So sad.

Question: did they publish before & after figures, quantifying the delta in improved aerodynamics?

 

[Granville57]

Question: did they publish before & after figures, quantifying the delta in improved aerodynamics?

I'm assuming you mean before a rider was actually sitting on the bike and after a rider was a sitting on the bike?

Just look at all these aerodynamic obstacles. It beggars belief that such an appalling contraption could pass through the air at all.

 

[frenchfry]

Nope I wasn't going to say that. I've never been caught speeding but that doesn't mean I don't speed.

And to BYOP - can I prove 100% they aren't cheating? No of course not. But I believe they are clean - I've followed Sir Dave, etc. and his aims, etc. for years which is why I believe. Look back at what he and Boardman did with the track - every single element of the bike was analysed to see how it could be improved, e.g. seat bolts place in different positions because it was more aerodynamic.

At what point did they start using aerodynamic pillows? No marginal gain is too insignificant!

 

[Justinr]

Damn, people's naivety never ends to amaze me.

Well its my perogative whether i believe or not.

 

[Justinr]

This makes me sad. So sad.

Question: did they publish before & after figures, quantifying the delta in improved aerodynamics?

And why would they? This was part of their approach to maximising the efficiency of everything. Do other teams publish their data? Would you expect the same in another sport, e.g. Formula 1?

 

[bobbins]

'Marginal gains' was a convenient sound bite to feed to the gullible. They do nothing different to anyone else. They do have the budget to have special frames and wheels made though. Sorry not wheels, they dodged that bullet.

If I'm a cheat in one aspect then I'll be a cheat in all others. That was one of Bull$hits quotes wasn't it?

At what point did they start using aerodynamic pillows? No marginal gain is too insignificant!