Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1067 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
del1962 said:
Lot of binary thinking around here, no progerssion paths could be anything other that that decided by the clinic 12, meanwhile in the real world .....

Only post for now, not getting caught in this vortex
Great post, well worth hitting the enter button for.
 
del1962 said:
Lot of binary thinking around here, no progerssion paths could be anything other that that decided by the clinic 12, meanwhile in the real world .....

Only post for now, not getting caught in this vortex
What binary thinking :confused:

What gets decided by the clinic?

You think saying that Froome showed no talent and that podiuming the giro bio doesn't = winning the TDF are contradictory statements?

Let me ask you a question. Do you think Pierre Paolo Penasa is going to win the Tour de France in the next few years? Because if you are ridiculing the suggestion that podium of giro bio does not = TDF win then you surely believe anyone who podiums the giro bio is guaranteed a TDF win?

Otherwise i don't get what you are saying. Maybe you confused yourself again.
 
hrotha said:
Hitch, I'm not saying I would have found it entirely normal if Kennaugh had won the Tour. Just that he was ahead of Wiggins and Froome in the "hmm, maybe some day?" category.
Brailsford didn't say some day though. He said "TDF winner- british - 5 years".

That he said that before Britain had a single gt contender who anyone could imagine podiuming a mountain stage in the next 5 years, let alone winning the tdf, and that 30 or so months later Brits riding for sky are the 2 best gt riders in the world, shows just what a joke those transformations were.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
SundayRider said:
You don't just suddenly get the legs to do the ride he did at the Vuelta it just doesn't happen. Wiggins was going all out for the win in 2011 if they knew he was even within 5% of his Vuelta level he would have made that team.
But that's precisely what you're claiming happened.

Otherwise he did have the legs, but like most others he was failing to achieve his potential.

Open your mind just a crack. You're almost there.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
Ventoux Boar said:
But that's precisely what you're claiming happened.

Otherwise he did have the legs, but like most others he was failing to achieve his potential.

Open your mind just a crack. You're almost there.
My mind is perfectly open thanks. A rider doesn't improve that much that quickly if they are CLEAN. He didn't make the Tour squad then got serious, performs at the Vuelta, rest is history.
 
So the latest sky argument is that froomes improvement was so ridiculous it cannot be explained even by doping, ergo he's clean

:D

Ventoux Boar said:
But that's precisely what you're claiming happened.

Otherwise he did have the legs, but like most others he was failing to achieve his potential.

Open your mind just a crack. You're almost there.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
The Hitch said:
Brailsford didn't say some day though. He said "TDF winner- british - 5 years".

That he said that before Britain had a single gt contender who anyone could imagine podiuming a mountain stage in the next 5 years, let alone winning the tdf, and that 30 or so months later Brits riding for sky are the 2 best gt riders in the world, shows just what a joke those transformations were.
You're a sophisticated guy, so I'm calling you for repeated disingenuous quotations without nodding to the distorting lens of British tabloids, or faux ignorance of media studies 101.

You have no way of knowing when Brailsford speaks to the media whether he is giving you his settled opinion, or committing an act of marketing on behalf of his sponsor. Pretending otherwise paints you in the same corner as the nutters pursuing an agenda.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
1
0
The Hitch said:
So the latest sky argument is that froomes improvement was so ridiculous it cannot be explained even by doping, ergo he's clean

:D
I just opened my mind.

I came to the conclusion that Ventoux boar is Joachimps latest account and should be put on ignore.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
SundayRider said:
My mind is perfectly open thanks. A rider doesn't improve that much that quickly if they are CLEAN. He didn't make the Tour squad then got serious, performs at the Vuelta, rest is history.
No it's not. You're convinced he's a doper. You'll have thought about these issues no doubt.

Did the doping only start pre-Vuelta because the rest of the team is clean and Froome went rogue - suddenly increasing his power under the noses of Kerrison et al?

Or did Sky only start to dope Froome because they wanted to increase his contract value? I mean why wait for the Vuelta to juice him up?
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
the sceptic said:
I just opened my mind.

I came to the conclusion that Ventoux boar is Joachimps latest account and should be put on ignore.
You were warned about this kind of treatment last time you tried it out on me. I don't give a *** personally, but you'll find it's against the rules and some sad sack is bound to report you.
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
Ventoux Boar said:
No it's not. You're convinced he's a doper. You'll have thought about these issues no doubt.
Agree.

Or did Sky only start to dope Froome because they wanted to increase his contract value? I mean why wait for the Vuelta to juice him up?
Which of course doesn't make sense since they then had to pay him more ... although clearly that's the point you're making.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
Justinr said:
Agree.



Which of course doesn't make sense since they then had to pay him more ... although clearly that's the point you're making.
Sure they would rather pay him more and have a potential multiple GT winner on their books than get rid of him and save the money of his small contract. Which is the better economics?
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
SundayRider said:
Sure they would rather pay him more and have a potential multiple GT winner on their books than get rid of him and save the money of his small contract. Which is the better economics?
That's not the choice they faced. Complete hindsight red herring.

By your lights what they must have had, prior to Vuelta was

1 grupetto rider approaching end of contract.
1 jar of super special sauce to get from 0 to GC in 6 weeks.

The choice you are implying they actually had, at that time was

a) drop and sign someone useful - cost, re Froome - nil

b) signed, then 'super' juiced - cost, re froome - well, new GT GC candidate for grupetto peanuts

b) 'super' juiced, then signed - cost, re Froome - paying a small fortune for former grupetto, p*ssing off your existing numero uno, and spreading 'the secret sauce' to s/o who might just walk off to another contract elsewhere with his new found superpowers.

And you're telling us the new leaders in strategic doping chose c).

Oooookey-dokey. Continue.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
SundayRider said:
Sure they would rather pay him more and have a potential multiple GT winner on their books than get rid of him and save the money of his small contract. Which is the better economics?
Now you put it like that you can see the logic of NOT doping him for the 2011 Tour, forcing him to lead in the event of a Wiggo accident, possibly win, but perhaps scuppering a Vuelta assault.

Is that in the ballpark? You're saying they sacrificed a key asset to Wiggins to save him for the Vuelta?
 
Ventoux Boar said:
No it's not. You're convinced he's a doper. You'll have thought about these issues no doubt.

Did the doping only start pre-Vuelta because the rest of the team is clean and Froome went rogue - suddenly increasing his power under the noses of Kerrison et al?

Or did Sky only start to dope Froome because they wanted to increase his contract value? I mean why wait for the Vuelta to juice him up?

Bobby Julich coaches him, not Kerrison. Same with Brad, Kerrison reads the data files but he's not his coach and I don't think Rod is either. Shane Sutton looks after Brads training and will amend it if necessary based on Kerrisons input.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
SundayRider said:
The benefits of having a Tour winner will always outweigh the costs of giving a rider a bigger contract.
In other words, you won't answer the question.

I perfectly understand the attitude that says pay big if you have to. What I'm asking is Why pay Big, if You DON'T have to - and immediately pre-Vuelta, they didn't.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
martinvickers said:
In other words, you won't answer the question.

I perfectly understand the attitude that says pay big if you have to. What I'm asking is Why pay Big, if You DON'T have to - and immediately pre-Vuelta, they didn't.
Maybe they wern't going to commit till after the Vuelta regardless? Even if he was on a great program he still has to produce the goods 'on the day'.

The main question is why he didn't go to the Tour in 2011? It just doesn't make sense.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
martinvickers said:
In other words, you won't answer the question.

I perfectly understand the attitude that says pay big if you have to. What I'm asking is Why pay Big, if You DON'T have to - and immediately pre-Vuelta, they didn't.
My take is this, I could be 100% right, 100% wrong or somewhere in-between;

They were going to let him become a free agent at the end of 2011, if they were planning to keep him beyond 2011 they would've already extended his contract. Then he does his Vuelta ride and they have to sign him at a higher price than they would've got him at pre-Vuelta. For a team that pays attention to detail, that has to be a touch embarrassing.
From what I can remember his agent(not sure if he still has the same agent) saying pre-Vuelta, Lampre and Garmin were interested in signing him for 2012 and some Division 2 teams but Froome wanted more money than those teams were prepared/able to pay.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
SundayRider said:
Maybe they wern't going to commit till after the Vuelta regardless? Even if he was on a great program he still has to produce the goods 'on the day'.

The main question is why he didn't go to the Tour in 2011? It just doesn't make sense.
A bigger one is why you don't have the courage of your convictions. He didn't ride the tour because he was a donkey until 6 weeks before the Vuelta. You said so above.

Unless you're having some doubts now you've had a chance to think about it?
 
Aug 5, 2012
2,290
0
0
SundayRider said:
Maybe they wern't going to commit till after the Vuelta regardless? Even if he was on a great program he still has to produce the goods 'on the day'.

The main question is why he didn't go to the Tour in 2011? It just doesn't make sense.
I know this may raise a few laughs but it was the bilharzia.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts