Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1068 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
Ventoux Boar said:
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?
Nope no doubts at all, I think he dopes. What makes you think he/Sky is clean?
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
martinvickers said:
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.
Bingo - I couldn't have put it better myself.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
SundayRider said:
Nope no doubts at all, I think he dopes. What makes you think he/Sky is clean?
They're British and aside from David Millar and a few others(including track athletes) they've never ever ever doped.
When you fly into London when you're waiting to get through passport control they have signs saying 'Welcome to Britain the land where no one dopes'.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
SundayRider said:
Nope no doubts at all, I think he dopes. What makes you think he/Sky is clean?
Then what was your confusion about the Tour? Donkey pre-Vuelta then boom. Right?

I have no evidence that he is clean. So I don't pretend to know.
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
EnacheV said:
So the fake imaginary disease delayed the unleash of the miraculous wonder drug result Froome ?
I think its fair to say it delayed his consistency as it would for anyone else who had contracted it - without it he may have come to the fore a lot quicker.

A quick question - do you believe that Quintana is clean?
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
BYOP88 said:
They're British and aside from David Millar and a few others(including track athletes) they've never ever ever doped.
When you fly into London when you're waiting to get through passport control they have signs saying 'Welcome to Britain the land where no one dopes'.
Funny post, I'm British, love the stereotypes, unfortunately it is not true.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
Ventoux Boar said:
Then what was your confusion about the Tour? Donkey pre-Vuelta then boom. Right?

I have no evidence that he is clean. So I don't pretend to know.
The only thing confusing is Sky's management.
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
BYOP88 said:
They're British and aside from David Millar and a few others(including track athletes) they've never ever ever doped.
When you fly into London when you're waiting to get through passport control they have signs saying 'Welcome to Britain the land where no one dopes'.
Statistically there have been less British cyclists that have doped. Now that may be because there haven't been that many top flight British cyclists.

Statistics are a great thing if you want to manipulate them. Statistically 8/11 US TDF winners (in terms of victories) were doped - that's 73%. Or you could say 2/3 of US TDF winners (in terms of people) were doped - that's 67%.

A slight aside but proves how you can make data support (or not) what you want.
 
Justinr said:
Statistically there have been less British cyclists that have doped. Now that may be because there haven't been that many top flight British cyclists.

Statistics are a great thing if you want to manipulate them. Statistically 8/11 US TDF winners (in terms of victories) were doped - that's 73%. Or you could say 2/3 of US TDF winners (in terms of people) were doped - that's 67%.

A slight aside but proves how you can make data support (or not) what you want.
You mean caught doping. It's pretty common in the uk. Probably more so these days than it was in the 80s & 90s. Uk sport anti doping don't seem that bothered based on the lack of action despite being given tipoffs.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
bobbins said:
You mean caught doping. It's pretty common in the uk. Probably more so these days than it was in the 80s & 90s. Uk sport anti doping don't seem that bothered based on the lack of action despite being given tipoffs.
In the UK - rugby, both union and league doping is rife. Even amateur/semi pro cycling and triathlon is not immune.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
BYOP88 said:
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.
Woah, horsey!

So they've taken this grupetto-fodder, not good enough even to 'dom' at the '11 Tour - pack him full of 'super sauce' the likes of which the world ain't ever seen (why no-one more 'believable' - they've several british riders, anyway, different argument, moving on...) - and send him off to change the world at the Vuelta - but don't bother extending his contract first so we don't end up paying him a fortune, or losing him AND the sauce before you've got any benefit from it?

You have deliberately engineered a way to spend millions of pounds for no good reason whatsoever. And this is presented as the 'real' story on ground of plausibility!

Basic common sense dictates: Give him another peanuts contract prior to Vuelta, he's only grupetto, and THEN sauce him up and watch the investment grow, or at best lose little money on a non-responder ... OR...if he starts looking more money, or sniffing around other teams - GIVE THE BL00DY SAUCE TO SOMEBODY ELSE who you already have bound in!!
 

EnacheV

BANNED
Jul 7, 2013
1,441
0
0
The Hitch said:
Who said it was fake or imaginary?:confused:

Schistosomiasis is a very real disease.
I think there are 1000's posts about the Schistosomiasis cover up story.

Or maybe it is real and a endurance sportsman infested with that **** can't perform well ?

You clinic guys must make up your mind. This is like "he has it" "no he hasnt" depending on how it helps to demonstrate your local statements.
 
EnacheV said:
I think there are 1000's posts about the Schistosomiasis cover up story.

Or maybe it is real and a endurance sportsman infested with that **** can't perform well ?

You clinic guys must make up your mind. This is like "he has it" "no he hasnt" depending on how it helps to demonstrate your local statements.
Maybe different people argue different things instead of being some sort of hive mind.
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
bobbins said:
You mean caught doping. It's pretty common in the uk. Probably more so these days than it was in the 80s & 90s. Uk sport anti doping don't seem that bothered based on the lack of action despite being given tipoffs.
Well yes, doping/caught doping - you know what I mean.

My point was more about statistics - you can use / abuse them to your hearts content.
 
Aug 5, 2012
2,290
0
0
The Hitch said:
He still had that at the Vuelta though.
Well yeah he didn't rid himself of it completely until late last year but the reason he didn't ride at the Tour in 2011 was due to him having to take a course of medication after Suisse.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Cyivel said:
Well yeah he didn't rid himself of it completely until late last year but the reason he didn't ride at the Tour in 2011 was due to him having to take a course of medication after Suisse.
Do you have a link? 'Cos I'm loathe to say it, bu that sounds to these ears suspiciously like are suggesting actual information, rather than conjecture, and there ain't no place for that new-fangled baloney round these parts, Mister.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
Cyivel said:
Well yeah he didn't rid himself of it completely until late last year but the reason he didn't ride at the Tour in 2011 was due to him having to take a course of medication after Suisse.
Hang on. Sunday says he was a donkey and couldn't compete in a GT until the miracles started 6 weeks pre-Vuelta.

Which is it guys :confused:
 
martinvickers said:
Woah, horsey!

So they've taken this grupetto-fodder, not good enough even to 'dom' at the '11 Tour - pack him full of 'super sauce' the likes of which the world ain't ever seen (why no-one more 'believable' - they've several british riders, anyway, different argument, moving on...) - and send him off to change the world at the Vuelta - but don't bother extending his contract first so we don't end up paying him a fortune, or losing him AND the sauce before you've got any benefit from it?

You have deliberately engineered a way to spend millions of pounds for no good reason whatsoever. And this is presented as the 'real' story on ground of plausibility!

Basic common sense dictates: Give him another peanuts contract prior to Vuelta, he's only grupetto, and THEN sauce him up and watch the investment grow, or at best lose little money on a non-responder ... OR...if he starts looking more money, or sniffing around other teams - GIVE THE BL00DY SAUCE TO SOMEBODY ELSE who you already have bound in!!
If you want to talk common sense, common sense dictates a guy doesn't go from never being inside the world top 275 before September 2011, to being in the top 5 just 10 months later and the number 1 18 months later.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
The Hitch said:
If you want to talk common sense, common sense dictates a guy doesn't go from never being inside the world top 275 before September 2011, to being in the top 5 just 10 months later and the number 1 18 months later.
That looks remarkably like evasion, Hitch. Why don't you address my point?
 
May 28, 2012
2,779
0
0
The Hitch said:
If you want to talk common sense, common sense dictates a guy doesn't go from never being inside the world top 275 before September 2011, to being in the top 5 just 10 months later and the number 1 18 months later.
Common sense isn't always right.
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
martinvickers said:
Do you have a link? 'Cos I'm loathe to say it, bu that sounds to these ears suspiciously like are suggesting actual information, rather than conjecture, and there ain't no place for that new-fangled baloney round these parts, Mister.
All I've seen is that he was diagnosed at the end of 2010. I would have thought he would have been treated quite soon after that and quite quickly - the treatment is quite short isn't it?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts