Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Cyivel]

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.

Brief mention here of the timing post Suisse http://velonews.competitor.com/2011...t-of-africa-and-onto-the-vuelta-podium_192373

Also from Walsh's book courtesy of The Hog http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1371841&postcount=191

With the proviso that there has been contradictory stuff posted about how brutal the treatment is.

 

[thehog]

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!!

This is the finest example of reductio ad absurdum I have ever seen. And Martin by far your dumbest post ever! And I like what you put together

Doping in a team environment is never sending out a group email with the subject title "team wide doping to be implemented, who's in?".

It's starts on the fringes and with experimentation and with only a few. From there, if successful, it grows to other "trusted" confidants. It's never as you described some form of formalised RFP process including one and all.

Froome was a perfect candidate to try a program of new aged doping on. The Vuelta was the perfect race to do that with its lax controls and prying media.

Froome wasn't the chosen one. He was a lab rat for Wiggins and was always going to be a dom, a super dom if they could get his doping right... and the experiment actually went better than expected. He knew once they got it right his contract would extend. You'd never try that approach on a contracted rider. They now have a seven time winner on their hands.

If there was similarities to be drawn from USPS, then it's how it starts and gestates into something better structured and bigger in terms of number of riders.

 

[BYOP88]

Brief mention here of the timing post Suisse http://velonews.competitor.com/2011...t-of-africa-and-onto-the-vuelta-podium_192373

Also from Walsh's book courtesy of The Hog http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1371841&postcount=191

With the proviso that there has been contradictory stuff posted about how brutal the treatment is.

Froome's GF/Wife said this on velorooms:

Post 1, October 18th 2012:

I don't know where you got that rubbish about bilharzia treatment being comparable to chemo?!?
I was with Chris when he took the 7-day (NOT 6 week) course of medication (immediately following Criterium International) & while there was some mild nausea & fatigue it certainly wasn't anything like a chemo treatment. He obviously wasn't able to ride while taking the medication.
And yes, he definitely has been struggling with bilharzia... he is due for another test to see if it's cleared his system.

Really... get your facts straight before making accusations like that... pathetic.

Post 2, October 18th 2012:

I'll repeat what I said before... it is NOT like chemo.
If you're that interested, the medication is a strong anti-parisitic called Prazitel.
He took it at the end of March after Criterium International, he had also taken two courses of praziquantel in the past but the parasites kept coming back. He was diagnosed back in 2010 if I remember correctly. It's difficult to say when it was contracted.
It's fairly common for kids to pick it up in Africa playing in dams & rivers and usually goes undetected for years.
Growing up in South Africa myself, we were taught about it in primary school & told to avoid certain areas.
It's really not that strange or uncommon.

 

[martinvickers]

This is the finest example of reductio ad absurdum. And Martin by far your dumbest post ever! And I like what you out together.

Doping in a team environment is never sending out a group email withy the subject title "team wide doping to be implemented, who's in?".

It's starts on the fringes and with experimentation and with only a few. From there, if successful, it grows to other "trusted" confidants. It's never as you described some form of formalised RFP process including one and all.

All very good, Hog, but I didn't suggest any such thing - indeed, if it was Team doping, Froome's not the guy I would have expected to be playing super-dom from the start.

Froome was a perfect candidate to try a program of new aged doping on. The Vuelta was the perfect race to do that with its lax controls and prying media.

Froome wasn't the chosen one. He was a lab rat for Wiggins and was always going to be a dom, a super dom if they could get his doping right.. And the experiment actually went better than expected. They now have a seven time winner on their hands.

Well, I grant you this, at least it's a narrative, Hog, which is better than we're getting elsewhere, so genuinely, good show.

But, really, you don't tie your new 'lab rat' down pre-Vuelta? He can just walk out with his unknown 'super juice' into a peloton pre final armstrong meltdown without a care? Why not lab-rat someone you've at least got on the books for a year, so you can really test the juice - why put the lot on one about to leave grupetto rider and do nothing to keep him on board until it costs you millions?

How often do you give relative strangers your big credit card, Hog?

Nope, Hog, you can do better than that. Have another go.

 

[thehog]

Well, I grant you this, at least it's a narrative, Hog, which is better than we're getting elsewhere.

But, really, you don't tie your 'lab rat' down pre-Vuelta? He can just walk out with his unknown 'super juice' into a peloton pre final armstrong meltdown without a care?

How often do you give relative strangers your big credit card, Hog?

Nope, Hog, you can do better than that. Have another go.

Super juice? Martin? Super juice? What super juice are you talking about?

Good story, keep drinking

The guy was walking out of pro cycling period. He wasn't coming back. Froome knows it, Sky knew it.

 

[Justinr]

Froome's GF/Wife said this on velorooms:

Shortened to save space.

Do we now have a reason why he wasn't at the 2011 TdF?

 

[Ventoux Boar]

This is the finest example of reductio ad absurdum I have ever seen. And Martin by far your dumbest post ever! And I like what you put together

Doping in a team environment is never sending out a group email with the subject title "team wide doping to be implemented, who's in?".

It's starts on the fringes and with experimentation and with only a few. From there, if successful, it grows to other "trusted" confidants. It's never as you described some form of formalised RFP process including one and all.

Froome was a perfect candidate to try a program of new aged doping on. The Vuelta was the perfect race to do that with its lax controls and prying media.

Froome wasn't the chosen one. He was a lab rat for Wiggins and was always going to be a dom, a super dom if they could get his doping right... and the experiment actually went better than expected. They now have a seven time winner on their hands.

If there was similarities to be drawn from USPS, then it's how it starts and gestates into something better structured and bigger in terms of number of riders.

Once you learn how to use that phrase, you'll also be ready with paragraphs for it to slot into

As for the doping, can you help us with the pre-Vuelta 6 week miracle? Sunday's confused us all.

 

[Cyivel]

Froome's GF/Wife said this on velorooms:

Post 1, October 18th 2012:

I don't know where you got that rubbish about bilharzia treatment being comparable to chemo?!?
I was with Chris when he took the 7-day (NOT 6 week) course of medication (immediately following Criterium International) & while there was some mild nausea & fatigue it certainly wasn't anything like a chemo treatment. He obviously wasn't able to ride while taking the medication.
And yes, he definitely has been struggling with bilharzia... he is due for another test to see if it's cleared his system.

Really... get your facts straight before making accusations like that... pathetic.

Post 2, October 18th 2012:

I'll repeat what I said before... it is NOT like chemo.
If you're that interested, the medication is a strong anti-parisitic called Prazitel.
He took it at the end of March after Criterium International, he had also taken two courses of praziquantel in the past but the parasites kept coming back. He was diagnosed back in 2010 if I remember correctly. It's difficult to say when it was contracted.
It's fairly common for kids to pick it up in Africa playing in dams & rivers and usually goes undetected for years.
Growing up in South Africa myself, we were taught about it in primary school & told to avoid certain areas.
It's really not that strange or uncommon.

Cheers BYOP, with only 12 days between the end of Suisse and The Tour starting it would seem to me that being on a course for 7 days where he is unable to ride would make him unlikely to be in picked in the Tour team

 

[thehog]

Shortened to save space.

Do we now have a reason why he wasn't at the 2011 TdF?

Not good enough. Well, he was a good bike pusher but that's about it.

 

[Justinr]

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.

+1 for getting the word Baloney properly in a post!

 

[The Hitch]

That looks remarkably like evasion, Hitch. Why don't you address my point?

Evasion

I saw you in a conversation that had absolutely squat to do with me, use the words "common sense".
I noted that it was Hillarious to hear someone who believes bjarne froome is clean use the words, "common sense dictates" considering believing froome is clean requires a tremendous suspension of common sense.

Whatever arguments you have with others on this forum, that have nothing to do with me I don't give a **** about that. I'm not evading anything since your discussion was with byop, not me, maybe you got confused.

You can respond to the point I made, or not, I don't care.

 

[martinvickers]

Super juice? Martin? Super juice? What super juice are you talking about?

Grupetto on the outer to GC sensation in 6 weeks. I keep being told that Froome's progress is utterly unique, utterly unprecedented. Indeed, it's held out as one of the main reasons not to believe in him.

I think that could be described as 'super', no?

Good story, keep drinking

Now hoggy, don't be naughty!

The guy was walking out of pro cycling period. He wasn't coming back. Froome knows it, Sky knew it.

He already had a number of tier 2 teams biting, pre vuelta, according to what i've read; he wasn't retiring. That's just an invention.

Come on, Hog, don't let me down

 

[Justinr]

Super juice? Martin? Super juice? What super juice are you talking about?

Good story, keep drinking

The guy was walking out of pro cycling period. He wasn't coming back. Froome knows it, Sky knew it.

But Hog what you have said there just doesn't make sense. If its a new super juice why pick someone who was going out of 'pro cycling period' - why not just give it to someone else in the team who had already had a better year???

 

[The Hitch]

suggesting actual information, rather than conjecture, and there ain't no place for that new-fangled baloney round these parts, Mister.

You thought facts and actual information weren't allowed on this forum?
Well that explains your posting history I guess.

 

[Escarabajo]

I've probably commented on this in the past, but what's really curious to me is the underlying premise to Brailsford's claims.

He never cited any particular "British" genetic advantage that he was hoping to capitalize on, or some sort of unique "British" will-to-win that would provide the missing ingredient. No, it was simply the belief that he and his team would somehow uncover never-before-applied scientific methods that would then unleash an unstoppable GT powerhouse.

It makes me wonder: Has anyone questioned Brailsford directly about the implications of that? He must then believe that—given the vast talent pool of the pro peloton—that there are any number of riders who, had they only been fortunate enough to born under the British flag (or close enough to claim as much) then they, too, could dream the dream of winning the TdF once they cast allegiance to Team Sky.

It also makes me wonder just how many riders, in the world, Team Sky feel they could turn into GT winners? Or is there some non-British liability working against the majority of pro cyclists around the world (and is Australia "close enough" so that it doesn't matter?).

Just curious. How many riders, under the "Sky Adavantage" could achieve what Wiggo and Froome did had they only not been born to some other, inferior, sporting nation?

And what luck! (as Hitch has pointed out) that not one, but TWO riders emerge, consecutively to fulfill Brailsford's vision of glory! What are the odds?

No, seriously. What are the odds? Surely with all the wizardry available to Team Sky, they could come up with an answer to that (but maybe only if I harass on them on Twitter. Which obviously they don't care about. Until they do...)

Excellent Post.

I was thinking just that this morning. What are the odds of that happening to your country? LOL.

Usually is the other way around. Example: If we have Quintana (not implying anything about him) then we have to provide him with a strong team with Colombian sponsorship to help him win because a talent like that can happen once every 20-30 years. You just don't get up one day and say we will develope technology so that Brittish riders can win the Tour the France. It simply does not depend solely on technology.

 

[martinvickers]

Evasion

Evasion; avoidance, dodging, squirming, hiding, avoiding detection.

You're welcome.

I saw you in a conversation that had absolutely squat to do with me,

And yet you felt impelled to enter it - interesting..do go on.

use the words "common sense".
I noted that it was Hillarious

Best not to mock my lack of intelligence with a spelling mistake. Just so you know.

to hear someone who believes bjarne froome is clean

Please find the place where I declared I thought, or think, Froome was clean, there's a good chap. Take as long as you need.

use the words, "common sense dictates" considering believing froome is clean requires a tremendous suspension of common sense.

See above.

Whatever arguments you have with others on this forum, that have nothing to do with me I don't give a **** about that.

If you aren't interested in my house, don't p1ss on my doorstep. Simples.

I'm not evading anything since your discussion was with byop, not me, maybe you got confused.

You can respond to the point I made, or not, I don't care.

You respond to mine, and I'll be only too happy to respond to yours. But this doesn't go --one way--> just 'cos you don't want to address the weaknesses in your own case. Sorry, toodles, doesn't work like that.

 

[thehog]

Grupetto on the outer to GC sensation in 6 weeks. I keep being told that Froome's progress is utterly unique, utterly unprecedented. Indeed, it's held out as one of the main reasons not to believe in him.

I think that could be described as 'super', no?

Now hoggy, don't be naughty!



He already had a number of tier 2 teams biting, pre vuelta, according to what i've read; he wasn't retiring. That's just an invention.

Come on, Hog, don't let me down

There's nothing unique or unprecedented about doping. In fact in cycling its a historical 'norm'.

Froome's rise from nothing to something is most shocking but not unusual. There have been many examples in cycling of similar and all of it came back to doping. Emanuele Sella is a good example.

Your logic falls along the lines of Armstrong's infamous: "Why would I dope? After being on my deathbed, I wouldn't dope, no way". You attempt to suspend belief that riders would do something so preposterous as dope as your reason why they don't. When in fact cycling is doping and has been for a very very long time.

Sorry Martin, not buying your logic applied. It failed all of spectacularly last time and took the better part of 10 years to uncover.

And as I keep saying; if Froome is the real deal then there would be a lot more openness about him. Still today we actually know very little about him and what makes him into the this super-uber, special athlete.

You should be demanding that Martin. Not defending the nothing we get right now. You only have to look at the Heano press release to know, we still know so little about Sky and what they do.

 

[The Hitch]

But Hog what you have said there just doesn't make sense. If its a new super juice why pick someone who was going out of 'pro cycling period' - why not just give it to someone else in the team who had already had a better year???

This is like people who say "I don't believe something can come out of nothing ergo god must have created everything" ignorant of the fact that someone must have created god in the first place.

You pick holes in the story that Froome started to dope in 2011, seemingly unaware of the fact that all those holes become 10x bigger the moment you entertain the alternate theory that Froome was clean.

 

[martinvickers]

You thought facts and actual information weren't allowed on this forum?
Well that explains your posting history I guess.

Feel free to address the ball, not the man, Hitch. Any time you want.

 

[BYOP88]

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!!

Do you remember Steve Houanard?

Regarding Froome's contract, what's £300,000-£2,000,000 to (Team) Sky? I mean they must spend a few Benjamin's on their scientific research and some of that stuff will result in nothing but a dead-end. No doubt they'll probably drop some dough on their Henao research/report too.

Also in sport a lot of bad contracts are given to riders/ball players, where the athlete will never live up to the deal. Sometimes players/riders are cut by teams and then the decision to cut them makes the team look stupid.

 

[The Hitch]

Evasion; avoidance, dodging, squirming, hiding, avoiding detection.

You're welcome.



And yet you felt impelled to enter it - interesting..do go on.



Best not to mock my lack of intelligence with a spelling mistake. Just so you know.



Please find the place where I declared I thought, or think, Froome was clean, there's a good chap. Take as long as you need.



See above.



If you aren't interested in my house, don't p1ss on my doorstep. Simples.



You respond to mine, and I'll be only too happy to respond to yours. But this doesn't go --one way--> just 'cos you don't want to address the weaknesses in your own case. Sorry, toodles, doesn't work like that.

I am not evading anything if I wasn't part of the discussion to begin with. Your challenge was to Byop not me. If it had been to me you would have put my name somewhere in there. You did not.

I responded to one part of your post ignoring the rest. This is standard practice on internet forums. If you think that anyone who finds fault in 1 paragraph of a multi paragraph post must therefore respond to every point made in the entire post you are imo delusional.

I saw you used the words common sense and I responded to that. Since I was not responding to any other point you made in that post I could not possibly have been evading anything.

You respond to mine, and I'll be only too happy to respond to yours. But this doesn't go --one way--> just 'cos you don't want to address the weaknesses in your own case. Sorry, toodles, doesn't work like that

There is no weakness in my case since I never made the case. Stop playing your cheap beloved strategy of throwing every single thing anyone says in the clinic, on the rest of the clinic.

Whatever Byop said that you liked or didn't like, i had nothing to do with that. I never said it and its trolling to pretend you somehow defeated me or pointed out weaknesses in my argument if I NEVER made the argument to begin with.

 

[martinvickers]

There's nothing unique or unprecedented about doping. In fact in cycling its a historical 'norm'.

Strawman, Hog.

No-one suggested doping was unique. And you know it. What is, supposedly unique, is Froome's rise. Address what's actually written. It speeds things up wonderfully.

Froome's rise from nothing to something is most shocking but not unusual. There have been many examples in cycling of similar and all of it came back to doping. Emanuele Sella is a good example.

Sella never got within a fart's blast of a Froomish rise. try again, Hog.

Your logic falls along the lines of Armstrong's infamous: "Why would I dope? After being on my deathbed, I wouldn't dope, no way". You attempt to suspend belief that riders wouldn't do something so preposterous as dope as your reason why they don't. When in fact cycling is doping and has been for a very very long time.

1. Cycling=doping is a religious persuasion, not an argument, and I have no interest in theology, even of the flat earth nature. Or as the finance guys say - previous returns are no guarantee of future performance.

Some will always dope. Absolutely. Froome, or any other Sky rider may be among them. Absolutely. Therefore it follows FRoome and a.n. other are definitely doping? No. Logic fail. try harder.

2. I have made no mention in this conversation that leads to the baloney on suspending belief on doping. You know my views on Froome. What i'm doing is challenging some of the sillier expulsions. No more. No less.

Sorry Martin, not buying your logic applied. It failed all of spectacularly last time and took the better part of 10 years to uncover.

Well, you're entitled not to buy it, hog. I just find it hard to credit that because Armstrong behaves in way x, all riders must.

And as I keep saying; if Froome is the real deal then there would be a lot more openness about him. Still today we actually know very little about him and what makes him into the this uber, special athlete.

I agree. Personally I'd love to see more data. But with one proviso. I know darn well, it'll answer nothing in places like this. And in your heart of hearts, so do you, Hog.

You should be demanding that Martin. Not defending the nothing we get right now. You only have to look at the Heano press release to know, we still know so little about Sky and what they do.

I don't want to get derailed about Henao, he has his own thread. But don't assume I haven't dug a bit already. Or that I won't continue to.

 

[BYOP88]

Shortened to save space.

Do we now have a reason why he wasn't at the 2011 TdF?

The posts that she posted were regarding the treatment Froome undertook in March 2012. The guy must have bad luck if he keeps getting Schistosomiasis. Good job he's been clear since mid 2012.

 

[the sceptic]

Not good enough. Well, he was a good bike pusher but that's about it.

Good post Hog. Do you know which race that was? would love to watch it again!

This is my favourite Froome moment though.

 

[Justinr]

Not good enough. Well, he was a good bike pusher but that's about it.

Do you mean not a good enough reason why he wasn't there?

TdS finishes 19 June - CF has treatment that lays him out for a week - TdF starts 2 July (1 week later after treatment) and you're surprised he wasn't picked? Blimey - I wouldn't want you as a DS...