Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[EnacheV]

Talking about DNS as doping proof, like this Sky thread is full. Where are the comments? I posted here to underline the special treatment Sky gets, when Froome DNS is doping proof.

There was a surprise blood test tonight on Milan Sanremo guys

Lets see who DNS suddenly

Matteo Tosatto - has just finished Tirreno-Adriatico where he supported teammate and overall winner, Alberto Contador

Simon Gerrans

Adriano Malori - just demolished Tony Martin

Moreno Moser - Raced TA

Taylor Phinney

If some mod would like to move this to a more appropiate topic thread pls do it.

 

[BYOP88]

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

This is my favourite Froome moment though.

Proof that Froome is smart! In 2 years he went from learning that to teaching it.

 

[thehog]

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.



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


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.

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.

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.

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.

That a because Sella got caught and if you think winning 3 stages in one Giro and coming 6th against doped up Contador and Ricco then he was a Froome for sure. And looked just as ungainly on a bike.

And who said, 'Those who do not remember their past are condemned to repeat their mistakes? Using finance analogies probably doesn't cut it for the obvious reason that very industry blew up the world! i.e. just like doping when people try not only to predict the future but guarantee results, money and in this case doping is at the bottom of the pile.

You're welcome to challenge but I feel your current argument is based on the 'hearts and minds" type of emotion approach and not one based on logic, the - why would froome do this? And its not possible the entire team could dope, or why wouldn't they pick the British guy instead to dope? type rebuttals.

Nice guy David Miller was happy to snort, sniff, inject his way around France. Its not hard to believe someone else would do the same, is it?


And for the record. No one ever thought the world was flat, ever. That's one of those emotive logic curveballs that gets thrown. Not true.

 

[The Hitch]

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...

Froome claims to have been diagnosed with Bilharzia either in the winter of 09/10 (so about 18 months before the 2011 TDF) or the winter of 10/11, (so about 6 months before the 2011 TDF), he's not quite sure, which isn't surprising of course since its not like a cyclist should expect to remember roughly what year it was he got diagnosed with a deabilitating disease that threatened his dreams and livelyhood.

In either case, why is he still getting treatment 6/18 months later? Why is he riding races whilst not cured? I wouldn't go off on hog for being a bad ds if the real ones, according to their story, allowed him to continue racing while not cured of the disease.

 

[BYOP88]

Talking about DNS as doping proof, like this Sky thread is full. Where are the comments? I posted here to underline the special treatment Sky gets, when Froome DNS is doping proof.

There was a surprise blood test tonight on Milan Sanremo guys

Lets see who DNS suddenly

Matteo Tosatto - has just finished Tirreno-Adriatico where he supported teammate and overall winner, Alberto Contador

Simon Gerrans

Adriano Malori - just demolished Tony Martin

Moreno Moser - Raced TA

Taylor Phinney

If some mod would like to move this to a more appropiate topic thread pls do it.

Post that in the correct team threads, I'm sure the fanboys of those teams/riders will debate with you. This thread is about the miracle breakthroughs in British science for Team Sky,

 

[Ventoux Boar]

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.

Or what they don't. There's a large elephant in the room and clinicians are gathered around the camp fire retelling the Froome stories rather than thinking for themselves. Weak.

 

[sniper]

You only have to look at the Heano press release to know, we still know so little about Sky and what they do.

when it comes to sky, somehow only the dodgy details get into the public domain (leinders, tenerife, bilharzia, jtl, henao, etc.). They don't seem interested in cleaning/clearing their name at all.
it would only take relatively small efforts to kill a lot of the unjustified rumors about doping.
they don't seem interested though.

 

[thehog]

Proof that Froome is smart! In 2 years he went from learning that to teaching it.

Who's the guy who beat Froome that day in the black? He must be winning GTs these days? He must be a really good rider

 

[BYOP88]

Who's the guy who beat Froome that day in the black? He must be winning GTs these days? He must be a really good rider

Another rider who marginal gains didn't work on . If only Gerrans was British and not an Aussie, if he had the British DNA which = winner! Gerrans would've 2-3 GT wins by now.

 

[Mellow Velo]

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.

Are you using CQ?
I thought it took him 4 seasons (2010-2013) to go from 475th to 1st.
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/rider.asp?riderid=5789
Have you condensed those 4 seasons into 28 months?

Quintana went from 851st to 8th in the same 18 month time period it took Froome to move those final 4 spots.

 

[The Hitch]

Are you using CQ?
I thought it took him 4 seasons (2010-2013) to go from 475th to 1st.
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/rider.asp?riderid=5789
Have you condensed those 4 seasons into 28 months?

Quintana went from 851st to 8th in the same 18 month time period it took Froome to move those final 4 spots.

You are looking at year end totals. Im looking at year round totals. Better imo than the UCI only current year counts method which had your avatar as the world number 1 for much of the 2010 season.

Year round rankings Froome was still outside the top 300 in August 2011. He got into the number 1 spot at some point in the TDF build up in 2013. I'm guessing, considering Murito didn't contest the Giro losing his points from there, it would have been the late May update. So I'm a few months off, I guess. 21 or so.

 

[Granville57]

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.

And it certainly isn't something that one would normally squeeze into such an exceptionally narrow, and optimistic, time frame.

If British Cycling had laid out a ten-year-plan, starting with riders in their teens, and groomed them specifically for the task of ultimately winning the TdF, then the concept would seem much more plausible. But that is not what unfolded.

 

[GuyIncognito]

Some of the Sky fans here are so inbred they classify as sandwiches

 

[thehog]

Another rider who marginal gains didn't work on . If only Gerrans was British and not an Aussie, if he had the British DNA which = winner! Gerrans would've 2-3 GT wins by now.

Clearly he lacked the motivation. Wouldn't do what was "required" to win.

 

[TailWindHome]

imagine a soccer coach of a low-profile soccer club say "within five years time we want to win the champions league" and subsequently go on and win it two times in a row..

Nottingham Forest?

Relegated 1972
Clough took over 76/77
Promoted 77/78
Won the European Cup 78/79 & 79/80

 

[Benotti69]

Some of the Sky fans here are so inbred they classify as sandwiches

Give them a break, a kitkat, but they are here to try and convince themselves that Sky are clean and beating the dopers. They are not trying to convince the clinic since why would anyone with a lick of sense believe that anti-doping actually works! The Henao case proves it, Sky investigating their own rider instead of the UCI! What a joke.

 

[Benotti69]

Nottingham Forest?

Relegated 1972
Clough took over 76/77
Promoted 77/78
Won the European Cup 78/79 & 79/80

Pre EPO era. Sorry doesn't count.

 

[Justinr]

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.

Actually that doesn't necessarily follow, just because they are secretive doesn't mean they are doping. To take an analogy look at F1 - all of them hide their cars as much as possible because its about their design, their hard work. Now clearly training a human is slightly different but do you honestly expect them to publish all and give away their secrets?

And something I would like to cover is why a lot of people come back to the VO2 max testing? Maybe, just maybe, SKY don't do it. Maybe they concentrate on other parameters - say, Watts, etc. Now, I understand that last paragraph will give rise to a lot of replies, but how many of us on here are sports scientists, etc. who work at the top level (agreed there may be a few). But maybe, just maybe, Sky have a different philosophy / training ethos that doesn't involve VO2 Max? Is that really too far fetched?

Can the people who will likely ridicule this post honestly say from knowledge and experience that there is nothing else for Sky to base their training on - ie literally NOTHING other than VO2 Max?

I'm not saying I'm right but is VO2 max really the be all and end all???

 

[TailWindHome]

Pre EPO era. Sorry doesn't count.

Yup

They were clean too

 

[the sceptic]

Actually that doesn't necessarily follow, just because they are secretive doesn't mean they are doping. To take an analogy look at F1 - all of them hide their cars as much as possible because its about their design, their hard work. Now clearly training a human is slightly different but do you honestly expect them to publish all and give away their secrets?

And something I would like to cover is why a lot of people come back to the VO2 max testing? Maybe, just maybe, SKY don't do it. Maybe they concentrate on other parameters - say, Watts, etc. Now, I understand that last paragraph will give rise to a lot of replies, but how many of us on here are sports scientists, etc. who work at the top level (agreed there may be a few). But maybe, just maybe, Sky have a different philosophy / training ethos that doesn't involve VO2 Max? Is that really too far fetched?

Can the people who will likely ridicule this post honestly say from knowledge and experience that there is nothing else for Sky to base their training on - ie literally NOTHING other than VO2 Max?

I'm not saying I'm right but is VO2 max really the be all and end all???

I am no expert on formula 1, but the car that finishes last doesnt suddenly turn into the best car the next year does it? Has that ever happened?

 

[BYOP88]

Actually that doesn't necessarily follow, just because they are secretive doesn't mean they are doping. To take an analogy look at F1 - all of them hide their cars as much as possible because its about their design, their hard work. Now clearly training a human is slightly different but do you honestly expect them to publish all and give away their secrets?

And something I would like to cover is why a lot of people come back to the VO2 max testing? Maybe, just maybe, SKY don't do it. Maybe they concentrate on other parameters - say, Watts, etc. Now, I understand that last paragraph will give rise to a lot of replies, but how many of us on here are sports scientists, etc. who work at the top level (agreed there may be a few). But maybe, just maybe, Sky have a different philosophy / training ethos that doesn't involve VO2 Max? Is that really too far fetched?

Can the people who will likely ridicule this post honestly say from knowledge and experience that there is nothing else for Sky to base their training on - ie literally NOTHING other than VO2 Max?

I'm not saying I'm right but is VO2 max really the be all and end all???

For me the only reason the VO2 test gets brought up is because last July Brailsford said they would do the test for Froome the next time he was in the lab. Then they've said 'we don't do that test' well if that's the case why did Brailsford lie when asked if they would do the test?

For a "clean" team there are a lot of lies told by Sky. Remember in July 2012 when Brailsford said at the end of the European season he would have a Q&A in Manchester and it would be open for anyone. Did I miss that, never seen anything reported on what was said at that session.

 

[Benotti69]

I'm not saying I'm right but is VO2 max really the be all and end all???

No but a team that leaves no stoned unturned and specialises in every little detail and had their 2012 TdF winner in the lab every 6 weeks doing tests just might do a Vo2Max on their other GT winner.

But lets ignore this important part of the Sky manifesto and the incy wincy fact that Vo2Max aint really important, but pineapple juice is and keeping the mechanics dry is huge marginal gain.

 

[Justinr]

when it comes to sky, somehow only the dodgy details get into the public domain (leinders, tenerife, bilharzia, jtl, henao, etc.). They don't seem interested in cleaning/clearing their name at all.
it would only take relatively small efforts to kill a lot of the unjustified rumors about doping.
they don't seem interested though.

Hmm I don't agree Sniper. How do you prove clean? By "not testing positive"? Its so much easier to either (a) prove dirty by a +ve test or (b) be seen to be dirty through speculation.

It is virtually impossible to prove clean because there will always be people who do not believe and will point to this that and the other (and that is fair enough). This was the basis of my £100 to charity pledge the other day for Sky/Froome if no +ve for them in 10 years time.

Comments / views anyone?

 

[thehog]

I am no expert on formula 1, but the car that finishes last doesnt suddenly turn into the best car the next year does it? Has that ever happened?

Benetton was a good example of that occurring.

Mind you that had to rip out the engine and replace it with really good one. So, yes, same applies here!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Justinr: regardless of whether VO2max is necessary or helpful, how do you feel about Fran Millar's claim that Froome has not been in a lab since the 2013 Tour?

Wiggo was apparently in the lab every 6 weeks in 2012, doing physiology tests for Kerrison.