Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1074 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Nov 23, 2013
366
0
0
Ok so I've read the thread for a bit now and developed some questions. Exactly what does proof of someone doping have to do with whether they are doping? Are there really people arguing that Sky and especially Froome are clean? Wow....
 
Jan 30, 2014
46
0
0
Ventoux Boar said:
I can't explain his improvement. (Paradoxically the more drastic you make it, the less plausible a 6 week program sounds).

But then I haven't been banging on about it for 18 months. A casual examination of the miraculous 6-week September hypothesis has people all over the place.

And you're suggesting I'm the one with the explaining to do? I don't think so.
If you cannot explain his amazing transformation then why should I. Froome and his defenders are the ones who need to show how this has been achieved clean when history shows us that leaps in performance of this kind only mean one thing.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
Energy Starr said:
Ok so I've read the thread for a bit now and developed some questions. Exactly what does proof of someone doping have to do with whether they are doping? Are there really people arguing that Sky and especially Froome are clean? Wow....
Which thread?

And where do you stand on the transformation theorem question?
 
Aug 16, 2011
10,820
1
0
deviant said:
Forget Froome, my post was a response to previous posts that i interpreted as suggesting that marginal gains was a nonsensical notion in cycling.

My opinion is that dismissing marginal gains makes one sound ignorant....all the teams subscribe to the marginal gains theory without actually saying as much, they all have their own physios, own DRs, own chefs, own dieticians, psychologists etc etc....they all work with the bike manufacturers to continually evolve the machines they ride, they work with clothing manufacturers etc etc....they are looking for every little advantage over their rivals, this is indisputable and its not exclusive to SKY.
So if you agree all teams are pretty much doing all that marginal stuff, how can Sky claim there marginal stuff is giving them an advantage over other teams? The clinic doesn't really dismiss the value of good equipment, nutrition, health, etc. But rather challenges the theory that these are the things that enable Sky's domination.

If all teams are doing this stuff as common practice already then surly there can't be that much of an advantage in it over other teams and riders. And definitely not enough to turn a nobody like Froome into the greatest cyclist in the world in the span of a few months.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Col Okey said:


If you cannot explain his amazing transformation then why should I. Froome and his defenders are the ones who need to show how this has been achieved clean when history shows us that leaps in performance of this kind only mean one thing.
For the record, VB, Earache and JR are only here to obfuscate the thread to make it harder for people to read the true discussion, which has repeatedly pointed out where Sky's claims are nothing but that with no substance behind Sky's so called sports science and the end argument tends to be "see no evidence of doping' where as at this stage we have seen no change to anti doping so why expect a change in doping practices!
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
Benotti69 said:
How long before Brailsford and a Sky rider writes a book "We might as well win".......
Just in time to clear away all the obfuscation and call a spade a spade? Excellent.

Did Froome freelance or did Sky pump'n'dump?
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
does anybody know where to find the footage of mcquaid talking about sky's winner's celebration party long before the end of the 2012 tdf?
 
martinvickers said:
I neither believe, nor disbelieve. I am the true agnostic - not only don't I know, but I recognise the impossiblity of my knowing, without the evidence.

What I do have are views, which you know, and I have patience, which again you know. Anything else is pointless.

Once that is accepted, all that is left is the gathering, and validation of, evidence. Since I don't get to take blood tests, I concentrate on the latter, specifically testing the theories.

None of them have come close to passing muster yet. From either side. And so I remain agnostic, and waiting.
I'm teasing but this reads a little like a Sky press release! :)

I'm none the wiser but good for you. I hope the journey brings you to the right place.

I would disagree you have patience. I think you have little patience with others but agree you have patience for the journey. Sometimes it important to understand why another person believe the way they do.

I fear at times you place too much faith in logic. In a sport which comes out with the most ridiculous doping stories; faux-autograph hunters delivering blood. Girlfriends, wives, mothers and dogs used to transport drugs, broken down buses, nurses given names of birds, gynaecologists freezing blood under code names of Russian states, dyslexic lab assistants mixing up blood bags, lab directors consulting with riders etc..... It couldn't be any more ridiculous.

l fear that by applying too much logic is what got us unto trouble the first time. Doping in cycling has never been logical but it has been a constant. And in cycling the absurd is the logic. (Ref: Brad Wiggins views on a Lance Armstrong).

Your Froome 'super juice' construct is an example of this. Similarly to the rumours about Sky and co2 doping, crazy stuff, very little logic but very plausible.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Benotti69 said:
For the record, VB, Earache and JR are only here to obfuscate the thread to make it harder for people to read the true discussion, which has repeatedly pointed out where Sky's claims are nothing but that with no substance behind Sky's so called sports science and the end argument tends to be "see no evidence of doping' where as at this stage we have seen no change to anti doping so why expect a change in doping practices!
Sky's gone down the usps road many times.
The employment of trolls dissing this place+the posters yet sticking around like flies is no exception.
ventoux boar is making it pretty obvious.
 
Nov 23, 2013
366
0
0
Ventoux Boar said:
Which thread?



This thread. Some people argue there's no proof....so we don't know whether. No kidding. The dispute is not about whether there is proof.

And where do you stand on the transformation theorem question?
Not possible without doping or some form of cheating.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
sniper said:
Sky's gone down the usps road many times.
The employment of trolls dissing this place+the posters yet sticking around like flies is no exception.
ventoux boar is making it pretty obvious.
Well that certainly helps the credibility of your arguments. What you afraid of? You've got the wagons circled. Just keep Sunday tucked away.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
Ventoux Boar said:
Well that certainly helps the credibility of your arguments. What you afraid of? You've got the wagons circled. Just keep Sunday tucked away.
Seems like your more interested in me than you are in Sky. This is a Sky thread after all.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Ventoux Boar said:
Well that certainly helps the credibility of your arguments. What you afraid of? You've got the wagons circled. Just keep Sunday tucked away.
How much do you get paid for posting here? Just wondering because 94 of your 100 posts are in 1 of 2 threads(This one & the Froome thread). Reminds me of the Lance days where "people" would only post in Lance threads.
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
Benotti69 said:
For the record, VB, Earache and JR are only here to obfuscate the thread to make it harder for people to read the true discussion, which has repeatedly pointed out where Sky's claims are nothing but that with no substance behind Sky's so called sports science and the end argument tends to be "see no evidence of doping' where as at this stage we have seen no change to anti doping so why expect a change in doping practices!
If that JR is meant to refer to me then i can assure you i am not here to obfuscate anything. I'm perfectly within my rights to post on here my views and thoughts and as long as i am doing this within the forum rules then there should be no problem.

And before anyone tries to imply i am a SKY troll in the way Lances people used to be employed then again you are wrong. The only connection i have with SKY is that i pay £36/month for one of their satellite boxes.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
deviant said:
That said, the little things do add up to better performance....to suggest otherwise makes one sound ignorant.
Do you think the bikes we ride now are made from the materials they are, or look they way they do for the fun of it?....no, they are how they are because they have been shown to be lighter, faster, more aero etc etc than the previous generation of blocky, heavy machines.
All the things you bring up only illustrate the difference between the past and the present. Nobody's bike's today are any faster than any others, despite what Cervelo would like the world to believe.

Or to put it in pictures...







Which bike is faster, more "aero," etc.?
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
The fridge in the blue trees said:
You guys seriously think you're important enough?
Hell, if there's money to be earned, just contact me SKY! Easy job, 97% of the posts are complete nonsense anyway.
I'm sure Lance and his fanboys used to say the samething about what was said in the clinic too.

When Wiggans said 'bone idle bunch of bankers....runts' it was aimed at who? Why would Wiggans be upset about something that is 97% nonsense?
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
Justinr said:
Wasnt vaughters in agreement about the principle of warming down?
Yes he was but warming down doesn't take you from gruppetto to world class climber, neither does hand washing, special pillows or pineapple juice.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Justinr said:
Wasnt vaughters in agreement about the principle of warming down?
JV's setlist depends on what the crowd want to hear. I don't recall Garmin doing warm downs before Sky or JV mentioning it before Sky did it.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
BYOP88 said:
I'm sure Lance and his fanboys used to say the samething about what was said in the clinic too.

When Wiggans said 'bone idle bunch of bankers....runts' it was aimed at who? Why would Wiggans be upset about something that is 97% nonsense?
Pretty sure that was aimed squarely at Hog.
 
BYOP88 said:
I'm sure Lance and his fanboys used to say the samething about what was said in the clinic too.

When Wiggans said 'bone idle bunch of bankers....runts' it was aimed at who? Why would Wiggans be upset about something that is 97% nonsense?
Now you think it was aimed at the clinic specifically?
And nonsense has the tendency to get to you if it's aimed at you.

But ok, thinking it over a bit more... you are really really important! The whole cycling world watches the clinic 24/7!
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS