Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1089 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dec 18, 2013
241
0
0
Firstly I haven't said septicemia isn't rare, I said it happens and why shouldn't Txema have succumbed to it?....its as plausible an explanation as the default 'Sky are doping' position adopted by others.

Secondly the pro cycling fraternity is small, a lot of the guys know each other, soigneurs follow riders from team to team, some move between teams for pay/career progression etc..to state that rider-X knows soigneur-Y therefore subsequent riders that soigneur-Y comes into contact with must be doping sounds no more concrete than just gossip.

Illnesses in the team can be explained by.... Illness, funnily enough....but this doesn't fit with the agenda that everything Sky do is doping related.

I'll say it again, I'm no fan of Froome. He has the personality of a brick and Sky may or may not be doping....I don't know for sure and haven't yet seen any proof.
There's plenty of gossip, accusations and power guesstimates from armchair sports scientists but the focus on Sky to the exclusion of rational debate about other riders is bizarre.... There was much s******ing on here about Sky's suggestion that G.Thomas could one day win a TdF....this week Sagan's team have said the same thing about Peter but what is seen as an outrageous suggestion from Sky barely registers when another team come out with claptrap about one of their riders.... Its the double standards that are laughable, ditto the lack of insinuation re. Contactor's and Rodriquez early season form.... the silence is deafening and makes the fixation on Sky all the more obvious.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
deviant said:
Firstly I haven't said septicemia isn't rare, I said it happens and why shouldn't Txema have succumbed to it?....its as plausible an explanation as the default 'Sky are doping' position adopted by others.

Secondly the pro cycling fraternity is small, a lot of the guys know each other, soigneurs follow riders from team to team, some move between teams for pay/career progression etc..to state that rider-X knows soigneur-Y therefore subsequent riders that soigneur-Y comes into contact with must be doping sounds no more concrete than just gossip.

Illnesses in the team can be explained by.... Illness, funnily enough....but this doesn't fit with the agenda that everything Sky do is doping related.

I'll say it again, I'm no fan of Froome. He has the personality of a brick and Sky may or may not be doping....I don't know for sure and haven't yet seen any proof.
There's plenty of gossip, accusations and power guesstimates from armchair sports scientists but the focus on Sky to the exclusion of rational debate about other riders is bizarre.... There was much s******ing on here about Sky's suggestion that G.Thomas could one day win a TdF....this week Sagan's team have said the same thing about Peter but what is seen as an outrageous suggestion from Sky barely registers when another team come out with claptrap about one of their riders.... Its the double standards that are laughable, ditto the lack of insinuation re. Contactor's and Rodriquez early season form.... the silence is deafening and makes the fixation on Sky all the more obvious.
Your disguised sky apology failed.

Accussing the clinic of double standards is BS. Most think Sagan is doping and no one is defending Sagan so no long threads. Cannodale's use of Ferrari is known.

The Sky threads are long because people cannot see the woods for the trees and swallow a professional cycling teams PR speak of marginal gains, attention to details, yada yada.....then ignore the proof when called out on their marginal gains and no stone unturned.

Sky are doping. Proof is there, people just dont want to accept it till there is a positive dope test and even then most Sky fas will call 'witch hunt'.....been there before.

Sky are the new USPS.
 
That's an easy one to sort out

deviant said:
Firstly I haven't said septicemia isn't rare, I said it happens and why shouldn't Txema have succumbed to it?....its as plausible an explanation as the default 'Sky are doping' position adopted by others.

Secondly the pro cycling fraternity is small, a lot of the guys know each other, soigneurs follow riders from team to team, some move between teams for pay/career progression etc..to state that rider-X knows soigneur-Y therefore subsequent riders that soigneur-Y comes into contact with must be doping sounds no more concrete than just gossip.

Illnesses in the team can be explained by.... Illness, funnily enough....but this doesn't fit with the agenda that everything Sky do is doping related.

I'll say it again, I'm no fan of Froome. He has the personality of a brick and Sky may or may not be doping....I don't know for sure and haven't yet seen any proof.
There's plenty of gossip, accusations and power guesstimates from armchair sports scientists but the focus on Sky to the exclusion of rational debate about other riders is bizarre.... There was much s******ing on here about Sky's suggestion that G.Thomas could one day win a TdF....this week Sagan's team have said the same thing about Peter but what is seen as an outrageous suggestion from Sky barely registers when another team come out with claptrap about one of their riders.... Its the double standards that are laughable, ditto the lack of insinuation re. Contactor's and Rodriquez early season form.... the silence is deafening and makes the fixation on Sky all the more obvious.
What is there not to understand ?

Sagan is old school - girls' backsides are for pinching, dope is for taking, punters are for fooling, the whole thing is a circus, was before Sagan was born, will be after he is dead - might sumarise the attitude he portrays.

Contador is the same, (less the public backside pinching).

Sir Brailsford, Sutton and the whole Fran Millar spun "let's wrap ourselves in a Union Jack, put a halo on our heads and charge off like St George to slay the "dirty cycling" dragon" thing, is what winds so many up. The power and hold they have in the media, is staggering to behold.

Yates "retires" to rest due to illness. So now he has recovered.
The way the Sunday Telegraph ran the story of Sutton going, on the front page and then magically during the day the story on the website changed, as Fran got off her bed and started ringing round. Insert long list of like stories. True - there are naff all positives, but that would only surprise a complete cretin. Lance waltzed out of the only positive he had with a backdated exemption. The testing is more of the circus. Lance came back, rode during the passport and retired again without being touched. It took Floyd to have a friend take his life via suicide and a few lucky strikes before a glove was laid on Lance. This after he had guys on motorbikes driving to RV's with the team bus after the stage, with bottles of blood. Just how many knew of that and elected to maintain the Omerta ?

With a trade team locked with the National Federation and the boss at the UCI, ensnared in the dream - each month he seems to utter a new statement pledging his troth at the altar - there is no way the lid is coming off this.

What is so annoying is that they take it all to a whole new level.

Give me an arXe pinching Sagan anyday, at least I don't have to argue with numpties on their £3,000 replica bike, dressed in their Sky kit, to convince them what he is about - it is entertainment.
 
Dec 18, 2013
241
0
0
Benotti69 said:
....then ignore the proof when called out on their marginal gains and no stone unturned.

Sky are doping. Proof is there, people just dont want to accept it
Where is this proof?...enough people want Sky to fail, let's see it.

Estimates on power based on guessing rider weights and TV observed climbing times?....yeah that's cast iron proof right there!

....or conspiracy theories about BC, the UCI, ASO etc....yep, that's not conjecture at all!

The doubters are as as bad as the pro Sky ranks, you're convinced they're doping and won't entertain any other views.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
deviant said:
Firstly I haven't said septicemia isn't rare, I said it happens and why shouldn't Txema have succumbed to it?....its as plausible an explanation as the default 'Sky are doping' position adopted by others.

Secondly the pro cycling fraternity is small, a lot of the guys know each other, soigneurs follow riders from team to team, some move between teams for pay/career progression etc..to state that rider-X knows soigneur-Y therefore subsequent riders that soigneur-Y comes into contact with must be doping sounds no more concrete than just gossip.

Illnesses in the team can be explained by.... Illness, funnily enough....but this doesn't fit with the agenda that everything Sky do is doping related.

I'll say it again, I'm no fan of Froome. He has the personality of a brick and Sky may or may not be doping....I don't know for sure and haven't yet seen any proof.
There's plenty of gossip, accusations and power guesstimates from armchair sports scientists but the focus on Sky to the exclusion of rational debate about other riders is bizarre.... There was much s******ing on here about Sky's suggestion that G.Thomas could one day win a TdF....this week Sagan's team have said the same thing about Peter but what is seen as an outrageous suggestion from Sky barely registers when another team come out with claptrap about one of their riders.... Its the double standards that are laughable, ditto the lack of insinuation re. Contactor's and Rodriquez early season form.... the silence is deafening and makes the fixation on Sky all the more obvious.
The rest has been answered.

You must be new to cycling or did you miss Wiggans' 2012 early season form, Feb-August or last year when Froome also did the early season form cycle of Feb-August? EDIT:So if Contador and J-Rod are fishy, what does that say about Wiggans and Froome?

Contador is a busted doper and like the rest who've been caught should NOT be allowed to race again. But using Contador and J-Rod as a smoke screen wont cut the mustard in the clinic. Good that you had a 'try', but best go back to the minor leagues for some more seasoning before you have another go in the show.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
deviant said:
Where is this proof?...enough people want Sky to fail, let's see it.

Estimates on power based on guessing rider weights and TV observed climbing times?....yeah that's cast iron proof right there!

....or conspiracy theories about BC, the UCI, ASO etc....yep, that's not conjecture at all!

The doubters are as as bad as the pro Sky ranks, you're convinced they're doping and won't entertain any other views.
Enough people wanted to see USPS/Pharmstrong fail....it took time! But when it came crashing down it was beautiful and when Team Sky comes crashing down it too will look beautiful.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
BYOP88 said:
Enough people wanted to see USPS/Pharmstrong fail....it took time! But when it came crashing down it was beautiful and when Team Sky comes crashing down it too will look beautiful.
Will Sky though? As someone else alluded to, Team Sky could be the Indurain of their era. I just think all those Olympic champions, knighthoods, OBEs etc to be implicated will be too much, it would be made to 'go away'. Then again before the Landis bombshell, most people thought Armstrong had gotten away with it.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
SundayRider said:
Will Sky though? As someone else alluded to, Team Sky could be the Indurain of their era. I just think all those Olympic champions, knighthoods, OBEs etc to be implicated will be too much, it would be made to 'go away'. Then again before the Landis bombshell, most people thought Armstrong had gotten away with it.
Do knighthoods and OBE's mean anything?

Sky might get away with it, but as you said lots of people including Armstrong thought he was going to get away with it. Just needs one UKPostal member to turn into the Brit version of Floyd.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
BYOP88 said:
Do knighthoods and OBE's mean anything?

Sky might get away with it, but as you said lots of people including Armstrong thought he was going to get away with it. Just needs one UKPostal member to turn into the Brit version of Floyd.
True, it does. However the glory seems to be shared out a lot more at Sky than it was at USPS, so to me anyway, it seems less likely that one of them would do a Floyd. Could be wrong though and I hope that I am wrong!
 
beauty

would team sky exposure really be as beautiful as suggested above?

usps/lance going down was only beautiful because lance is such an obnoxious character

i hope for better from cycling ..................comparisons between cycling and pro wrestling anger myself

i see no such comparison........cycling can not be so easily controlled / scripted there are too many variables

so i still watch cycling and will always do so

Mark L
 
Dec 18, 2013
241
0
0
BYOP88 said:
Good that you had a 'try', but best go back to the minor leagues for some more seasoning before you have another go in the show.
Seriously?...are you a 14 yr old girl?

Who actually talks like this?

The forum is good fun but you're taking it far too seriously if you think it is some kind of 'show' with winners and losers....like i said in previous posts, the Sky bashing is not without merit but it should be dealt with in an even handed manner with an acknowledgment that if Sky's top boys are doping them so are pretty much averybody else at the top table in cycling, the Clinic comes across as ridiculously one sided at times.
 
SundayRider said:
Will Sky though? As someone else alluded to, Team Sky could be the Indurain of their era. I just think all those Olympic champions, knighthoods, OBEs etc to be implicated will be too much, it would be made to 'go away'. Then again before the Landis bombshell, most people thought Armstrong had gotten away with it.
It is possible, Sky may not ever get busted. That will be too bad for the sport. When their team goes on the massive fail, and it will, only matter of time. I think the cracks are starting to show now,. There is only so much eperimental doping they can do. It will all be explained away however with some lame *** PR bu11sh1t from the Sky scum.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
deviant said:
Seriously?...are you a 14 yr old girl?

Who actually talks like this?

The forum is good fun but you're taking it far too seriously if you think it is some kind of 'show' with winners and losers....like i said in previous posts, the Sky bashing is not without merit but it should be dealt with in an even handed manner with an acknowledgment that if Sky's top boys are doping them so are pretty much averybody else at the top table in cycling, the Clinic comes across as ridiculously one sided at times.
Correct! But other teams/riders don't have fanboys defending them. Take a look at the OPQS/Movistar threads no one there is defending them. Look at the Sky threads and you have fanboys defending, hence the Sky/Sky related threads are 8983983 times bigger than the other teams.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
SundayRider said:
True, it does. However the glory seems to be shared out a lot more at Sky than it was at USPS, so to me anyway, it seems less likely that one of them would do a Floyd. Could be wrong though and I hope that I am wrong!
A guy like bruyneel might have dirt on one or the other sky rider, though to put it mildly bruyneel has a credibility problem. :D
 
Dec 23, 2012
30
0
0
SundayRider said:
Will Sky though? As someone else alluded to, Team Sky could be the Indurain of their era. I just think all those Olympic champions, knighthoods, OBEs etc to be implicated will be too much, it would be made to 'go away'. Then again before the Landis bombshell, most people thought Armstrong had gotten away with it.
Does anyone believe that Froome could bag 5-7 Tours in a row like Indurain- Lance did, without tripping the wire?

I hope that is not the case, but as things are now is just not possible to give most of this clowns the benefit of the doubt. At least not until things really really change and anti-doping becomes somewhat independent, fat chance it will happen......
 
SundayRider said:
Will Sky though? As someone else alluded to, Team Sky could be the Indurain of their era. I just think all those Olympic champions, knighthoods, OBEs etc to be implicated will be too much, it would be made to 'go away'. Then again before the Landis bombshell, most people thought Armstrong had gotten away with it.
BYOP88 said:
Do knighthoods and OBE's mean anything?

Sky might get away with it, but as you said lots of people including Armstrong thought he was going to get away with it. Just needs one UKPostal member to turn into the Brit version of Floyd.
Only problem is evolution. The next criminal always learns from the mistakes of the first, and won't fall the way the first did. That's how it always is. Sky fall if they make some other mistake, buy they've seen how Landis took lance down, all the more so considering how close Wiggins himself was to lance and how much sky tried to emulate usps. They won't make the same mistakes Armstrong did.
 
The Hitch said:
Only problem is evolution. The next criminal always learns from the mistakes of the first, and won't fall the way the first did. That's how it always is. Sky fall if they make some other mistake, buy they've seen how Landis took lance down, all the more so considering how close Wiggins himself was to lance and how much sky tried to emulate usps. They won't make the same mistakes Armstrong did.
Correct - I think what people forget is how careless and open lance was about his doping. So many knew, because he didn't make much of an effort to hide it.

In a general level, not related to sky here, the word is that doping these days is similar but much more secret, cut throat, back stabbing than before.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
Digger said:
Correct - I think what people forget is how careless and open lance was about his doping. So many knew, because he didn't make much of an effort to hide it.

In a general level, not related to sky here, the word is that doping these days is similar but much more secret, cut throat, back stabbing than before.
Must put a great deal of mental/psychological strain keeping it secret (to other riders/team staff etc) than the LA approach of being open.
 
Mar 3, 2014
31
0
0
No he isn't

BYOP88 said:
The rest has been answered.

You must be new to cycling or did you miss Wiggans' 2012 early season form, Feb-August or last year when Froome also did the early season form cycle of Feb-August? EDIT:So if Contador and J-Rod are fishy, what does that say about Wiggans and Froome?

Contador is a busted doper and like the rest who've been caught should NOT be allowed to race again. But using Contador and J-Rod as a smoke screen wont cut the mustard in the clinic. Good that you had a 'try', but best go back to the minor leagues for some more seasoning before you have another go in the show.
According to CAS Alberto Velasquez is guilty of taking a contaminated supplement. You may know he's guilty but they decided he wasn't. Either have due process or don't bother.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
deviant said:
Where is this proof?...enough people want Sky to fail, let's see it.

Estimates on power based on guessing rider weights and TV observed climbing times?....yeah that's cast iron proof right there!

....or conspiracy theories about BC, the UCI, ASO etc....yep, that's not conjecture at all!

The doubters are as as bad as the pro Sky ranks, you're convinced they're doping and won't entertain any other views.
Hiring doping doctor Leinders is evidence. Hiring Ex USPS Yates and Barry. Hiring Jullich and Rogers. The whole marginal gains that makes Sky better than the rest BS, they train harder than everyone else BS, the pineapple juice in their water bidons BS, the mechanics not getting wet while working BS, all the Sky lies, it all points to a team lying about the obvious, DOPING.

There is no doubt here, none whatsoever.

As for fans calling it 'conspiracies', y'all sound as bad if not worse than the Armstrong fans and boy were they BLIND!
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Peter70 said:
According to CAS Alberto Velasquez is guilty of taking a contaminated supplement. You may know he's guilty but they decided he wasn't. Either have due process or don't bother.
Seem to remember him losing a few GT titles and other stage races and getting banned too. So what would have happened if "they" had found him guilty?
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Peter70 said:
According to CAS Alberto Velasquez is guilty of taking a contaminated supplement. You may know he's guilty but they decided he wasn't. Either have due process or don't bother.
Contador was guilty of having Clenbuterol in his body when tested. That was a 2 year ban. Doping.

They surmised it was likely a contaminated supplement. Big difference. Still a 2 year ban and still doping.
 
Dec 11, 2013
1,138
0
0
GuyIncognito said:
Name any other date, I'll fetch the staff for you. No Leinders.
If you have time I would be interested in knowing when 'Management' was replaced by 'Performance' and a medical team listed.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY