Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1109 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
ralphbert said:
Eh, I don't know. If you attack the messenger when you know the message is the truth then it indicates to me that you have something to hide.
I honestly think that would have a lot more purchase if Landis had been making allegations about Wiggins; but he wasn't - it was f*** all to do with wiggins, frankly. And I don't think Landis has forgotten that, either.
 
Jul 5, 2012
85
0
0
ScienceIsCool said:
It's a half-truth. The adult parasite in the blood is easily eliminated by a single drug treatment. However, the eggs can stay attached to the lining of whatever organ they're attached to. This can cause problems, and has no remedy or cure.

Which is why I can say that Froome has been lying about his disease. The eggs do not hatch inside the body - only fresh water. Therefore, to have more parasites in the body - requiring more Praziquantal - you must be re-infected. The notion that he needs treatment every 6 months or so means that he is standing in water that has the parasite and is getting re-infected.

Note: check the bilharzia life cycle to see why this is true. Eggs attach to the bladder and intestinal wall so that they can be excreted. They then infect fresh water snails, which go on to produce the parasite that gets absorbed through the skin and into the bloodstream. There the parasite matures and mates, making more eggs.

Without the snail, there are no mature parasites. Period.

Also note that it's odd that his bilharzia was detected by blood test. Normally the diagnosis is made by counting the number of eggs per gram (epg) in the stool or urine. I doubt the actual mature parasite would be captured by a thin guage needle used in blood sampling.

John Swanson
I think you got the units for the eggs measurement wrong, eggs per ounce are the standard for this.
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
42x16ss said:
Jesus Manzano?

He needed a near death experience to give him the push but he did it. Without him there probably would never have been an Op Puerto.
Yep - already been picked up on that one. Shocking what was happening to him.
 
the sceptic said:
Lets get back to the topic at hand.

If marginal gains is real, why doesnt it work on the riders you would think it would work on?

Like someone who has been riding for euskaltel their entire career. Seems like a perfect example of someone who should benefit greatly from marginal gains.
Give the lad a chance! He will still be getting used to his new pillows!
 
RownhamHill said:
Care to tell me which one it was then?
Okay same interview, but hardly the part you (selectively) chose.

“I think you have to question Landis’ credibility because he lied under oath before and the stories that you hear about him drinking and things like that and you know, [making] telephone calls to people I know, threatening them with things, you just think that the guy appears to not all be there. So when you see these kinds of claims in the press you have to question his credibility because it’s almost like it’s coming from a mad man, but at the same time maybe that’s all borne out of frustration and things.

“You just never know but you just look at the way his life has gone over the last five years and you think there’s one person who it would have been so easy to have just admitted it when it happened in 2006, come clean if he did do it and he would have been back racing in a professional team making pretty good money. It’s quite sad how his life has gone away, just dwindled away and now there’s all these claims and counter claims and it’s quite a sad story for him.”
Why would one have to question his credibility, if you know he tells the truth? Why attack the messenger if you agree with the message?

Omerta.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Netserk said:
Okay same interview, but hardly the part you (selectively) chose.



Why would one have to question his credibility, if you know he tells the truth? Why attack the messenger if you agree with the message?

Omerta.
lets face it, you gotta have your head stuck quite deep up sky's **** to not be able to deduce the obvious from those statements.
wiggo is a nobrainer.
there's no way he didn't know about lance/usps.
 
Dec 18, 2013
241
0
0
Wiggins is/was between a rock and a hard place.

Most of the riders who are outspoken about drug use have left the sport and those still in it who speak out (Millar) have conveniently decided not to name names of those still in the sport who supplied him with PEDs, took PEDs with him etc etc....

If Wiggins throws Armstrong and then Contador under the bus when asked about their doping he effectively risks having himself hounded out of the sport.
At one point Armstrong was considered the most powerful person in cycling, seems a poor career choice to get on the wrong side of somebody like that.

Although the same aura and power never came to Contador it would be equally foolish to risk upsetting him, his DS etc etc, there might have been a time when Wiggins could have been offered good money to ride for Discovery, Astana, Saxo etc....again, it would be career suicide.

Wiggins cant win.
If he criticised these guys he risked his career, if he plays diplomat and continues the myth his comments come back to haunt him.
 
Apr 8, 2014
408
0
0
deviant said:
Wiggins is/was between a rock and a hard place.

Most of the riders who are outspoken about drug use have left the sport and those still in it who speak out (Millar) have conveniently decided not to name names of those still in the sport who supplied him with PEDs, took PEDs with him etc etc....

If Wiggins throws Armstrong and then Contador under the bus when asked about their doping he effectively risks having himself hounded out of the sport.
At one point Armstrong was considered the most powerful person in cycling, seems a poor career choice to get on the wrong side of somebody like that.

Although the same aura and power never came to Contador it would be equally foolish to risk upsetting him, his DS etc etc, there might have been a time when Wiggins could have been offered good money to ride for Discovery, Astana, Saxo etc....again, it would be career suicide.

Wiggins cant win.
If he criticised these guys he risked his career, if he plays diplomat and continues the myth his comments come back to haunt him.
Not really. Wiggins was happy to criticise dopers pre-2009. It wouldn't be career suicide- Wiggins is at the end of his road racing career, he's never going to ride for Tinkoff-Saxo. Again- he was happy to make these poor career choices in 2007. But something changed.

In fact, it was when his road career was at its most precarious that he was happy to speak out. Now he's a member of the elite, he's omerta. Ironic, that. And unsurprising.
 
As it's been pointed out countless times, there's a big difference between not siding with Landis and actively defending Armstrong with personal attacks towards someone you knew was telling the truth.

A non-statement, which is what most people went with, would have put Wiggins in a completely different place now and it wouldn't have made him any enemies in the peloton. "I think it's unfortunate for the sport and hopefully we can look forward", for example.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Nathan12 said:
Not really. Wiggins was happy to criticise dopers pre-2009. It wouldn't be career suicide- Wiggins is at the end of his road racing career, he's never going to ride for Tinkoff-Saxo. Again- he was happy to make these poor career choices in 2007. But something changed.

In fact, it was when his road career was at its most precarious that he was happy to speak out. Now he's a member of the elite, he's omerta. Ironic, that. And unsurprising.
To be fair, pre 2009 he had a damn sight less to lose. It's a bit easier to risk your road career when you barely have one and the welcoming track program is sitting waiting for you. After 2009 he's won Willy Wonka's Golden Ticket. rather harder to give up.

But let's be clear here. I think he is an absolute a***, period; he was certainly an absolute a*** to say what he said, despite my own strong contempt for Landis-lauding; it may or may not have been intended to reinforce omerta, but that was the effect, and he must have known it would be the effect - indeed, in his later 'mea culpa', he more or less admitted omerta with the whole "p!ssing out, p!ssing in, being in the gang" comments.

Along time ago now, God it seems a long time anyway, I made the point that the 2007 comments were never IMHO the anti-doping manifesto that Kimmage for example saw them to be or wanted them to be. It was just typical Wiggins, lashing out at whoever or whatever was ****ing him off that day - in that instance, his own Cofidis teammate f***ing things up for the team. Or later the 'bone idle w^nkers' or 'disloyal Froome' or the "[Armstrong] can **** off" from his last book.

Wiggins clearly became very chummy with Armstrong in 2009, having previously, by his own admition, been a fan. I doubt LA complemented JV much. I would be interested to know what Armstrong said to him. Did doping ever get discussed? Did Armstrong spin him an "they all did it then, but it's a cleaner peloton now" line? Or did he suggest some good dope? How much did JV and the boys tell Wiggins? Specifics? Generalities? did they confess their own wrongdoing to? And what did those same guys tell him about Landis?

I'm much less concerned with whether he SOUNDS anti-doping as to whether he's a doper. The answer to that question is not found in the Landis Armstrong debacle IMHO, no more than in protestations of innocence in pressers. They might, just might be found in further investigations of Leinders, Yates, Sutton and De Jongh.

I note this morning Contador praising the De Jongh-Sky method to the heavens. It co-incides with a huge Contador return to form. That's not an accident. De Jongh, who suggested and vouched for Leinders to Sky. And yet nobody, NOBODY, seems to be talking to De Jongh since his 'confession'.

Now, there's two possibilities I see with that -

1. De Jongh was one way or another at the heart of the Sky doping program, learnt the new tricks and has taken them to Tinkoff-Saxo, when Berti has proved to be responder.
2. De Jongh learnt the new clean methods that have helped to give Sky superiority in stage racing, and has taken them to an appreciative Contador, who is now driven to get back his old glory.

And the truth, of course, is I don't have a baldy notion which of these is true. Indeed, there may be a third or forth less obvious option that turns out to be the truth, I don't know. But I have yet to hear of anybody colloring De Jongh about Leinders.
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
martinvickers said:
Along time ago now, God it seems a long time anyway, I made the point that the 2007 comments were never IMHO the anti-doping manifesto that Kimmage for example saw them to be or wanted them to be. It was just typical Wiggins, lashing out at whoever or whatever was ****ing him off that day - in that instance, his own Cofidis teammate f***ing things up for the team. Or later the 'bone idle w^nkers' or 'disloyal Froome' or the "[Armstrong] can **** off" from his last book.
This is actually very likely with BW - he doesn't exactly deal with the press very well and certainly struggles to contain his emotions / respond coherently to things.

Now, there's two possibilities I see with that -

1. De Jongh was one way or another at the heart of the Sky doping program, learnt the new tricks and has taken them to Tinkoff-Saxo, when Berti has proved to be responder.
2. De Jongh learnt the new clean methods that have helped to give Sky superiority in stage racing, and has taken them to an appreciative Contador, who is now driven to get back his old glory.

And the truth, of course, is I don't have a baldy notion which of these is true. Indeed, there may be a third or forth less obvious option that turns out to be the truth, I don't know. But I have yet to hear of anybody colloring De Jongh about Leinders.
Well Saxo do have 2 ex-SKYers with Mick Rogers on board - its bound to happen that SKYs methods will become more well known / utilised within the Peloton, regardless of whether those are clean or not. So we should expect the performance gap between them and other teams to narrow.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
martinvickers said:
Now, there's two possibilities I see with that -

1. De Jongh was one way or another at the heart of the Sky doping program, learnt the new tricks and has taken them to Tinkoff-Saxo, when Berti has proved to be responder.
2. De Jongh learnt the new clean methods that have helped to give Sky superiority in stage racing, and has taken them to an appreciative Contador, who is now driven to get back his old glory.

And the truth, of course, is I don't have a baldy notion which of these is true. Indeed, there may be a third or forth less obvious option that turns out to be the truth, I don't know. But I have yet to hear of anybody colloring De Jongh about Leinders.
This is pro-cycling. Occam's razor.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
SundayRider said:
This is pro-cycling. Occam's razor.
Incorrect. This is pro doping. And I don't think Occam's razor mean what you think it does:

Ockham's razor (also written as Occam's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287 - 1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

Believing in the most sophisticated doping program yet seen in sport requires fewer assumptions than the alternative? :cool:
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
martinvickers said:
T
Now, there's two possibilities I see with that -

1. De Jongh was one way or another at the heart of the Sky doping program, learnt the new tricks and has taken them to Tinkoff-Saxo, when Berti has proved to be responder.
2. De Jongh learnt the new clean methods that have helped to give Sky superiority in stage racing, and has taken them to an appreciative Contador, who is now driven to get back his old glory.

And the truth, of course, is I don't have a baldy notion which of these is true. Indeed, there may be a third or forth less obvious option that turns out to be the truth, I don't know. But I have yet to hear of anybody colloring De Jongh about Leinders.
Of course new 'clean' methods that are enabling 'clean' riders to beat the doped performance of doped riders who had the UCI in their back pocket.

I do have a baldy notion which is true. Common sense and the fact that the the UCI leopard has not changed its spots.

As for collaring enablers, why would cycling do that when the image of the sport has just been kicked in the teeth. Commons sense would also say, enough doping this sport has taken too much of a hammering for being dirty, but low and behold old habits die hard and nothing has been done by UCI except to spend big bucks into looking into the past, not the present.

When an enabler moves to a new team and that team starts to perform better than previous years it points to one thing and one thing only. Doping methodology was what was sought when hiring.

Brailsford must be kicking himself for his declarations of clean, transparent and ZTP.
 
Ventoux Boar said:
Incorrect. This is pro doping. And I don't think Occam's razor mean what you think it does:

Ockham's razor (also written as Occam's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287 - 1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

Believing in the most sophisticated doping program yet seen in sport requires fewer assumptions than the alternative? :cool:
My guess is that Ockham would have applied his razor to an actual hypothesis, not one someone made up.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
red_flanders said:
My guess is that Ockham would have applied his razor to an actual hypothesis, not one someone made up.
Utterly useless post. Let me rephrase.

Believing that Sky has the most sophisticated program in the sport requires fewer assumptions than the alternative?

Happy?

Instead of wasting my time, how about engaging the question?

Meanwhile, I'd like to see Sunday outline his hypothesis so we can count the assumptions.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
2
0
Ventoux Boar said:
Utterly useless post. Let me rephrase.

Believing that Sky has the most sophisticated program in the sport requires fewer assumptions than the alternative?

Happy?

Instead of wasting my time, how about engaging the question?

Meanwhile, I'd like to see Sunday outline his hypothesis so we can count the assumptions.
Believing sky are doping requires fewer assumptions than believing they are cleans.

Now you can crawl back under your rock.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
the sceptic said:
Now you can crawl back under your rock.
Congratulations on your free pass to insult people at will. As I've said several times to you, don't waste your time responding to my posts. I'm not interested in your toxic prejudices.
 
Ventoux Boar said:
Utterly useless post. Let me rephrase.

Believing that Sky has the most sophisticated program in the sport requires fewer assumptions than the alternative?

Happy?

Instead of wasting my time, how about engaging the question?

Meanwhile, I'd like to see Sunday outline his hypothesis so we can count the assumptions.
Who other than you is claiming they have the most sophisticated program in the history of sport?

It's called a strawman, and the razor therefore does not apply. If I'm wasting your time, feel free to ignore my posts.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
red_flanders said:
Who other than you is claiming they have the most sophisticated program in the history of sport?

It's called a strawman, and the razor therefore does not apply. If I'm wasting your time, feel free to ignore my posts.
FFS. Call it what you want: A program good enough to turn carthorse Froome into a thoroughbred, while remaining the exclusive, confidential, preserve of one team. Moderately sophisticated OK?

Why is it only sophisticated some of the time?
 
Ventoux Boar said:
FFS. Call it what you want: A program good enough to turn carthorse Froome into a thoroughbred, while remaining the exclusive, confidential, preserve of one team. Moderately sophisticated OK?

Why is it only sophisticated some of the time?
The point isn't what to call it. The point is to respond to what people actually say, instead of responding to inventions about what they say.
 
martinvickers said:
1. De Jongh was one way or another at the heart of the Sky doping program, learnt the new tricks and has taken them to Tinkoff-Saxo, when Berti has proved to be responder.
2. De Jongh learnt the new clean methods that have helped to give Sky superiority in stage racing, and has taken them to an appreciative Contador, who is now driven to get back his old glory.

And the truth, of course, is I don't have a baldy notion which of these is true.
I do. Took me a few seconds to figure out, probably others faster. You still trying to figure it out, let me help you, one of the 2 doesn't make sense.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
SundayRider said:
This is pro-cycling. Occam's razor.
I don't agree Ockham get's you to the same conclusion as you do; but it's a perfectly fair point, and people can rationally disagree - Ockham after all is basically a tool, not a rule.

I remain unconvinced by EITHER possibility, that's the problem. That's the unsatisfactory reality. Perhaps the Henao investigation will tip the balance. Perhaps someone will have the gumption to go after De Jongh.

Walsh said if he was forced to have the gun put to his head, he'd say Sky were clean, but be relieved when the empty chamber clicked.

Me? I wouldn't have the gun next to near my head yet, either way. What Id do know is parsing Wiggins' d*ckhead comments is not going to get me much closer to a decision, however much certain posters want it to.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY