Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1110 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
The Hitch said:
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.
You think you do; you're welcome to your belief system, but I don't pray at that church.
 
martinvickers said:
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.
There you go again, offering some long extremely circular logic to get around the very simple equation. Wiggins who was allegedly anti doping, took the side of a lie, a big lie, to defend the ill gotten gains of a cheater, over a former doper who was actually challenging omerta. It's disgusting behaviour and would taint everything Wiggins ever achieved had he been a continental level domestique who's only ever win was a stage at the tour of Japan. There is no way around that unless it turns out lance had wiggos loved ones hostage.

Yer every time you respond with long posts filled with digressions that do not adress wiggos behaviour whatsoever

Ps
Why do you feel the need to reinforce every single post how much you allegedly hate Wiggins. We got it the first time, the 10th time the 50th time. Nothing anyone says before the word but really matters anyway.
 
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?
This notion that there is some formulation exclusive to Froome is false. The problem with this thinking is you are ignoring the fact the federation does not process some positives. He can, theoretically, be on whatever he likes with ABP red flags flying and it's all good because the federation permits it.

Ventoux Boar said:
Why is it only sophisticated some of the time?
There are no good answers. Two solid years of humiliating stage racing fields on a very light schedule and now? Merely elite on an even lighter schedule. The freight train sized hole in the ABP opens for grand tours, so let's wait and see.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
1
0
The Hitch said:
Church. Interesting choice of words there.
You are the one who believes in supernatural beings who accomplish extraordinary feats that can only be believed on faith.
Martin knows nothing about nothing.

He neither has faith, nor does he not have faith. He doesnt believe in anything, but doesnt disbelieve anything either.

The universe is just an illusion, but it could also be real. Anything is possible.

Sometimes he writes long posts that take a long time to scroll past.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
The Hitch said:
There you go again, offering some long extremely circular logic to get around the very simple equation. Wiggins who was allegedly anti doping, took the side of a lie, a big lie, to defend the ill gotten gains of a cheater, over a former doper who was actually challenging omerta. It's disgusting behaviour and would taint everything Wiggins ever achieved had he been a continental level domestique who's only ever win was a stage at the tour of Japan. There is no way around that unless it turns out lance had wiggos loved ones hostage.

Yer every time you respond with long posts filled with digressions that do not address wiggos behaviour whatsoever
That, Hitch, is a bullsh!t lie. Simple as. I've addressed plenty of his pr!ck behaviours. I just happen to disagree with you on what they mean. Guess what? Disagreeing with you is perfectly fine. Your opinion isn't all that important. Or to be brutal honest, all that smart.


Why do you feel the need to reinforce every single post how much you allegedly hate Wiggins. We got it the first time, the 10th time the 50th time. Nothing anyone says before the word but really matters anyway.
It's called context. IF that's beyond you, tough.

And for the record, I don't HATE him, and never said I did. I do dislike his antics, who wouldn't, and I think he's a pr!ck. But for the umpteenth time, stop trying to put your words into my mouth. It's blatantly, and repeatedly, dishonest.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
The Hitch said:
Church. Interesting choice of words there.
You are the one who believes in supernatural beings who accomplish extraordinary feats that can only be believed on faith.
Do you even hear yourself? Supernatural beings? Belief on faith? Right after I explain the fact that I DON'T believe, either way?

What idiotic pish. But then, what can one expect from a zealot?
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
The Hitch said:
What?

No, that you remain unconvinced by either possibility is not the problem, and is not the reality. It's your problem, no one elses, and that's about it.
Top posting, Hitch. Do you get paid by the turd for this stuff?

If you don't want to read what I post, there's an ignore button. Feel free to use it, Your eyeballs are no loss to me.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
DirtyWorks said:
This notion that there is some formulation exclusive to Froome is false. The problem with this thinking is you are ignoring the fact the federation does not process some positives. He can, theoretically, be on whatever he likes with ABP red flags flying and it's all good because the federation permits it.
yap, indeed.
it also explains the need for a badzilla kind of story running in the background, just in case.

it's not easy to talk sense into people who have their heads in the sand.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
This notion that there is some formulation exclusive to Froome is false. The problem with this thinking is you are ignoring the fact the federation does not process some positives. He can, theoretically, be on whatever he likes with ABP red flags flying and it's all good because the federation permits it.

There are no good answers. Two solid years of humiliating stage racing fields on a very light schedule and now? Merely elite on an even lighter schedule. The freight train sized hole in the ABP opens for grand tours, so let's wait and see.
Thanks for the grown-up response.

Roughly how many people are involved now? Are the federation(s) acting with the tacit approval of the UCI? Previous and current administrations? Presumably all the APMU specialists must be involved; including the chap who went rogue on Horner's passport? WADA? ASO?

That must be 10s of people, across several distinct organisations. In addition we have team management, current and former staff, riders (with opportunities to trade knowledge for reduced bans in case of JTL, Rogers), and entourage. Is 50 people total unreasonable?

Keeping the lid on all of that requires some pretty heroic assumptions. That's my main difficulty with the reflex response that doping is the simplest explanation.

[A close second is the absence of a solid hypothesis (not proof) connecting performances with doping. But that's another story.]
 
Ventoux Boar said:
Thanks for the grown-up response.

Roughly how many people are involved now? Are the federation(s) acting with the tacit approval of the UCI? Previous and current administrations? Presumably all the APMU specialists must be involved; including the chap who went rogue on Horner's passport? WADA? ASO?

That must be 10s of people, across several distinct organisations. In addition we have team management, current and former staff, riders (with opportunities to trade knowledge for reduced bans in case of JTL, Rogers), and entourage. Is 50 people total unreasonable?

Keeping the lid on all of that requires some pretty heroic assumptions. That's my main difficulty with the reflex response that doping is the simplest explanation.

[A close second is the absence of a solid hypothesis (not proof) connecting performances with doping. But that's another story.]
Not to mention the millions who have access to the team's audited financial records, Sky's board of directors & executives, all of UKAD.
 
The Hitch said:
Church. Interesting choice of words there.
You are the one who believes in supernatural beings who accomplish extraordinary feats that can only be believed on faith.
It's a good choice for him since his two equally possible scenarios belief reeks so strongly of the Evolution/Creationism debate. Again, both equally possible if you ignore all logic, science and common sense.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
MatParker117 said:
Not to mention the millions who have access to the team's audited financial records, Sky's board of directors & executives, all of UKAD.
I think the original shaver must have been thinking of Hokum's razor.
 
Ventoux Boar said:
Roughly how many people are involved now? Are the federation(s) acting with the tacit approval of the UCI? Previous and current administrations? Presumably all the APMU specialists must be involved; including the chap who went rogue on Horner's passport? WADA? ASO?
You don't understand how the system works and that's probably intentional. However, I'm such a classy anonymous forum participant I'm going to give you the gift of knowledge:

RTFM:http://www.wada-ama.org/en/World-Anti-Doping-Program/Sports-and-Anti-Doping-Organizations/Model-Rules--Guidelines/Guidelines/
Look at the lower right for links to all the standards.

Here's one to get you started. http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/Science_Medicine/Athlete_Biological_Passport/WADA-ABP-Operating-Guidelines_v4.0-EN.pdf
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
It's a good choice for him since his two equally possible scenarios belief reeks so strongly of the Evolution/Creationism debate. Again, both equally possible if you ignore all logic, science and common sense.
Who said anything about equally possible? As for commonsense, I adhere to Einstein on that.
 
MatParker117 said:
Not to mention the millions who have access to the team's audited financial records, all of UKAD.
I didn't know all of these people had access to ADAMS scores, could interpret the scores, and had the authority to open cases.

Where can I find this authority granted in the WADA documentation?
 
Ventoux Boar said:
Thanks for the grown-up response.

Roughly how many people are involved now? Are the federation(s) acting with the tacit approval of the UCI? Previous and current administrations? Presumably all the APMU specialists must be involved; including the chap who went rogue on Horner's passport? WADA? ASO?

That must be 10s of people, across several distinct organisations. In addition we have team management, current and former staff, riders (with opportunities to trade knowledge for reduced bans in case of JTL, Rogers), and entourage. Is 50 people total unreasonable?

Keeping the lid on all of that requires some pretty heroic assumptions. That's my main difficulty with the reflex response that doping is the simplest explanation.

[A close second is the absence of a solid hypothesis (not proof) connecting performances with doping. But that's another story.]
The only people who need to know are a doctor, a couple of soigneurs. If you have a BP profile that isn't screamingly obvious you're fine, although the Horner release and the Armstrong example sort of disprove the latter. BP cases are extremely difficult to prosecute, even if the will is there, which it's often been shown not to be.

National Federations have historically failed to pursue obvious cases across multiple sports, in many cases. It seems actually to be the de facto behavior. When they do pursue it's against strong resistance. In cycling and track it's been repeatedly shown that the feds have suppressed positives.

It's just not as complicated as all that.

It's not like these guys are sitting around the dinner table discussing the details of their programs like it's 1998.
 
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.
To be fair, I didn't quote any of the article ( unlike you. . .) I was just trying to figure out which article was being talked about. Interesting I thought your first answer, what was all that about? Had you forgotten what he actually, you know, said?
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
red_flanders said:
The only people who need to know are a doctor, a couple of soigneurs. If you have a BP profile that isn't screamingly obvious you're fine, although the Horner release and the Armstrong example sort of disprove the latter. BP cases are extremely difficult to prosecute, even if the will is there, which it's often been shown not to be.

National Federations have historically failed to pursue obvious cases across multiple sports, in many cases. It seems actually to be the de facto behavior. When they do pursue it's against strong resistance. In cycling and track it's been repeatedly shown that the feds have suppressed positives.

It's just not as complicated as all that.

It's not like these guys are sitting around the dinner table discussing the details of their programs like it's 1998.
Not trying to be a d1ck (on this occasion), but are you saying that because the federation is onside (ie corrupt) you only need a doc and a soigneur? Or is doc and swanny sufficient to beat vigilant feds due to limitations elsewhere?
 
RownhamHill said:
To be fair, I didn't quote any of the article ( unlike you. . .) I was just trying to figure out which article was being talked about. Interesting I thought your first answer, what was all that about? Had you forgotten what he actually, you know, said?
It's almost three years old, and what I remember from it was the part I quoted. Because that part made the biggest impression on me. I also didn't remember the title nor that it was done by Benson.

Do you remember Wiggins speaking out about doping in the 2007 Tour? Do you remember everything he said there?
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
RownhamHill said:
To be fair, I didn't quote any of the article ( unlike you. . .) I was just trying to figure out which article was being talked about. Interesting I thought your first answer, what was all that about? Had you forgotten what he actually, you know, said?
When faced with what he, you know, said, you now have no point. You Armstrong fanboys....sorry, wrong decade, same BS, Wigans/Sky fanboys are soooooo predictable.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY