Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Justinr]

You think you do; you're welcome to your belief system, but I don't pray at that church.

Glad you called Hitch on that one, means I don't have to.

 

[Justinr]

Utterly useless post. Let me rephrase.

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

In your mind it does, in some other peoples minds it doesn't. Haven't a clue what the razor thing is about though.

 

[red_flanders]

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?

I just don't think 50 people is remotely realistic.

 

[bobbins]

I just don't think 50 people is remotely realistic.

A fair few know as fas as I am aware. Even people at Sky know.

The fear of rocking the boat / losing jobs keeps people quiet.

As for UKADA, they don't want to know. They were told of a suspect competitor over the winter and ignored the warming, this competitor has just won a major event. Positive tests aren't good for sport.

 

[RownhamHill]

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.

To be fair I wasn't trying to make a point the other night, just identify a bloody source!

Personally - and I know you disagree so I'm not trying to convince you otherwise - I never thought that interview was that bad. First he said let the investigation play out and find the truth (seems fair, and certainly isn't that wholesome a denial of lance doping as others), second he says he takes the view of innocent until proven guilty (look at the phrasing - pure politics), third he accurately describes Floyd's behaviour at the time (based on what I read in the Armstrong Lie, I know you're a Floyd fanboy, but still. . ), fourth even in slating Floyd he kind of admits he doesn't believe that (but maybe that's down to frustration. . .)

Did he cover himself in glory here? No. Did he obviously get played hard by his mate Michael Harry (and to a lesser extent Armstrong)? Absolutely. Did these comments make him look stupid? He admits it himself. Is the whole interview, in its context, particularly out of order - not in my mind (anymore out of order than Floyd on Wiggins the other day? Maybe because they were less funny). But then I haven't deified Floyd, so I'm less protective of him than some others!

 

[MartinGT]

I read on Twitter this morning how Eddy Bos maybe leaving Sky as his contract wont be renewed.

Vuelta win this year

 

[martinvickers]

A fair few know as fas as I am aware. Even people at Sky know.

The fear of rocking the boat / losing jobs keeps people quiet.

And yet they tell you?

As for UKADA, they don't want to know. They were told of a suspect competitor over the winter and ignored the warming, this competitor has just won a major event. Positive tests aren't good for sport.

Well, out the cheat, then.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I read on Twitter this morning how Eddy Bos maybe leaving Sky as his contract wont be renewed.

Vuelta win this year

Saw something earlier about Eddy wanting to ride the Giro. Here's his chance to try his hand at [stages / points gathering] now that Porte is gone, and Henao is benched, and he's getting no love. :-(

 

[MartinGT]

And yet they tell you?



Well, out the cheat, then.

Agreed.

Come on.....

 

[Netserk]

Why would you want him to lose his job?

 

[MartinGT]

Why would you want him to lose his job?

Oh right, so its ok to cheat?

 

[bobbins]

And yet they tell you?



Well, out the cheat, then.

Yeah right, for what benefit? It's upto UKAD to sort out and they aren't interested.

That should put a bit of perspective on how big fish get away with things.

No one will get caught if no one is looking very hard.

Anyone with a few contacts in UK cycling will have heard the sky stories so it's a good number that know.

Much like the Armstrong sage, it'll all come out in the end.

 

[JimmyFingers]

You have a masterful way of using a lot of words to say nothing, and avoid the question that was asked. I suggest going into politics.

Name a name or stop with baseless innuendo you can't prove. You've heard some rumours, good for you, but if you actually knew anything concrete you'd be saying a lot more.

 

[martinvickers]

Yeah right, for what benefit? It's upto UKAD to sort out and they aren't interested.

That should put a bit of perspective on how big fish get away with things.

No one will get caught if no one is looking very hard.

Anyone with a few contacts in UK cycling will have heard the sky stories so it's a good number that know.

Much like the Armstrong sage, it'll all come out in the end.

Ok, be a facilitator then.

Out of curiosity, how long have you known these 'things'?

Gotta love 'ITK''s, don'tya.

 

[the sceptic]

Dont worry guys, there is no evidence

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Why would you want him to lose his job?

The issue is not whether Bobbins should or shouldn't speak out. I can well understand why someone wouldn't want to.

The issue is that if you know in advance you're not prepared to name names, then it's out of order to get us all excited by posting to the effect that you have inside information. Plus, you look rather foolish, tbh.

 

[martinvickers]

Dont worry guys, there is no evidence

Hey, if this guy actually has evidence, we'd love to hear it, really. Even me and MartinGT seem to agree on that. Some of us actually want dopers out. You just enjoy watching the doping game. A game that has killed young men.

I find our position rather more defensible.

This guy just said a major athlete won a competition doped, and that UKAD have been informed and deliberately did nothing. So the guy not only claims he has info on a cheat, but info on UKAD conspiracy to protect him.

Bobbins is anonymous; no comeback against him, so why not name him? Why not got to the media. Doesn't even have to be British media to begin with - You think Kimmage isn't interested in evidence of a UKAD conspiracy to silence positives? Yeah, right

He has all this info... but he won't tell UKAD anonymously, no, no, no
And he won't tell the media anonymously ...no, no, no
And now he won't tell the clinic anonymously...no, no, no

hmmm...what to think, what to think...

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Yeah right, for what benefit? It's upto UKAD to sort out and they aren't interested.

That should put a bit of perspective on how big fish get away with things.

No one will get caught if no one is looking very hard.

Anyone with a few contacts in UK cycling will have heard the sky stories so it's a good number that know.

Much like the Armstrong sage, it'll all come out in the end.

Presumably these are new stories, not covered to death here. I'm sure you can share a few redacting names where necessary.

 

[the sceptic]

Hey, if this guy actually has evidence, we'd love to hear it, really. Even me and MartinGT seem to agree on that. Some of us actually want dopers out. You just enjoy watching the doping game. A game that has killed young men.

I find our position rather more defensible.

This guy just said a major athlete won a competition doped, and that UKAD have been informed and deliberately did nothing. So the guy not only claims he has info on a cheat, but info on UKAD conspiracy to protect him.

Bobbins is anonymous; no comeback against him, so why not name him? Why not got to the media. Doesn't even have to be British media to begin with - You think Kimmage isn't interested in evidence of a UKAD conspiracy to silence positives? Yeah, right

He has all this info... but he won't tell UKAD anonymously, no, no, no
And he won't tell the media anonymously ...no, no, no
And now he won't tell the clinic anonymously...no, no, no

hmmm...what to think, what to think...

Yes, Im sure you want dopers out Martin. Thats why you spend all your time defending the most obvious dopers currently in pro cycling.

 

[martinvickers]

Yes, Im sure you want dopers out Martin. Thats why you spend all your time defending the most obvious dopers currently in pro cycling.

That's really only a B+ on the Troll scale, Sceptic. I'm sure you can do better. You nearly always do.

Try again, lad.

 

[Digger]

Funny watching people having a go at Bobbins for not speaking out...same people defending Wiggins yesterday for actually defending dopers.

 

[the sceptic]

That's really only a B+ on the Troll scale, Sceptic. I'm sure you can do better. You nearly always do.

Try again, lad.

Balls, not man.

You spend 99% of your posts in sky threads, defending sky. We dont see you defending other "clean" riders with the same passion.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Steady guys. Let's not pass the time until Bobbins names names with any off-message behaviour such as a round of accusations/ rebuttals re trolling.

Thanks.

 

[martinvickers]

Funny watching people having a go at Bobbins for not speaking out...same people defending Wiggins yesterday for actually defending dopers.

Hope you don't mean me, Diggsy. I made a number of comments about Wiggins and the evidential value of what he did re his own possible doping; the one thing I PATENTLY did not do was defend the a*sehole's comments.

 

[martinvickers]

Balls, not man.

You spend 99% of your posts in sky threads, defending sky. We dont see you defending other "clean" riders with the same passion.

I challenge bullsh!t, Sceptic. And the sky threads is where 90% of that Bullsh!t is in this forum.It's also why I seem to keep running up against you.

I have at times 'defended' Obree, Quintana, Nibali, Dan Martin and others - none of whom, last I checked, rode for Sky, unless you have other information. Indeed, I went to bat for Obree and Dan Martin far more than I have for any specific sky rider.