Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1121 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
tellywatcher said:
My position and a question for all the fence sitters out there.

Sky - undecided whether there is team involvement in doping, not convinced they are being as transparent as they could be, which just creates suspicion

Wiggins - I actually like his personality so I hope he is clean but wouldn't fall off my chair if he wasn't , I don't find his transformation to a GC rider that unbelievable

Froome - I wish I could time travel 20 years to the future, just to know! I would fall off my chair if he turned out clean.

The question - what would it take to convince you of guilt?

For me, without a positive test, it would only be confessions from teammates or coaches, or a team employee being caught with a bag full of EPO. Analysis of performance will only ever get me 50% convinced, but an accumulation of evidence does have some merits, no?
This is a good post. Thanks.

It's an interesting question, one I've wondered about myself. I think it's impossible to say ( in that so much of how and when someone gets convinced of something is based on feeling not logic), but I think for me it really needs some credible rumours from within the team starting to bubble up through the media, or something similar. Apparently Braiosford is nicknamed Mugabe, and yet despite this you never hear bitter ex teammates telling tales. It will be very interesting what happens with JTL over the next couple of years. . .
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
My mate knows his sister and she has said he says he was set up by Sky, presumably because he turned out to be a bit **** so they could terminate his contract.

So bitter certainly, but also maintaining his clean-ness, so unlikely to blow a whistle until he is totally bang to rights, Landis-style.
 
JimmyFingers said:
My mate knows his sister and she has said he says he was set up by Sky, presumably because he turned out to be a bit **** so they could terminate his contract.

So bitter certainly, but also maintaining his clean-ness, so unlikely to blow a whistle until he is totally bang to rights, Landis-style.
At the very least that should be entertaining. . .
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
JimmyFingers said:
My mate knows his sister and she has said he says he was set up by Sky, presumably because he turned out to be a bit **** so they could terminate his contract.

So bitter certainly, but also maintaining his clean-ness, so unlikely to blow a whistle until he is totally bang to rights, Landis-style.
How could they set him up (and why?) - the blood tests weren't done by them (ignoring any ridiculous conspiracy posts that will likely be made). Think about it logically - why would they want a rider to have suspicious test results? It just looks bad for them, regardless of whether you think they are clean or not it just doesn't make sense. It would be like saying Saxo deliberately gave Rogers Clenbuterol. And as most people on here think SKY are doping then surely their program would sort out any performance issues that he might have been having.

I think its much more likely that he was dodgy beforehand or that the BP system is just shot to pieces (which is what a lot of people on here say / imply) - remember, his readings have gone DOWN since leaving NetApp, hardly evidence of current doping.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
andy1234 said:
Peters' background is in treating psychopaths and the criminally insane.
A few trackies didn't tax him too much. ;)
I'd wager there's a couple of narcissistic personality disorders up in Manchester over the years....
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
Netserk said:
What you seem to miss is that the assertion that Sky riders are doping is supported by evidence.
No its not, its supported by suspicions. There is no evidence per se, or if there is it is circumstantial such as "they employed some people who were involved with dodgy teams". To be honest you'd probably struggle to find anyone who hadn't been involved with a team that was dodgy (be it team sponsored, team blind-eyed, or team unaware) - that doesn't mean they are doping. I agree it doesn't look good but its not concrete evidence.

In my opinion.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Justinr said:
Just a couple?
I'm being kind.

Certainly at least Pendleton, Wiggins a fair shout, imagine neither Romero nor Houvenaghal were a gallon of laughs to work on. Of the 2008 big guns only Hoy struck me as basically sane, in so much as any driven sportsman can be. The rest of the 'capos' (i.s not then kids like Kenny and Burke) were high maintenance to say the least.

All three of those women can't stand Brailsford, as far as memory serves - Houvenaghal also hates Sutton. Has no-one considered chasing them up for the 'dirt'? Ok, maybe pendleton has too much forward money value, but surely the other two are buyable?
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Justinr said:
How could they set him up (and why?) - the blood tests weren't done by them (ignoring any ridiculous conspiracy posts that will likely be made). Think about it logically - why would they want a rider to have suspicious test results? It just looks bad for them, regardless of whether you think they are clean or not it just doesn't make sense. It would be like saying Saxo deliberately gave Rogers Clenbuterol. And as most people on here think SKY are doping then surely their program would sort out any performance issues that he might have been having.

I think its much more likely that he was dodgy beforehand or that the BP system is just shot to pieces (which is what a lot of people on here say / imply) - remember, his readings have gone DOWN since leaving NetApp, hardly evidence of current doping.
Oh I'm not laying culpability at Sky's door, JTL is, apparently. More likely he's gotten out of his depth and caught out.
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
JimmyFingers said:
Oh I'm not laying culpability at Sky's door, JTL is, apparently. More likely he's gotten out of his depth and caught out.
I agree, wasnt trying to argue with you. I think it was my way of politely calling JTL a bull****ter without calling him a bull****ter.
 
The Hitch said:
Sky for me and others removed all doubt a long long time ago. I will not say that I don't know, because I do know. I am as certain of the fact that froome and Wiggins didn't just happen to both magically transform at the same time on the same team through a series of increasingly improbable coincidences, as I am of my own name.
But they didn't did they? Wiggins transformed at Garmin, if JV is telling the truth, probably with the help of someone at BC.

I struggle to see how this can be the top guys at Sky's work, it would mean that Sky/BC have transformed 2 riders from donkeys to race horse shortly before giving them both huge new contracts.

Any half way sensible business man would give them a small value contract with tasty performance bonuses before putting them on a program in case they prove to be good responders rather than prove they're good responders and then have to throw the cash at them.

Someone doped them though. Wiggins transformation is pre Leinders at Sky/BC would be interesting to know who could've had the knowledge in BC to help his transformation whilst at Garmin.
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
martinvickers said:
I'm being kind.

Certainly at least Pendleton, Wiggins a fair shout, imagine neither Romero nor Houvenaghal were a gallon of laughs to work on. Of the 2008 big guns only Hoy struck me as basically sane, in so much as any driven sportsman can be. The rest of the 'capos' (i.s not then kids like Kenny and Burke) were high maintenance to say the least.

All three of those women can't stand Brailsford, as far as memory serves - Houvenaghal also hates Sutton. Has no-one considered chasing them up for the 'dirt'? Ok, maybe pendleton has too much forward money value, but surely the other two are buyable?
I'm sure someone must have thought of that angle. The fact that nothing has come out I guess means one of the following:

1. No one has thought of that angle
2. There is nothing to tell
3. They are fiercely loyal and wont tell

Given how ruthless and demanding Brailsford and Sutton are, I would expect people to blow #3 apart if they were unhappy. The fact they haven't (or at least we don't know about it) - well I'll let people draw their own conclusions.
 
Justinr said:
No its not, its supported by suspicions. There is no evidence per se, or if there is it is circumstantial such as "they employed some people who were involved with dodgy teams". To be honest you'd probably struggle to find anyone who hadn't been involved with a team that was dodgy (be it team sponsored, team blind-eyed, or team unaware) - that doesn't mean they are doping. I agree it doesn't look good but its not concrete evidence.

In my opinion.
Circumstantial evidence is by definition, evidence. It's not the best kind of evidence to be sure. I have no problem if you disregard that evidence or aren't swayed by it. I do have a problem with people denying it is in fact, evidence.

ev·i·dence
noun
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Wish that wasn't confusing or so often mis-stated. Would result in a 20% reduction in posts on this (and curiously only this) thread.

As for more damning evidence, in my view, is the simple fact that Froome has posted climbing times that have only (previously) been posted by riders who are known to have blood doped or fueled up on EPO. Conservative estimates of the boost that gives a rider range from 5% to 15%.

The fact that he is matching and beating most of the times posted by these riders, all of whom have a better pedigree than he does, is evidence of doping. You may or may not be convinced by this evidence but it is in fact, evidence.

This evidence is particular to Froome, and not Sky in general. However Sky are stating that he is clean, and they (presumably or I'd like to know why not) know all his numbers. His numbers have certainly gone up since pre-Vuelta '11. They know the numbers spiked, therefore either have an explanation or they don't. So far they don't. In lieu of a reasonable alternate explanation (of course there is none, since this can't be done cleanly) this is evidence that they are helping cover it up.

You can argue about how compelling the evidence is, but you can't say it's not evidence. Unless you don't understand the word, but the definition is simple and straightforward.

This is not so much aimed at your post but all similar posts.

I'm sure this will settle the matter and the confusion will now stop... :rolleyes:
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
red_flanders said:
Circumstantial evidence is by definition, evidence. It's not the best kind of evidence to be sure. I have no problem if you disregard that evidence or aren't swayed by it. I do have a problem with people denying it is in fact, evidence.



Wish that wasn't confusing or so often mis-stated. Would result in a 20% reduction in posts on this (and curiously only this) thread.

As for more damning evidence, in my view, is the simple fact that Froome has posted climbing times that have only (previously) been posted by riders who are known to have blood doped or fueled up on EPO. Conservative estimates of the boost that gives a rider range from 5% to 15%.

The fact that he is matching and beating most of the times posted by these riders, all of whom have a better pedigree than he does, is evidence of doping. You may or may not be convinced by this evidence but it is in fact, evidence.

This evidence is particular to Froome, and not Sky in general. However Sky are stating that he is clean, and they (presumably or I'd like to know why not) know all his numbers. His numbers have certainly gone up since pre-Vuelta '11. They know the numbers spiked, therefore either have an explanation or they don't. So far they don't. In lieu of a reasonable alternate explanation (of course there is none, since this can't be done cleanly) this is evidence that they are helping cover it up.

You can argue about how compelling the evidence is, but you can't say it's not evidence. Unless you don't understand the word, but the definition is simple and straightforward.

This is not so much aimed at your post but all similar posts.

I'm sure this will settle the matter and the confusion will now stop... :rolleyes:
I don't agree on every point- I think circumstantial evidence is a narrower idea than this - like bank statements to doping doctors etc - but this is a very good post, and much more like it. Raises genuine issues.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Justinr said:
I'm sure someone must have thought of that angle. The fact that nothing has come out I guess means one of the following:

1. No one has thought of that angle
2. There is nothing to tell
3. They are fiercely loyal and wont tell

Given how ruthless and demanding Brailsford and Sutton are, I would expect people to blow #3 apart if they were unhappy. The fact they haven't (or at least we don't know about it) - well I'll let people draw their own conclusions.
No way is Houvenaghal loyal; theoretically screwed over twice - first for IP 08 (Romero brought in relatively late and fast tracked, even though WH was already there or there abouts, as proved by the silver), then of course TP 12. Not a chance.

Romero? meh, depends. If they WERE doping, she's probably exhibit a or b herself, so she might keep schtoom - would worth a question though - but gut says Houvenaghal is your girl.
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
red_flanders said:
You can argue about how compelling the evidence is, but you can't say it's not evidence. Unless you don't understand the word, but the definition is simple and straightforward.

This is not so much aimed at your post but all similar posts.

I'm sure this will settle the matter and the confusion will now stop... :rolleyes:
You know what Red - I'll give you that one as it was a well put, factual, concise ( and correct) argument. Its weak / circumstantial evidence in my view but nonetheless evidence as you say. Referring to things more in general rather than your posts, evidence is often presented on here as fact when it is not and repeatedly so.

I'm sure this will also help settle matters and the associated confusion ...
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Justinr said:
How could they set him up (and why?) - the blood tests weren't done by them (ignoring any ridiculous conspiracy posts that will likely be made).
Hein Verbruggen said: I can give you a positive test whenever you like.

Making the BP look anomalous or clean is even easier.

Look at what Sky can do with impunity to Henao, and he was performing.
 
Sep 20, 2009
263
0
9,030
red_flanders said:
Circumstantial evidence is by definition, evidence. It's not the best kind of evidence to be sure. I have no problem if you disregard that evidence or aren't swayed by it. I do have a problem with people denying it is in fact, evidence.



Wish that wasn't confusing or so often mis-stated. Would result in a 20% reduction in posts on this (and curiously only this) thread.

As for more damning evidence, in my view, is the simple fact that Froome has posted climbing times that have only (previously) been posted by riders who are known to have blood doped or fueled up on EPO. Conservative estimates of the boost that gives a rider range from 5% to 15%.

The fact that he is matching and beating most of the times posted by these riders, all of whom have a better pedigree than he does, is evidence of doping. You may or may not be convinced by this evidence but it is in fact, evidence.

This evidence is particular to Froome, and not Sky in general. However Sky are stating that he is clean, and they (presumably or I'd like to know why not) know all his numbers. His numbers have certainly gone up since pre-Vuelta '11. They know the numbers spiked, therefore either have an explanation or they don't. So far they don't. In lieu of a reasonable alternate explanation (of course there is none, since this can't be done cleanly) this is evidence that they are helping cover it up.

You can argue about how compelling the evidence is, but you can't say it's not evidence. Unless you don't understand the word, but the definition is simple and straightforward.

This is not so much aimed at your post but all similar posts.

I'm sure this will settle the matter and the confusion will now stop... :rolleyes:
Great! A clear concise outlining of the evidence that you consider confirms that Froome is cheating by doping. You may have posted this earlier and I missed it in the noise created by debates about riders lying, who said what and the whole tit for tat posting that occurs.

I can understand why this may be sufficient for you but for myself it isn't enough. I remain to be convinced that a clean rider could not produce the results that Froome achieved. As you state test results for Froome over the years would be helpful but we would also need results for those other riders to make valid comparisons in my view. That we will probably never see that data is frustrating and maybe leads to many of the arguments in this thread.

I believe that over the last few years that riders don't have to dope to achieve results. However I may be wrong in which case I will be disappointed. But life goes on and I will still ride and race my bike and watch pro racing.

Hopefully more evidence, circumstantial or factual, will come to light that gives certainty either way to Froome and Sky's results but that may be a pipe dream.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS