Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1131 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Nathan12 said:
It was one of the most doped, up to a point. Contador, Armstrong, the Schlecks and Kloden were clearly all cooking, probably Nibali and Kreuziger too. Apart from that it's a weird race- Casar and Le Mevel top 10, even Hincapie cracks the top 20. But to hang at the pointy end of that race was to hang with some of the finest dopers ever.

As an aside of my own, I'd love to know from Vaughters how Vande Velde got so good by stopping doping.
Oh wow, now LeMevel, and especially Casar get thrown in the mud. What a shame the clinic became...
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,661
0
0
The Hitch said:
"parasite on and off".

Educate yourself on Bilharzia son. Its either cleared or its not. Its not "on and off" anymore than a scar across the face is on and off. A scar doesn't just disapear one day then reappear the next. Nor does Bilharzia disapear one day for one gt then mysteriously reappear a month later.

The problem with the clinic is jokers like this who don't know a single thing about what they are talking about entering the discussion. IMO mods should remove people from discussions once they demonstrate a clear ignorance on the subject matter cos the end result is the same as trolling.
Except `son' if you do some reading about Bilharzia it's really not that straightforward is it? But I suppose you're not someone who has a `clear ignorance on the subject matter', or are you...?
 
Hawkwood said:
Except `son' if you do some reading about Bilharzia it's really not that straightforward is it? But I suppose you're not someone who has a `clear ignorance on the subject matter', or are you...?
Have you talked to anyone from Africa about Bilharzia? As it happens......yes you've guessed it, I have. She was totally, totally dismissive of it (and she is medically trained). I repeat again, her words, you get it, you get a pill, you get cured, unless you are stupid enough to go swimming again in the same place.
 
Hawkwood said:
Except `son' if you do some reading about Bilharzia it's really not that straightforward is it? But I suppose you're not someone who has a `clear ignorance on the subject matter', or are you...?
Did I say it was simple? On the contrary I dismissed the simplicity of the other poster's comment.

And no I don't consider myself someone who has a "clear ignorance on this subject matter", because I have read all of the sources that have ever been presented by either side, on the issue, read every comment Froome or anyone at sky have made about bilharzia, watched every interview they made, read the scientific studies about the disease, read the guidance prescription thing for praziquantel, read the NHS recommendations for treatment and the reccomendations on countless other sites, discussed the matter with several people including doctors and scientists through emails, and PMs.

That doesn't make me an expert, and I never claimed to be, but I do know more than anyone who has so far tried to give explanations for Froome's supernatural claims, usually the same ones repeated every few months, because those always fall on the first hurdle. There have been people who posted on this who are experts and it was them who discovered the inconsistencies in Froome's story to begin with.

What I said about Bilharzia here was that its not on and off. You disagree? You think the disease turning itself on and off around gts its scientifically possible? By all means explain to me why. I have no interest in pursuing Bilharzia if it turns out Froome's story does make sense afterall, and if that is the case, the earlier I can find this out, the better.

So far though, everything about Froome's story contradicts both with his own comments, with the Sky story and most importantly, with science.

And so far you haven't offered any substance behind your criticism of my Bilharzia comment.
 
The Hitch said:
And remember, wiggins focused on road racing 100% for 2 straight years between 2005 and 2007.

Failed miserably.

So it can't be that he focused on road racing, because that failed the first time. It has to be something else.
How about someone addresses this very salient point instead of the bilharzia red herring? Would be interesting...
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
martinvickers said:
Please, PLEASE, don't assume you know my views on the Sky team. I have discussed my hunches with several posters here privately. They aren't what some of the usual suspects might assume.
It's after rides like this it strikes you Wiggins palmares, impressive though it is, may understimate what he might have done
martinvickers said:
Actually, I wrote it, and you're wrong. Not for the first time, but still.

My points were simply the fairly obvious point that unlike a lot of racers, Wiggins motivation seems to flash up and down rather dramatically, and always has done; moreover he clearly put a lot of efforts in his earlier years into track rather than road, thus reducing his possible road palmares. His impressive but not amazing 9th at Roubaix was in its way a more natural Wiggins/converted pursuiter race to me than a GT.
Wiggo's motivation doesn't flash up until he realises winning pursuits won't get him a million+ GBP contract.

And doesn't flash down until he has earned his fat contract.

Other than that he was singularly consistent.
 
ferryman said:
Have you talked to anyone from Africa about Bilharzia? As it happens......yes you've guessed it, I have. She was totally, totally dismissive of it (and she is medically trained). I repeat again, her words, you get it, you get a pill, you get cured, unless you are stupid enough to go swimming again in the same place.
Well, there are very rare occasions on which treatment doesn't work.

And certain posters always make a load of noise when they discover this, ignoring the fact that this has been covered since before they knew what Bilharzia was, and that it does not for a second give any backing to Chris Froome's account.

Its even in the ninety five theses itself-
If schistosomasis/bilharzia was diagnosed in 2010, Froome should have been given the one day treatment and it should have no longer been an issue. The only reported occurrences of when the initial treatment does not eradicate the infection is when a heavy worm burden is in the system (i.e. a lot of worms infected Froome.) Even in those cases, treatment does not drag on for 18 months+. A heavy worm burden would also make the symptoms more severe than "I was always getting little colds and coughs, nothing serious".
If the first treatment doesn't work, which only happens in the case of a heavy worm burden which Froome according to his own accounts could not have had, it would still only take a few more days. The german tropical disease expert said the longest he ever heard of was 2 weeks. Moreover a guy under treatment because Bilharzia has been eradicated cannot then come 2nd in the Vuelta and the Tour de France, and most certainly cannot claim, having come 2nd in the Tour de France, that the disease he is still suffering from is the reason he couldn't ride properly to begin with.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Wiggo's motivation doesn't flash up until he realises winning pursuits won't get him a million+ GBP contract.

And doesn't flash down until he has earned his fat contract.

Other than that he was singularly consistent.
By his own admission, for example, he disappeared down a bottle after Athens. He's paid to be a trackie, yet there's a big gap from the breakthrough IP world and olympic in 2003-2004 to the lead up to beijing in 2007/8. He may have done the same thing in 2010. And after the 2012 double - there were several drunken tales in that period too.

People who like him like Sutton and cavendish seem to find him pretty difficult. God only knows what a neutral would think of his antics. But steady? Consistently motivated? Nah, wouldn't say that.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
martinvickers said:
By his own admission, for example, he disappeared down a bottle after Athens. He's paid to be a trackie, yet there's a big gap from the breakthrough IP world and olympic in 2003-2004 to the lead up to beijing in 2007/8. He may have done the same thing in 2010. And after the 2012 double - there were several drunken tales in that period too.

People who like him like Sutton and cavendish seem to find him pretty difficult. God only knows what a neutral would think of his antics. But steady? Consistently motivated? Nah, wouldn't say that.
Being embarrassed / ashamed / whatever and drinking a lot has nothing to do with motivation whatsoever.

Being paid top dollar for racing a few times a year, makes you a spoilt brat.

Please show where his motivation was different - he was only paid for Olympic golds.

What's more telling is the truth of how you feel about him - no hidden hunches or anything in your post.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Being embarrassed / ashamed / whatever and drinking a lot has nothing to do with motivation whatsoever.
Congratulations on your degree in psychiatry.

Being paid top dollar for racing a few times a year, makes you a spoilt brat.

Please show where his motivation was different - he was only paid for Olympic golds.
He wasn't paid for olympic golds - he was paid to track ride; the UK programme was paid for the olympic results - hence why the let him ride the road in between? Why? Because the newly crowned world track champ...is bored on the track. That 'middleman' is meaningful in that context. Compare Hoy, whose self-motivation was well known - track champ practically ever year from his breakthrough - yes, the roads not really an option for Hoy, but the motivation was still clear. Wiggins, by comparison is flakey.

What's more telling is the truth of how you feel about him - no hidden hunches or anything in your post.
What's more telling is yet again you slither down to an, as it happens, ill founded personal attack, because it's where you're most comfortable, among your own ilk.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
martinvickers said:
Congratulations on your degree in psychiatry.
martinvickers said:
What's more telling is yet again you slither down to an, as it happens, ill founded personal attack, because it's where you're most comfortable, among your own ilk.
Irony.

Having constantly read you denying you think Wiggins is/was clean, I would like to see a reconciliation between that position ("I don't know if Wiggins is clean or dirty") and what you admit to have posted on twitter. I would have thought someone unsure would remain silent on palmares speculation or comparison with legendary riders like Merkcx and Coppi.

Makes far more sense that the poster in question believes the rider to be clean, surely.

I apologise that you felt attacked. It was simply an attempt to highlight an apparent incongruity. Particularly given you feel people like me don't know what you think / feel about Sky despite constant bashing / insulting / hounding of anyone who thinks they are doping, and glowing posts about their riders (Wiggins) in other media.

martinvickers said:
He wasn't paid for olympic golds - he was paid to track ride; the UK programme was paid for the olympic results - hence why the let him ride the road in between? Why? Because the newly crowned world track champ...is bored on the track. That 'middleman' is meaningful in that context. Compare Hoy, whose self-motivation was well known - track champ practically ever year from his breakthrough - yes, the roads not really an option for Hoy, but the motivation was still clear. Wiggins, by comparison is flakey.
The logic goes like this: paid gold, for winning golds. If he didn't win golds, he wouldn't get top dollar. If he won nothing, he would have been paid close to nothing.
British Cycling's Cycling World Class Performance Programmes are funded by UK Sport and the National Lottery, who support Olympic and Paralympic sports. British Cycling employs Olympic Coaches and supports elite cyclists across Track, Road, Mountain Bike and BMX, with the express aim of winning medals at World Championship [ed: but see below re: 2011 WCs] and Olympic events.
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/about/article/bcst-about-bc

http://inrng.com/2012/08/british-cycling-funding/

It all begins in the 1990s when a nationwide lottery was created by the British government. A share of the revenue generated was given to a state agency in charge of sports. Funding was allocated to national federations according to performances on the world stage, gold medals in the Olympics translated into golden funding.
No pot of gold at the end of the rainbow jersey
Let’s note Britain’s resources are limited. Let’s go back to 2011 track cycling world championships and the British track team rode all the Olympic competitions but shunned the other events like the kilometre time trial and the individual pursuit. Presumably a decision was made not to spend money on competitions that are not included in the Olympics.
Wiggins raced the road because that's what endurance track riders do, not because he was bored. He only did well at Olympics consistently because that's what he got paid for.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Irony.

Having constantly read you denying you think Wiggins is/was clean, I would like to see a reconciliation between that position ("I don't know if Wiggins is clean or dirty") and what you admit to have posted on twitter. I would have thought someone unsure would remain silent on palmares speculation or comparison with legendary riders like Merkcx and Coppi.
Where have I said I don't think he's clean?

I've said I don't KNOW he's clean. Which I don't. He could be dirty as a tramp, for all I know. I've also said I've got my own hunches, and immediately went on to point out those hunches are meaningless, they have no evidential worth, and could very easily be wrong.

Why is it so difficult to understand that since I find it difficult to stomach other people mixing up what they think with what they know, that I try not to do the same myself?

Now, if You honestly wish, I'm perfectly happy to PM those hunches to you, if you really want them; my only caveat is, they have no great value.

If, as you claim, you didn't intend a personal attack, fair enough. In good will, I'll accept that. As to the psychiatry jibe, it wasn't meant particularly personally either - simply stating I doubted you were particularly well placed, any more than anyone else, to provide insight into the individual mindsets of strangers. I did so sarcastically, but it was not meant particularly personally, and I apologise if it came across that way.

For the record, as you know, my area is law, not medicine. But I do have a lot of experience of dealing with people with mental illnesses - from depression upwards. A cycle of achievement and self destructive sloth is actually fairly consistent with depression as experienced by certain sufferers. your good days, weeks are good, but if in the bad ones you lose focus and drift, you can spiral very quickly. It's not always feelings of suicide or self harm - sometimes it's a wider sense of pointlessness, or irritation with others trying to set goals.

My 2c.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
I don't need to know what you do for work.

You wrote: Wiggins motivation flashes up and down. And as evidence of this said he drinks. I don't see the connection. He was paid to win gold medals at the Olympics and successfully and consistently did so. Indicating his motivation is consistent.

Please show where his motivation flashed up and down, based on performances, not conjecture.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
martinvickers said:
Where have I said I don't think he's clean?

I've said I don't KNOW he's clean.
You think he is clean?

Coz something tells me your response is going to be, "I don't know".

Trying to point out the difference between the two seems to be a way of avoiding the question.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
You think he is clean?
Honestly?

My hunch says yes, but only about 60/40. Pure, uneducated hunch. could easily be wrong, and since I don't like the man, wouldn't be bothered if I was.

For the record, i also think, about 75/25, that Froome is doped to the gills, and that they key to that whole shebang is/was is De Jongh's links with Leinders. But again, pure hunch, could be completely wrong and since I don't mind Froome, and I wouldn't be bothered if I was.

I'd be more bothered if Henao is doping, to be honest. And really bothered if Dan Martin is. wouldn't make it any more or less likely. Just my meaningless thoughts.

That's my point. I have hunches. They are meaningless - that's all.
Happy now? ;)
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Except de Jongh was riding as a pro in 2009, when Wiggo came 4th at the Tour.

I personally think you're barking up the wrong tree with both de Jongh and Leinders.

I think Froome comes from Kenya, and has enough doctors there that can help him out.

I think Wiggo had help from someone outside his team at the time, and it wasn't Ellingworth.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Except de Jongh was riding as a pro in 2009, when Wiggo came 4th at the Tour.

I personally think you're barking up the wrong tree with both de Jongh and Leinders.

I think Froome comes from Kenya, and has enough doctors there that can help him out.

I think Wiggo had help from someone outside his team at the time, and it wasn't Ellingworth.
Fair enough. We disagree, but your views are not implausible by any means. We just don't agree. Calmly. Makes a nice change.
 
Hawkwood said:
Except `son' if you do some reading about Bilharzia it's really not that straightforward is it? But I suppose you're not someone who has a `clear ignorance on the subject matter', or are you...?
With number of treatments Froome's had, one has to wonder if he is standing in Kenyan lakes annually.
 
Justinr said:
Firstly not true - Bilharzia can reoccur (either through not being zapped or through reinfection) AND treatment doesn't always clear it straight away. If you had bothered to do some BASIC research you'd have found that out - maybe too much trouble for you.

The problem in my view with the clinic is there are people like you who seem to spoil for a fight all the time with the newbies. Just because you have 10000+ posts doesn't make you knowledgeable - just a prolific poster. If you have a problem with my posts then report them - i think you'll find they are in line with Forum rules whereas the personal attacks in yours might raise a few eyebrows.
As I just noted, sure there can be re-infection. I'm just not sure why he'd keep on going back to the same lake to get infected! Off and on for years should only be something that is an issue if you are a resident and need to fish out of said body of water because you are to poor to find a different form of living.

Now, are you debating for debating's sake, or do you honestly believe some of your counter points? Wiggo getting top 10 in PR is something I find somewhat believable. Winning a GT is something else entirely.

Don't even get me started on der Froominator. All the arguments that he did not come out of nowhere (for a GT contender) are pretty weak.
 
Apr 8, 2014
408
0
0
Justinr said:
Firstly not true - Bilharzia can reoccur (either through not being zapped or through reinfection) AND treatment doesn't always clear it straight away. If you had bothered to do some BASIC research you'd have found that out - maybe too much trouble for you.

The problem in my view with the clinic is there are people like you who seem to spoil for a fight all the time with the newbies. Just because you have 10000+ posts doesn't make you knowledgeable - just a prolific poster. If you have a problem with my posts then report them - i think you'll find they are in line with Forum rules whereas the personal attacks in yours might raise a few eyebrows.
Treatment doesn't always cure bilharzia straight away- but two doses should, unless you're resistant to praziquantel. But there's no reports of anyone apart from Froome being resistant over three or four years. It just doesn't happen. If he's been taking biltricide regularly over that period, it's not going to have done anything to help cure him. Froome clearly had bilharzia at some point- but it cannot be used as an explanation for his rise in form, unless you're prepared to overlook myriad contradictions.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
JimmyFingers said:
Very nice change, good to see
I do my best.

Worth noting that Wiggo also responded calmly and sensibly. As has the Hitch on occasion, red flanders, BYOP etc. There's a difference between argumentative but intelligent posters who sometimes let the red mist in, and the pure trollery of some othesr. Sadly, I think the pure trolls get such free reign that the rest of us, on 'both' sides and none, almost get dragged down trying to compete.
 
Ripper said:
As I just noted, sure there can be re-infection. I'm just not sure why he'd keep on going back to the same lake to get infected! Off and on for years should only be something that is an issue if you are a resident and need to fish out of said body of water because you are to poor to find a different form of living.

Now, are you debating for debating's sake, or do you honestly believe some of your counter points? Wiggo getting top 10 in PR is something I find somewhat believable. Winning a GT is something else entirely.

Don't even get me started on der Froominator. All the arguments that he did not come out of nowhere (for a GT contender) are pretty weak.
It wasn't a lake it was rice fields where he hunted with his family.
 
Justinr said:
Firstly not true - Bilharzia can reoccur (either through not being zapped or through reinfection) AND treatment doesn't always clear it straight away.
You do realize that if treatment doesn't clear it that is not "on and off". If the treatment doesn't clear the disease then you still have the disease, you don't lose it for 3 weeks then get it back.

And the fact that treatment doesn't always work the first time doesn't work anyway for froome because a) it still doesn't take 3 years, b) it would require a degree of infection totally out of sync with what froome claimed to suffer from.

So unless you have any new data or new observations on the matter, I think we can both agree the "treatment didn't work" theory doesn't work for froome. Agree?

As for reinfection, I've been saying that's a possibility all along. Froome has claimed all along he had had 1 bout with bilharzia not 10 separate reinfections. He said a few months ago that it was the first time he's been clear of bilharzia.

If he's been getting treatments for reoccurring reinfections, rather than multiple treatments for the same bout, as he claims, then he and sky are flat out lying.

So I think we can agree the reinfections theory doesn't work for froome either (well not if hes clean anyway). Yes?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS