Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1132 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
People who post complete different views on twitter to here are not to be taken seriously, in fact, I would go so far as to say it proves they are here to do nothing more than troll.
 
red_flanders said:
How about someone addresses this very salient point instead of the bilharzia red herring? Would be interesting...
Yes, it would be great. Let's focus on the tour in that period.

What do we know for definite about the 2005/2006/2007 tours? Yes, that's right, the 'winners' (Armstrong/Landis/Ras) were all doing massive epo, transfusion programmes.

What happened in 2008? Oh yes, that's right, a new longtitudinal blood testing system that may have had an effect on riders opportunity to transfuse and dope with impunity.

Let's imagine (simply for the sake of argument) that you are a clean rider (forget Wiggins). Do you think, given the above, that there is a chane your 'relative' peformance might change between the 2007 and the 2009 tours (if so, in what direction?), or that your performance would remain consistent over that time? Do you think, given the above, your motivation as a clean rider, and the goals you set yourself might change?

More to the point, focusing in on Wiggins. Why - in your view (as someone who is convinced he started to dope in 2009) - did he decline to dope during the period of his pro-racing career (2001-2007) when doping was endemic, and essentially risk free, but then, after joining a 'clean' team and in the immediate wake of the blood passport being introduced (with all the uncertainty that would bring) did he decide to go 'all-in'?

Let me be clear - I have NO IDEA if he was ever clean, or ever dirty for that matter, or if he dopes when he started. But I'm interested in hearing a plausible answer to the above question re the timing of Wiggins doping/transformation, as I struggle with it.
 
Apr 8, 2014
408
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
The answer lies in this 27.000-posts-back-and-forth-thread: Everybody stopped doping, Sky started = Sky dominates ;)
Everyone continued doping as before, but Sky dominated, clean, because marginal gains and psychology and bilharzia.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
RownhamHill said:
What happened in 2008? Oh yes, that's right, a new longtitudinal blood testing system that may have had an effect on riders opportunity to transfuse and dope with impunity.
The idea that BP stopped doping has long been debunked. Dont kid yourself. BP is a joke.

6 riders have been popped by BP, all nobodies, even Pelizotti. Look at Contador's values from his TdF win where he tested positive for Clen. His numbers were worse than Armstrongs and no ban for BP irregularities. Joke!

UKAD did no ABP tests the year Wiggins won in 2012.

Hesjedals blood values showed a rise in the 3rd week of his Giro win, when they should've decreased. Vaughters blamed machine error! Same for Wiggins in 2009, values up in 3d week and Vaughters blamed machine error.

BP is not to catch doping, it is to help teams manage their doping.

Doping is still the de riguer in pro cycling, which means Sky are another doping team. Get over it.
 
RownhamHill said:
Yes, it would be great. Let's focus on the tour in that period.

What do we know for definite about the 2005/2006/2007 tours? Yes, that's right, the 'winners' (Armstrong/Landis/Ras) were all doing massive epo, transfusion programmes.

What happened in 2008? Oh yes, that's right, a new longtitudinal blood testing system that may have had an effect on riders opportunity to transfuse and dope with impunity.

Let's imagine (simply for the sake of argument) that you are a clean rider (forget Wiggins). Do you think, given the above, that there is a chane your 'relative' peformance might change between the 2007 and the 2009 tours (if so, in what direction?), or that your performance would remain consistent over that time? Do you think, given the above, your motivation as a clean rider, and the goals you set yourself might change?

More to the point, focusing in on Wiggins. Why - in your view (as someone who is convinced he started to dope in 2009) - did he decline to dope during the period of his pro-racing career (2001-2007) when doping was endemic, and essentially risk free, but then, after joining a 'clean' team and in the immediate wake of the blood passport being introduced (with all the uncertainty that would bring) did he decide to go 'all-in'?

Let me be clear - I have NO IDEA if he was ever clean, or ever dirty for that matter, or if he dopes when he started. But I'm interested in hearing a plausible answer to the above question re the timing of Wiggins doping/transformation, as I struggle with it.
Why didn't anyone else who was formerly in the grupetto see similar gains in form. Why only Wiggins?
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Nathan12 said:
I know. But that is the logic of those who defend them. And it makes zero sense.
Well... it´s a propaganda war, both sides using the same stuff again and again.
I think it´s time to trim down this thread to relevant articles, links and posts w/o all the mud.... I guess we´d be left with like 25 pages of hard facts (that means actual 1% of useful posts, 99% spam).
 
red_flanders said:
Why didn't anyone else who was formerly in the grupetto see similar gains in form. Why only Wiggins?
You tell me - you're saying focus on this period, so when I ask you questions about that period it seems only fair for you to answer them?

That said, it's a pretty sweeping statement you've made. Didn't, for example, Pinotti (who I gather is pretty well regarded as clean) move from being mid-pack fodder to top tenning GCs in a similar time period? Is that because he started doping as well?

And actually, with a bit more thought, wasn't Wiggins top-tenning in his chosen road discipline in 2005-07 (TTs?) - given what we absolutely know about the time period, if he was clean at the time (which seems to be your working theory) that's pretty stellar performance against opposition with a 15% drug fuelled performance boost, isn't it? And just how many members of the grupetto were actually clean at the time anyway?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but I'm not presenting any beliefs as fact here either.
 
Benotti69 said:
The idea that BP stopped doping has long been debunked. Dont kid yourself. BP is a joke.

6 riders have been popped by BP, all nobodies, even Pelizotti. Look at Contador's values from his TdF win where he tested positive for Clen. His numbers were worse than Armstrongs and no ban for BP irregularities. Joke!

UKAD did no ABP tests the year Wiggins won in 2012.

Hesjedals blood values showed a rise in the 3rd week of his Giro win, when they should've decreased. Vaughters blamed machine error! Same for Wiggins in 2009, values up in 3d week and Vaughters blamed machine error.

BP is not to catch doping, it is to help teams manage their doping.

Doping is still the de riguer in pro cycling, which means Sky are another doping team. Get over it.
Possibly all true. I don't know.

But let's accept it as true. So why did Wiggins wait until 2009 to start doping, when the earlier time period was filthy, and doping definitely was de riguer? How did he keep up with the Gruppetto (let alone top ten the worlds TT) in the meantime if he was clean?

Or if he was already doping from 2001 onwards - which is the logic of your argument - how do you explain his 2009 transformation in the light of doping? Did the drugs just become more effective on Wiggins?

Genuinely interested in some plausible scenarios/discussion here.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, who gets a life-threatening disease like Godzilla would risk their life by taking performance enhancing drugs. What's Froome on? He's on his bike, busting his a$$ 6 hours per day. What are you on?
 
Apr 8, 2014
408
0
0
RownhamHill said:
You tell me - you're saying focus on this period, so when I ask you questions about that period it seems only fair for you to answer them?

That said, it's a pretty sweeping statement you've made. Didn't, for example, Pinotti (who I gather is pretty well regarded as clean) move from being mid-pack fodder to top tenning GCs in a similar time period? Is that because he started doping as well?

And actually, with a bit more thought, wasn't Wiggins top-tenning in his chosen road discipline in 2005-07 (TTs?) - given what we absolutely know about the time period, if he was clean at the time (which seems to be your working theory) that's pretty stellar performance against opposition with a 15% drug fuelled performance boost, isn't it? And just how many members of the grupetto were actually clean at the time anyway?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but I'm not presenting any beliefs as fact here either.
You cannot compare Pinotti to Wiggins- and you yourself have answered why. Pinotti went from mid-pack to top tens. Wiggins went from grupetto to enjoying one of the, if not the single most dominant season of any professional stage racer, ever.
 
RownhamHill said:
Yes, it would be great. Let's focus on the tour in that period.

What do we know for definite about the 2005/2006/2007 tours? Yes, that's right, the 'winners' (Armstrong/Landis/Ras) were all doing massive epo, transfusion programmes.

What happened in 2008? Oh yes, that's right, a new longtitudinal blood testing system that may have had an effect on riders opportunity to transfuse and dope with impunity.

Let's imagine (simply for the sake of argument) that you are a clean rider (forget Wiggins). Do you think, given the above, that there is a chane your 'relative' peformance might change between the 2007 and the 2009 tours (if so, in what direction?), or that your performance would remain consistent over that time? Do you think, given the above, your motivation as a clean rider, and the goals you set yourself might change?

More to the point, focusing in on Wiggins. Why - in your view (as someone who is convinced he started to dope in 2009) - did he decline to dope during the period of his pro-racing career (2001-2007) when doping was endemic, and essentially risk free, but then, after joining a 'clean' team and in the immediate wake of the blood passport being introduced (with all the uncertainty that would bring) did he decide to go 'all-in'?

Let me be clear - I have NO IDEA if he was ever clean, or ever dirty for that matter, or if he dopes when he started. But I'm interested in hearing a plausible answer to the above question re the timing of Wiggins doping/transformation, as I struggle with it.
Well the blood passport was introduced in 08 but it is incorrect to suggest that it had any notable immediate impact because afterall speeds did not fall, dopers (contador, basso, do luca, menchov, Valverde) continued to dominate the sport, people like Armstrong beat the passport etc. I'm surprised to see you, being a clinic regular, suggest that it would. You may disagree with me saying it was one of the most doped gts of the decade, but I think we cam agree that as a doped gt it certainly holds it's own weight.

As to your second point, why would Wiggins start doping in 09 not 05 or 06, well I dont know, I can speculate is all, same as people can speculate how Wiggins achieved his transformation without doping.

It could be anything. Maybe he was only introduced to doping then through friends.

But even theories that explain wiggos transformation can include. For instance the idea that he only discovered be could climb 2 months before the 2009 tour. That could very well be true. It's still unlikely that he would be able to acheive the level he ultimately did on that alone, doubly unlikely that he would do so a few weeks into the discovery. So he could have already been doping and stepped up to match it, or been clean and decided if he was going to be a gt contender, might as well start doping like everyone else and fight for win (and get the million dollar contract he so badly wanted) rather than for top 10s

Same goes for froome, maybe there was an element of only finding out he was good in sky and gaining confidence etc. But even if that's true it's more likely that he took drugs, even a small amount to get where he is at, than that he took no drugs at all.

That's the problem with believing sky are clean. To believe sky are clean, you have to believe every piece of the story. Froome has to be 100% clean and Wiggins has to be 100% clean and brailsford has to be 100% telling the truth and he can't have known who lienders really was etc.

I don't need to propose a single theory for why Wiggins only got his transformation in 2009 because almost every theory out there accommodates doping. Sky and their defenders do however need concrete theories for wiggos transformation and froomes transformation, and Leinders involvement and wiggos relationship with LA and the weight loss, the performances etc.

Because a story is only as good as it's weakest link.

We don't have a story and don't need one. All we say is that the sky story don't make sense. same as scientists reject certain religious theories on grounds that they don't make sense, even if they don't have 1 unchallengable theory of their own.
Whether the reason for that is because sky are blood doping, steroid doping, gene doping, motorizing their bikes, aliens masquerading as humans or sucking out climbing skills from the schleck brothers, it doesn't matter. So long as the sky story don't make sense, and wiggos and froomes transformations didn't happen for the reasons sky said they happened, we are right.
 
Nathan12 said:
You cannot compare Pinotti to Wiggins- and you yourself have answered why. Pinotti went from mid-pack to top tens. Wiggins went from grupetto to enjoying one of the, if not the single most dominant season of any professional stage racer, ever.
You can, and I just did.

If it's possible for one clean rider to improve their performance in that timescale (presumably because of a reduction in the overall level of the peloton), then why - if you assume Wiggins was clean pre 2008 - can the same explanation not be applied? I think (haven't checked) that Wiggins was top-tenning time trials in 2006-07 - if that was clean, maybe he's just a more talented rider than Pinotti, so when (if?) the race cleaned up his results improved more?

You could discuss the possibilities, or you could just reject the discussion outright.
 
RownhamHill said:
You tell me - you're saying focus on this period, so when I ask you questions about that period it seems only fair for you to answer them?

That said, it's a pretty sweeping statement you've made. Didn't, for example, Pinotti (who I gather is pretty well regarded as clean) move from being mid-pack fodder to top tenning GCs in a similar time period? Is that because he started doping as well?

And actually, with a bit more thought, wasn't Wiggins top-tenning in his chosen road discipline in 2005-07 (TTs?) - given what we absolutely know about the time period, if he was clean at the time (which seems to be your working theory) that's pretty stellar performance against opposition with a 15% drug fuelled performance boost, isn't it? And just how many members of the grupetto were actually clean at the time anyway?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but I'm not presenting any beliefs as fact here either.
Good post, Rownham.
 
The Hitch said:
Well the blood passport was introduced in 08 but it is incorrect to suggest that it had any notable immediate impact because afterall speeds did not fall, dopers (contador, basso, do luca, menchov, Valverde) continued to dominate the sport, people like Armstrong beat the passport etc. I'm surprised to see you, being a clinic regular, suggest that it would. You may disagree with me saying it was one of the most doped gts of the decade, but I think we cam agree that as a doped gt it certainly holds it's own weight.

As to your second point, why would Wiggins start doping in 09 not 05 or 06, well I dont know, I can speculate is all, same as people can speculate how Wiggins achieved his transformation without doping.

It could be anything. Maybe he was only introduced to doping then through friends.

But even theories that explain wiggos transformation can include. For instance the idea that he only discovered be could climb 2 months before the 2009 tour. That could very well be true. It's still unlikely that he would be able to acheive the level he ultimately did on that alone, doubly unlikely that he would do so a few weeks into the discovery.

Same goes for froome, maybe there was an element of only finding out he was good in sky and gaining confidence etc. But even if that's true it's more likely that he took drugs, even a small amount to get where he is at, than that he took no drugs at all.

That's the problem with believing sky are clean. To believe sky are clean, you have to believe every piece of the story. Froome has to be 100% clean and Wiggins has to be 100% clean and brailsford has to be 100% telling the truth and he can't have known who lienders really was etc.

I don't need to propose a single theory for why Wiggins only got his transformation in 2009 because almost every theory out there accommodates doping. Sky and their defenders do however need concrete theories for wiggos transformation and froomes transformation, and Leinders involvement and wiggos relationship with LA and the weight loss, the performances etc.

Because a story is only as good as it's weakest link.

We don't have a story and don't need one. All we say is that the sky story don't make sense. same as scientists reject certain religious theories on grounds that they don't make sense, even if they don't have 1 unchallengable theory of their own.
Whether the reason for that is because sky are blood doping, steroid doping, gene doping, motorizing their bikes, aliens masquerading as humans or sucking out climbing skills from the schleck brothers, it doesn't matter. So long as the sky story don't make sense, and wiggos and froomes transformations didn't happen for the reasons sky said they happened, we are right.
Do you know, I was with you every single step of the way with that post until the last three words. . .

But briefly in response. I don't actually know how much effect the BP had (or has) in reducing doping. My understanding is that it has moderated doping within parameters, and reduced the risk/reward scenario - Armstong beat the BP (well maybe, for a while) but he didn't win the tours - could have been age, could have been a reduced opportunity to dope to the same degree, no?

And in that context (of continued, but moderated doping) the transformation of Wiggins due to doping alone doesn't make much sense. And I come back to this point about him previously being clean - if he transformed because of dope in 09, it implies he was clean before. But if he was clean before he's a pretty legendary athlete to get anywhere near the pointy end of time trials on the road in 06-07 - no? But if he was dirty before, then how did doping help his transformation? And if it wasn't the contingent factor, what was?

Your point about the story only being as good as it's weakest link is fair enough - which is why it's worth discussing the working hypothesis (Wiggins started doping in 2009) in more detail. No? But now you're saying you don't have a story and you don't need one - I wonder what the scientists who reject religion that you mention would make of that?

Neither of the narratives - Wiggins was clean/clean, Wiggins was clean/dirty, or Wiggins was dirty/dirty respectively to time period - really adds up to me.
 
RownhamHill said:
Armstong beat the BP (well maybe, for a while) but he didn't win the tours - could have been age, could have been a reduced opportunity to dope to the same degree, no?
I don't know about not winning grand tours. He podiumed and that's excellent results.

Also implicit in your post is the assumption the UCI/ASO was some kind of anti-doping adversary when the exact opposite it true. The UCI/ASO bent over backwards to protect Armstrong from the anti-doping rules. They do the same for Contador. Other athletes for reasons unknown are not so lucky.
 
RownhamHill said:
You can, and I just did.

If it's possible for one clean rider to improve their performance in that timescale (presumably because of a reduction in the overall level of the peloton), then why - if you assume Wiggins was clean pre 2008 - can the same explanation not be applied? I think (haven't checked) that Wiggins was top-tenning time trials in 2006-07 - if that was clean, maybe he's just a more talented rider than Pinotti, so when (if?) the race cleaned up his results improved more?

You could discuss the possibilities, or you could just reject the discussion outright.
That doesn't work for wiggins. His speeds up verbier, ventoux, Angliru eze, peyresoudes were plenty good enough to challenge for gts In the mid 2000's and with his tt skills, win.

If I were looking for a rider who became good after the sport cleansed itself up I would offer voeckler. 2011 was the slowest tdf of the last 2 decades and it was the only one he challenged in moreover he got a few mins head start from the breakaway, had yellow jersey motivation and proceeded to bleed away his advantage over the gc stages and cracked in the end.

Since then he has won a few mountain stages from a break, pulled a few faces, outsprinted a horse and regressed to where he was before.

Of course many believe europcar 2011-12 was the second coming of saunier duval so even tv's comparitively weak transformation has it's doubters.
 
RownhamHill said:
You tell me - you're saying focus on this period, so when I ask you questions about that period it seems only fair for you to answer them?

That said, it's a pretty sweeping statement you've made. Didn't, for example, Pinotti (who I gather is pretty well regarded as clean) move from being mid-pack fodder to top tenning GCs in a similar time period? Is that because he started doping as well?

And actually, with a bit more thought, wasn't Wiggins top-tenning in his chosen road discipline in 2005-07 (TTs?) - given what we absolutely know about the time period, if he was clean at the time (which seems to be your working theory) that's pretty stellar performance against opposition with a 15% drug fuelled performance boost, isn't it? And just how many members of the grupetto were actually clean at the time anyway?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but I'm not presenting any beliefs as fact here either.
What statement did I make? I thought I just asked a question.

In 2008 we had Valverde, Piepoli, Ricco and a host of other dopers at the fore. Leipheimer and Contador not invited IIRC. The next year we had Armstrong, Contador, the Schlecks, Klöden, Nibali and Wiggins in the top places. All know dopers other than Wiggins.

Looks like a DNF for Wiggo in 2007? No participation in 2008 to focus on Beijing. In 2006 he was 124th place, 3 HOURS and 25 minutes down.

So you have a guy who improved his time from 3 years before by about 3.5 hours in a completely doped field. This is because people were doping less?

The field as a whole did not change in this way. Sure a couple riders improved their results and a lot lost time. But from almost coming in last amongst the finishers or a DNF to 4th?

I don't care what happened in the peloton, that's ASTOUNDING. Let me re-iterate for those who seek to diminish what happened. 3.5 HOURS difference in time. How is that remotely possible clean? It's not.
 
RownhamHill said:
You can, and I just did.

If it's possible for one clean rider to improve their performance in that timescale (presumably because of a reduction in the overall level of the peloton), then why - if you assume Wiggins was clean pre 2008 - can the same explanation not be applied? I think (haven't checked) that Wiggins was top-tenning time trials in 2006-07 - if that was clean, maybe he's just a more talented rider than Pinotti, so when (if?) the race cleaned up his results improved more?

You could discuss the possibilities, or you could just reject the discussion outright.
Pinotti was never as truly woeful in the mountains as Wiggins though (42nd on Alpe d'Huez back in 2001, winner of the GPM in País Vasco 2003, 6th on Brasstown Bald and top 40 over Finestre in 2005) - he wasn't a climbing king or anything, but he wasn't a total mug. David Harmon nearly had a coronary when Wiggins rode past Garzelli and Cunego on Alpe di Siusi in the 2009 Giro, and Wiggins had barely made the top 100 of a GT mountain stage before that. On the Finestre stage in 2005 he finished 87th, 24 minutes behind Pinotti, and in the 2007 Dauphiné (which of course isn't a GT, but I'm mentioning it because it's a proper mountain) he was 79th on Mont Ventoux. His best mountain performance to Siusi was probably 29th in the Volta a Catalunya ITT to Arcalis in 2005.

And then after 2008, the transition turned Pinotti from a man who finished 30th-50th in GT mountain stages to somebody who finished low top 10-30th in them, and who managed to go from finishing around 50th in GTs to once (once) managing to come 9th. That hardly compares to a guy who'd barely managed a top 100 in any mountain stage of a GT prior to 2009 suddenly making the podium, or going on an almost unprecedented run of dominance over six months.

This is why the transformations are not equivalent. Yes, Pinotti's results improved post-ABP. And that could be because of the ABP, and its effect in moderating doping if not eradicating it. However Pinotti's improvement in results are not comparable to Wiggins', unless you use a very misleading y-axis. So while you can argue that Pinotti's improvement shows that the ABP could have been a factor that helped contribute to Wiggins' rise to prominence, using it as an explanation for such a drastic improvement is extremely flawed, because very few riders were able to make similar improvements.

Also, this guy might have benefited from a combination of Operación Puerto and the ABP:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS