Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[red_flanders]

And if his performance isn't as good as last year will you and all the others stop yourself from crying out "there you go, big one year bad the next - must be doping" ???

I can't speak for anyone else, but no. I'll just continue to think that he was doping the last couple of years and likely still is.

All form is not explained by dope. Form at levels never seen from clean riders (Froome 2011 Vuelta - 2013 Tour) means doping to me. What happens next year makes no difference to what has already happened.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Had posted this earlier today. Not necessarily nothing for in between 2009 and 2011.

That post also contains a nice bit of sleight of hand. After all, he put in a top 10 in a stage in Romandie, Castilla y León and Suisse.

If he'd come top 10 in the GC in those three races (which is what I would normally read from "top 10 performances") before breaking out at the Vuelta, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because while his improvement in level may still have raised eyebrows, it would have rendered progress a bit more realistic in line with 2008-9 for a rider's development, and then we could throw out 2010 as an outlier, as many big name riders at Sky had a bad 2010, and just say there were teething problems with a new team. If he'd been top 10 at three races with decent climbing, 2 of which at the World Tour level, in the first half of 2011, names like Pérez, Riis and Mosquera may never have come up and though his subsequent level would still have seen plenty of Clinic attention, it wouldn't have been as visceral or instantaneous as it has been as his transformation would not have been so dramatic. But instead he faded at Romandie (coming 50th in the TT, a discipline he's now among the best in the world at), coming in in the Grupetto in one of the mountain stages of Suisse (and losing 15 minutes in the other two after his decent Crans Montana showing), and while his Castilla y León performance was ok, he still lost nearly 20 seconds in a pan-flat ITT to Igor freaking Antón. That's like being beaten on a mountaintop finish by André Greipel (instead, we had to wait until the Tour de Suisse for that to happen, when Greipel beat the grupetto Froome was in by 3 minutes).

As for the facts and time required to collate, actually I need time to sleep and to work. My job is, unfortunately, not directly related to picking out cycling statistics and drawing race routes, so I can't be available to reply at all times, I'm afraid.

 

[GuyIncognito]

And if his performance isn't as good as last year will you and all the others stop yourself from crying out "there you go, big one year bad the next - must be doping" ???

Please stop repeating logical fallacies that have been explained to death

What he does this or next year has no relevance on whether he doped last year. Only how he did last year has relevance. He can ride faster, slower or the same, it won't matter to last year.

 

[Benotti69]

You can speculate of course and you are entitled to, but I tend to like to at least start off believing the press reports.

The press that ignored Armstrong's doping for years. Good luck with that.

 

[the sceptic]

And if his performance isn't as good as last year will you and all the others stop yourself from crying out "there you go, big one year bad the next - must be doping" ???

If Froome suddenly starts riding in the gruppetto again then yeah, his doping last year will become even more obvious. If possible.

 

[therhodeo]

If Froome suddenly starts riding in the gruppetto again then yeah, his doping last year will become even more obvious. If possible.

Andy'd

 

[Benotti69]

In 2004 Boonen made a comment directed at CSC,

"I only saw Gewiss in action once. CSC reminds me of them."— Tom Boonen, 2004.

“I’ve heard some things about us that concern me. Some journalists will say anything. I can say that we have worked very hard together with the 25 riders of CSC in ten day training camps. Nobody worked like we did. We may have done the same number of kilometres as other teams, but ours were good kilometres!” ----Bjarne Riis

So Sky are doing a CSC with all the hard work

 

[Justinr]

I can't speak for anyone else, but no. I'll just continue to think that he was doping the last couple of years and likely still is.

All form is not explained by dope. Form at levels never seen from clean riders (Froome 2011 Vuelta - 2013 Tour) means doping to me. What happens next year makes no difference to what has already happened.

Thanks for the response. You'll appreciate that because there are many on The Clinic who have claimed (or thrown *** / wild accusations / sneers) in exactly that way against Sky (Wiggins for sure) ... that a good / great one year and pants the next = doping. Therefore I think it was a valid comment from me.

 

[Justinr]

The press that ignored Armstrong's doping for years. Good luck with that.

Hmmm - I think there is a massive difference there. It was reported he was injured, I'm happy to believe that (injured doesn't equal doping).

 

[Justinr]

If Froome suddenly starts riding in the gruppetto again then yeah, his doping last year will become even more obvious. If possible.

So yet again - if he's good he's doping, if he is isn't he was doping last year. Hmm kind of sounds like you have made your mind up either way.

 

[LaFlorecita]

So yet again - if he's good he's doping, if he is isn't he was doping last year. Hmm kind of sounds like you have made your mind up either way.

Maybe he's being target tested and he knows it. Let's hope so.

 

[Justinr]

In 2004 Boonen made a comment directed at CSC,





So Sky are doing a CSC with all the hard work

What point are you trying to make? A team that works hard and talks about it (in similar language to the past) are dodgy? How do you even get out of bed in the morning without worrying about what might happen on the 15 foot walk to the bathroom?

 

[Justinr]

Maybe he's being target tested and he knows it. Let's hope so.

I hope they're all target tested - it will weed out the cheats (as much as any testing can before anyone posts back).

 

[del1962]

In 2004 Boonen made a comment directed at CSC,





So Sky are doing a CSC with all the hard work

Compared to Sky, the rest of the Peloton looked like Gewiss in FW today

 

[Benotti69]

Compared to Sky, the rest of the Peloton looked like Gewiss in FW today

Yep. Sky have to up their program. Wonder is Wiggins doing an Armstrong screaming "we have to get what these guys are on, we are getting killed out there"......

 

[Benotti69]

Hmmm - I think there is a massive difference there. It was reported he was injured, I'm happy to believe that (injured doesn't equal doping).

I choose not to believe what I read in the press, especially what the cycling press report. They do have a history. Armstrong being the most recent, but they have failed so many times.

 

[Benotti69]

What point are you trying to make? A team that works hard and talks about it (in similar language to the past) are dodgy?

What point? It is clear. All teams claim to work hard. Sky claiming to work harder than others has been spun before. Important to remember that when a team wants fans to believe it is not cheating, the 'spin' they train harder than others does not cut it anymore, at least for me who has been following this sport for more than 3 decades.

 

[The Hitch]

Combining a nationalistic attack with a statement comically the opposite of what is actually going on. You must not have joined any of the various online forums when all the "Mericans" were pounding Armstrong for the last 10 years.

Oh, you must be referring to the defenders of Armstrong who now attack Sky. Oh wait, I've never seen one of those. Must have gotten that talking point from the chamois-sniffer Walsh?

In fact precious few Armstrong defenders have actually remained as active posters, let alone attack Sky. I can think of only 1 and of course the particular revisionism there is "I was never defending Armstrong". All strangely familiar.

Top it off with some WAP-text-level spelling and it's the post of the day. Strong stuff for one sentence.

Good post red.

 

[Justinr]

I choose not to believe what I read in the press, especially what the cycling press report. They do have a history. Armstrong being the most recent, but they have failed so many times.

I agree that they didn't cover themselves in glory with LA (he was a bully to all and sundry) but you cant lay that on basic reporting of the events of the day in a race.

There is a bit of a difference between not wanting to speak out that LA was a doper and reporting on (what was then) a support rider with a knee problem. Don't you agree?

 

[Justinr]

What point? It is clear. All teams claim to work hard. Sky claiming to work harder than others has been spun before. Important to remember that when a team wants fans to believe it is not cheating, the 'spin' they train harder than others does not cut it anymore, at least for me who has been following this sport for more than 3 decades.

Well your post quoted CSC & Riis. There were no SKY quotes in there yet you tried to draw a comparison and imply that they were dodgy (I know you think they are, and that’s your view) – I just questioned how. I don’t have a problem with people’s beliefs / views (I may not agree with them) but if you want to draw a comparison / conclusion at least give us all the facts so we can understand what you’re getting at. I think that's fair ... ?

 

[Benotti69]

I agree that they didn't cover themselves in glory with LA (he was a bully to all and sundry) but you cant lay that on basic reporting of the events of the day in a race.

There is a bit of a difference between not wanting to speak out that LA was a doper and reporting on (what was then) a support rider with a knee problem. Don't you agree?

No, the cycling reporters just repeat whatever teams say unquestioningly.

They have not covered themselves in anything resembling honesty or integrity never mind glory.

If Froome was going to quit the giro there was no need to hang onto a motorbike. There is a broom wagon if he missed the last team car.

 

[red_flanders]

Thanks for the response. You'll appreciate that because there are many on The Clinic who have claimed (or thrown *** / wild accusations / sneers) in exactly that way against Sky (Wiggins for sure) ... that a good / great one year and pants the next = doping. Therefore I think it was a valid comment from me.

No worries. I think it's a meaningless vector. Too many examples of proven dopers who have fit either the "on form for crazy amount of time" or the "up and down" for it to have any meaning for me.

And again, what someone has already done is all you can go on. It's interesting to wonder and speculate about what they might do or why the keep/lose form, but it doesn't have anything to do with whether they've been doping previously. IMO.

 

[red_flanders]

So yet again - if he's good he's doping, if he is isn't he was doping last year. Hmm kind of sounds like you have made your mind up either way.

Why wouldn't someone have made up their mind already? That's what I cannot figure for the life of me. People are basing their opinion on him on his existing performances, which I think someone may have mentioned are unprecedented for a "clean" rider.

The idea that someone is on the fence about him is (to me) just a refuge of not wanting to believe the obvious.

 

[Justinr]

No, the cycling reporters just repeat whatever teams say unquestioningly.

They have not covered themselves in anything resembling honesty or integrity never mind glory.

If Froome was going to quit the giro there was no need to hang onto a motorbike. There is a broom wagon if he missed the last team car.

Ok I understand your point more.

Whether he did / didn't want to go for the broom wagon who knows (embarrassment? I know people who have done L'Etape and would rather abandon and hide than get the BW but (a) I think you need to exclude this ride from the comparison that was being done earlier (it was reported as injury - I think its fair to go with that) and (b) I personally don't think he was trying to cheat. And even if he was we're using it as a comparison so surely it becomes null and void any way?

We could argue / debate about the press in general until the cows come home but that's not for here.

 

[Nathan12]

What point? It is clear. All teams claim to work hard. Sky claiming to work harder than others has been spun before. Important to remember that when a team wants fans to believe it is not cheating, the 'spin' they train harder than others does not cut it anymore, at least for me who has been following this sport for more than 3 decades.

Doping means you can work harder. It may only be half a lie. Like Postal.