Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[red_flanders]

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

You nailed it. All the best lies contain truth. Good to keep in mind when listening to these guys try and explain the inexplicable.

 

[Justinr]

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.

TBH most of us on here have taken a view / position either way on Sky (and I include their riders). Its much more easy for those who suspect them, to be able to post and point to this that and the other about why they are not clean in their view.

This brings me back to a point I made early on in my Clinic membership (or at least very similar). It is much easier to prove doping if there is a +ve than it is to prove clean if there isn't a +ve. A kind of reverse Armstrong position if you will. If Froome were to fail a test then I would hands up say he was doping (and be disappointed). But if he doesn't fail then it is very easy for people to say all sorts of things (new drugs, testing doesn't work, bribery, etc.).

I guess that's what I am saying here - many people may have made up their mind (and that's ok) but there isn't really anything (from a testing / evidence point of view, etc.) that can change it. Whereas if you're a believer and then there is a +ve it definitely should change your mind.

Can you see what I'm saying? The 'believers' (if you will) are on to a loser and because of that it is very easy for people to attack the messenger and not the message and be rude about people. That, makes me (and I'm sure others) quite angry when I see posts like that.

I was going to say more but unfortunately I go called off to do something at home and now cant remember what is was (*** - I'm getting old!).

 

[Justinr]

You nailed it. All the best lies contain truth. Good to keep in mind when listening to these guys try and explain the inexplicable.

I agree that a comment like "we worked so hard" or "we worked harder than the rest" is "spin" in a way. That's all training talk / psycho / bravado. It doesn't mean they are wilfully lying or doping.

I help train an under 13s football (soccer) team and we use terms like that all the time. It doesn't mean anything untoward - its just talk / encouragement / whatever you want it to be. I do think that some of you seriously analyse what people say far too much.

 

[Justinr]

I do think that some of you seriously analyse what people say far too much.

And that wasn't meant as an attack or anything personal just an observation that I don't get all worried about things like that.

 

[DirtyWorks]

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"......

One of the most interesting things in this dirty sport is after 36 months of multiple guys, all at the same time, dominating for months at a time, suddenly it is not happening. And Wiggo turns in a couple of believable performances.

The grand tours might be more interesting despite the fact EPO-induced records will likely be broken in comedic horror.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

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.

Imagine, exact the same here... If I had the time we could go back and forth until one drops...

 

[The Hitch]

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.

Sounds like you have as well.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

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.

So what is the least suspicious for you?
I made my POV clear many times; the more constant performances are, the less suspicious. No hiding in far places, low on blood after transfusions, thus faking injury or whatever...
So Froome made his jump like few others before, but he did it at a relative young age and stayed at the top.
Up and gone, up gone, like CH, LA, Cobo, Mosq, DiLuca are way more suspicious in my eyes...
Now he could transfuse year around on a Sibiria system like TH described. If that´s the case he´ll be caught soon. You can´t hide such a complicated system that needs docs, fridges, secret hotel rooms, manipulating BP experts, forever.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

So what is the least suspicious for you?
I made my POV clear many times; the more constant performances are, the less suspicious. No hiding in far places, low on blood after transfusions, thus faking injury or whatever...

Is that a long-winded way of saying "I believe Valverde is clean"?

 

[red_flanders]

So what is the least suspicious for you?
I made my POV clear many times; the more constant performances are, the less suspicious. No hiding in far places, low on blood after transfusions, thus faking injury or whatever...
So Froome made his jump like few others before, but he did it at a relative young age and stayed at the top.
Up and gone, up gone, like CH, LA, Cobo, Mosq, DiLuca are way more suspicious in my eyes...
Now he could transfuse year around on a Sibiria system like TH described. If that´s the case he´ll be caught soon. You can´t hide such a complicated system that needs docs, fridges, secret hotel rooms, manipulating BP experts, forever.

Yet Armstrong was a completely consistent performer and hid everything you just described. One rather obvious example throwing all that in the wash. He in fact used to point to his own consistency as evidence of cleanliness.

It means nothing.

 

[red_flanders]

So what is the least suspicious for you?

Neither, that was the entire point of my post.

I made my POV clear many times; the more constant performances are, the less suspicious. No hiding in far places, low on blood after transfusions, thus faking injury or whatever...
So Froome made his jump like few others before, but he did it at a relative young age and stayed at the top.
Up and gone, up gone, like CH, LA, Cobo, Mosq, DiLuca are way more suspicious in my eyes...
Now he could transfuse year around on a Sibiria system like TH described. If that´s the case he´ll be caught soon. You can´t hide such a complicated system that needs docs, fridges, secret hotel rooms, manipulating BP experts, forever.

Yet Armstrong was a completely consistent performer and hid everything you just described. One rather obvious example throwing all that in the wash. He in fact used to point to his own consistency as evidence of cleanliness.

It means nothing.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Is that a long-winded way of saying "I believe Valverde is clean"?

As I learned here, Valv-Piti won basically everything at young age (I think the guys in Spain are crazy, but I don´t think as crazy as the GDR state sponsored doping docs who poisoned 13 year olds)...
Now assume the field is cleaner, it should be no surprise that he is winning on a level field.

P.S.: A nice one. The 27.000th post on page 2.700

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Yet Armstrong was a completely consistent performer and hid everything you just described. One rather obvious example throwing all that in the wash. He in fact used to point to his own consistency as evidence of cleanliness.

It means nothing.

What you mean? Did the LA PR got to you? I am surprised to say the least.
LA was like Jan. Coming in June, going in July....

 

[red_flanders]

TBH most of us on here have taken a view / position either way on Sky (and I include their riders). Its much more easy for those who suspect them, to be able to post and point to this that and the other about why they are not clean in their view.

This brings me back to a point I made early on in my Clinic membership (or at least very similar). It is much easier to prove doping if there is a +ve than it is to prove clean if there isn't a +ve. A kind of reverse Armstrong position if you will. If Froome were to fail a test then I would hands up say he was doping (and be disappointed). But if he doesn't fail then it is very easy for people to say all sorts of things (new drugs, testing doesn't work, bribery, etc.).

It's impossible for either to be proven here, but certainly it's never possible to prove one is clean.

I guess that's what I am saying here - many people may have made up their mind (and that's ok) but there isn't really anything (from a testing / evidence point of view, etc.) that can change it. Whereas if you're a believer and then there is a +ve it definitely should change your mind.

Can you see what I'm saying? The 'believers' (if you will) are on to a loser and because of that it is very easy for people to attack the messenger and not the message and be rude about people. That, makes me (and I'm sure others) quite angry when I see posts like that.

I guess I'm not that interested in who's a winner and who's a loser. Attacking the messenger is happening from all quarters, so I don't see why that's easier. It's no easier for the skeptics to attack anyone than it is for the believers.

You know what frustrates me? When we have these discussions and I ask "why do people believe that Froome's performances can be done clean?" Then there are a few pages of silence, then a bunch of posts which argue for Froome but don't address the one, crucial point. Maybe FoxyBrown starts crying because I said I like Horner and this to him is the end of the world. Never mind that Horner is obviously doping, but no one argues about that for 200 pages. Maybe someone says "I just believe it". But no one addresses the point and answers the questions "why" do you believe it or "how" is it possible?

If you're going to argue that Froome is clean, just tell me how it's possible. Why do you believe that Chris Froome has equalled or bested the best times of the biggest dopers ever, and done it clean. That he has matched or bettered those times is a fact, and it's not arguable. How do you reconcile that?

I have never heard anyone give a remotely satisfactory response to the question.

 

[red_flanders]

What you mean? Did the LA PR got to you? I am surprised to say the least.
LA was like Jan. Coming in June, going in July....

WTF are you talking about? Speechless really...

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

WT triple F you are talking?????
LA won his TdFs and Dauphines, thats PHUCKING IT!!!!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So what is the least suspicious for you?
I made my POV clear many times; the more constant performances are, the less suspicious.

David Millar, when discussing Contador's GT wins, agrees.

 

[wansteadimp]

P.S.: A nice one. The 27.000th post on page 2.700

Sky's magic potion did it

or 10 posts to a page.

I'm undecided, there's no evidence or do I mean proof, besides Lance never did it like that.

 

[Ripper]

An issue here is that there is only one brand of winners to make comparisons against.

There have been countless dopers who have made smooth progressions and there have been countless dopers who have made rather erratic progressions.

As for clean winners who do we compare against ? Looking back over the past 50 years I guess you can use Lemond. Evans and Sastre are doubtful. Wiggins if you believe him. There's pretty much no one.

To say Froome's progression shows doping by use of comparison to previous riders makes little sense when all the comparisons are to dopers. Who's to say a clean rider can only progress smoothly ?

Of course the fact that there's hardly any clean comparisons to make is pretty damning.

I was actually just referring to comparing Froome's progression to any doper

 

[Ripper]

Was thinking somehow the same. We can´t compare Froome to clean winners. Simply because there are none we could be sure of. Not even Lemond (after his shooting accident at least) ...

My main point was - comparing Froome's progression to some known dopage is the right comparison to make ...

 

[DirtyWorks]

Now assume the field is cleaner,

What evidence do we have to support that assumption?
-UCI is still relying on the worn PR messages.
-UCI still in control of announcing positives.
-UCI is most worried about gathering broadcast rights and growing viewers.
-Riders beating EPO times.
-Riders still transforming.
-PED's are cheaper and easier to use than ever.

 

[The Hitch]

You know what frustrates me? When we have these discussions and I ask "why do people believe that Froome's performances can be done clean?" Then there are a few pages of silence, then a bunch of posts which argue for Froome but don't address the one, crucial point. Maybe FoxyBrown starts crying because I said I like Horner and this to him is the end of the world. Never mind that Horner is obviously doping, but no one argues about that for 200 pages. Maybe someone says "I just believe it". But no one addresses the point and answers the questions "why" do you believe it or "how" is it possible?

The most common one I see, and I've seen it a good 4 or 5 times from different posters if not more, is - I just feel Wiggins is clean. Can't explain it, got no arguments worth a salt, can't explain 50 different things about his story, but my 6th sense tells me he is clean.

 

[RownhamHill]

The most common one I see, and I've seen it a good 4 or 5 times from different posters if not more, is - I just feel Wiggins is clean. Can't explain it, got no arguments worth a salt, can't explain 50 different things about his story, but my 6th sense tells me he is clean.

To be fair, it appeared like you made a very similar argument with regards to Wiggins dirtiness just the other day - as I understood it you compared the suggestion that Wiggins was clean as to being as believable as Santa dropping a watch in your garden, and therefore because you don't/can't believe the 'Wiggins is Clean' story as it's been presented, you don't need to explain the exact mechanism of his dirtiness. . . I'm not having a pop here - it's your feelings you're describing, so fair enough - just pointing out that's not so far removed from your 6th sense telling you he's dirty. . .

And with regards Red's post your responding to, what frustrates me is when someone puts up a a question for discussion, someone else tries to take the discussion forward, and the original poster throws back snarky rhetorical questions and then asks what the point of the conversation is when the other person doesn't instantly agree with the OPs own strongly held belief. Just sayin'. . .

 

[Benotti69]

To be fair, it appeared like you made a very similar argument with regards to Wiggins dirtiness just the other day - as I understood it you compared the suggestion that Wiggins was clean as to being as believable as Santa dropping a watch in your garden, and therefore because you don't/can't believe the 'Wiggins is Clean' story as it's been presented, you don't need to explain the exact mechanism of his dirtiness. . . I'm not having a pop here - it's your feelings you're describing, so fair enough - just pointing out that's not so far removed from your 6th sense telling you he's dirty. . .

And with regards Red's post your responding to, what frustrates me is when someone puts up a a question for discussion, someone else tries to take the discussion forward, and the original poster throws back snarky rhetorical questions and then asks what the point of the conversation is when the other person doesn't instantly agree with the OPs own strongly held belief. Just sayin'. . .

And still you have not made a strong argument for how they (sky, Wiggins or Froome) are able to do it clean.

 

[RownhamHill]

And still you have not made a strong argument for how they (sky, Wiggins or Froome) are able to do it clean.

Maybe not. But I was pretty clear that's because I can't really make any of the arguments (clean or dirty) satisfactorily add up - wasn't I?