Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Do you have more details on this "grey area"? What does this mean? Who believes this is the case? What are the details of this viewpoint?

I started with it. Since the beginning. I never specified. OTOH no one specified the alleged special super drug Sky uses, that others don´t.

 

[the sceptic]

Do you have more details on this "grey area"? What does this mean? Who believes this is the case? What are the details of this viewpoint?

he wants it to be one way, but it is the other.

 

[red_flanders]

I started with it. Since the beginning. I never specified. OTOH no one specified the alleged special super drug Sky uses, that others don´t.

If you're going to state they're in a grey area, what do you mean? "Alleged super drug" has nothing to do with the question. Sky need not be on some kind of "alleged super drug" to do what they're doing, the existing drugs work quite well.

On the other hand, if you say they are in a "grey area" you are saying they're doing what exactly? You don't need to name any substances, how could you possibly know? But you must have some reason to think they're in a "grey area" if you're suggesting it, I'd simply like to hear the reasoning. Should be straightforward, no obfuscation or references to what other people are (apparently) claiming needed to make your case.

I just don't know what a grey area is. To me either you're using substances/methods that are banned or you're not. Or not? What am I missing? What sort of substances/methods would constitute a grey area?

 

[Catwhoorg]

WADA has put it on the 'monitored' list.

Any IC tests (maybe OOC as well, but IC for certain) will see how much it is actually being used.

Depending on the results, it may get bumped up to the actual list in 2015.

 

[gooner]

If you're going to state they're in a grey area, what do you mean? "Alleged super drug" has nothing to do with the question. Sky need not be on some kind of "alleged super drug" to do what they're doing, the existing drugs work quite well.

On the other hand, if you say they are in a "grey area" you are saying they're doing what exactly? You don't need to name any substances, how could you possibly know? But you must have some reason to think they're in a "grey area" if you're suggesting it, I'd simply like to hear the reasoning. Should be straightforward, no obfuscation or references to what other people are (apparently) claiming needed to make your case.

I just don't know what a grey area is. To me either you're using substances/methods that are banned or you're not. Or not? What am I missing? What sort of substances/methods would constitute a grey area?

I think OOC cortisone was one that has been mentioned on here. I know Barry in his book said the team did everything to enhance performance within legal means.

 

[Catwhoorg]

I just don't know what a grey area is. To me either you're using substances/methods that are banned or you're not. Or not? What am I missing? What sort of substances/methods would constitute a grey area?

Like anyone a grey area is going to be defined differently.

I'd draw the line at prescription medication being used for non-therapeutic necessity.

Want to pop a inbuprofen or paracetamol to take the edge off on a long race, thats fine by me.

Tramadol, in a finish bottle is dodgy to me.

(Though I fully agree its 100% not 'doping' under WADA rules)

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

If you're going to state they're in a grey area, what do you mean? It's pretty simple.

"Alleged super drug" is a red herring and has nothing to do with the question. Sky need not be on some kind of "alleged super drug" to do what they're doing, the existing drugs work quite well.

On the other hand, if you say they are in a "grey area" you are saying they're doing what exactly? You don't need to name any substances, how could you possibly know? But you must have some reason to think they're in a "grey area" if you're suggesting it, I'd simply like to hear the reasoning. Should be straightforward, no obfuscation or references to what other people are (apparently) claiming needed to make your case.

I just don't know what a grey area is. Either you're using substances/methods that are banned or you're not as far as I can see. What sort of substances/methods would constitute a grey area?

Look... I told you (& of course to everybody round here) many times "I don´t know" (if they are doping or not). I said they certainly (this may not the exact words I used) are in a "grey area", bending the rules but not stepping over it. What is the grey area? If I had known, I would have told. But it seems they do something in the area of extreme weight reducing w/o losing power. If I look at Froomes leg picture, it shows only bones and skin. Mottet was on diet only. It worked for him pretty well. May Sky advanced existing methods to the extreme.... (As I said earlier, I am no expert in this watts stuff. But AFAI understand it, simple math does help me. 380 watts on 65 kg gives 5.8 W/Kg. Losing 3 kg on marginal gains higher that number to 6.1 W/kg)

The same is true the other way round: Nobody (at least the pages I read) came up with a clear picture what kind of doping method Sky allegedly uses. All I hear is they are doping. So you might further explain what the difference of these two opinions is. I can´t explain the exact use* of method in the grey area, the doping theorists can´t come up with what the drug is. I guess you would agree that "existing drugs" are open to everybody, not solely for Sky. Right?

* Add in the painkiller use, it pretty much helps to prolong extreme performance...

 

[The Hitch]

He won't bomb. A repeat of last year's performance would still be enough to beat this year's Contador. For whatever reason, they didn't want him racing Liege today- I have a hunch we'll see in Romandie that his form is scary good. Which will invite more questions of its own.

I take the other side, I suspect, like mellow, froomie gonna just ride it out this year, get one or two good results, but it ain't gonna be robo froome. Let's see who is right.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It's certainly a stark contrast to the claims made by a few at Sky that Froome still had room for improvement...

 

[Samson777]

I take the other side, I suspect, like mellow, froomie gonna just ride it out this year, get one or two good results, but it ain't gonna be robo froome. Let's see who is right.

Just to clarify, would one of theese good results be the overall Tour win? Or are we talking only pre July?

 

[red_flanders]

Look... I told you (& of course to everybody round here) many times "I don´t know" (if they are doping or not). I said they certainly (this may not the exact words I used) are in a "grey area", bending the rules but not stepping over it. What is the grey area? If I had known, I would have told. But it seems they do something in the area of extreme wight reducing w/o losing power. If I look at Froomes leg picture, it shows only bones and skin. Mottet was on diet only. It worked for him pretty well. May Sky advanced existing methods to the extreme.... (As I said earlier, I am no expert in this watts stuff. But AFAI understand it, simple math does help me. 380 watts on 65 kg gives 5.8 W/Kg. Losing 3 kg on marginal gains higher that number to 6.1 W/kg)

The same is true the other way round: Nobody (at least the pages I read) came up with a clear picture what kind of doping method Sky allegedly uses. All I hear is they are doping. So you might further explain what the difference of these two opinions is. I can´t explain the exact use* of method in the grey area, the doping theorists can´t come up with what the drug is. I guess you would agree that "existing drugs" are open to everybody, not solely for Sky. Right?

* Add in the painkiller use, it pretty much helps to prolong extreme performance...

I'm not asking you if you think they dope, and yes I've heard your opinion that you don't know dozens of times. I was asking you what led you to believe they were operating in a grey area. You say they are "certainly" in a grey area, "bending the rules without stepping over". Should be fairly easy to explain if this is "certainly the case".

I have heard plenty of reasons from those who think they dope, why they think so. Lots of clear, fully reasoned cases. This is the difference, since you asked. Fully reasoned posts with examples and evidence on the part of those who think they are doping. You are suggesting "certainty of a grey area" with no explanation why, no definition of what the grey area is to you, or any reason why you think this is the case.

Whether someone thinks they are doping or in a "grey area", I would not expect anyone to know what substances are being used, that would be ridiculous to postulate.

I really don't get what a grey area is. They are either using banned substances or methods or they are not. Again, what does "grey area" mean?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I really don't get what a grey area is. They are either using banned substances or methods or they are not. Again, what does "grey area" mean?

Ok my dear friend. My last try, and then we go on, ok?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/grey+area
"an area, situation, etc, lacking clearly defined characteristics"

Thesaurus:
"an intermediate area; a topic that is not clearly one thing or the other"

I hope that helps.

The world isn´t black/white. I told you that before...

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Just to clarify, would one of theese good results be the overall Tour win? Or are we talking only pre July?

I thought we talk about a TdF win... Shall we do a poll?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It's certainly a stark contrast to the claims made by a few at Sky that Froome still had room for improvement...

eg Kerrison, Froome and Brailsford all think he can go better:

Kerrison refused to speculate on how many Tours Froome could win, but he said the team is studying ways to further improve his performance.

“Chris is in the early stages of his development,” Kerrison said. “If you look back at his progression, his actual raw power numbers haven’t improved that much. What’s improved is his ability to deliver that in real race situations. … There are a few little rough edges that we can smooth out over the next couple of years, so he uses his talents more efficiently.”

Read more at http://velonews.competitor.com/2014...-yellow-jersey-win_315267#O6oVbiKDAMQhZl0K.99

In the interview, Froome reflected on his Tour success and on how far he wants to go, and said that he still has room to improve.

“I still think I can get much better. I’m obviously a decent climber but there are things I can do to improve. Like I’m not the smoothest rider. I’m rugged, all elbows and knees. I’ve heard Christian Prudhomme [the Tour director] say I was Paula Radcliffe on a bike,” Froome said.

“So, I can work on improving my position on the bike, as well as improving tactically in stage races. Each time I ride a grand tour at the front, I’m learning. Otherwise it would be demotivating.”

Read more at http://velonews.competitor.com/2013...win-multiple-tours_311977#rl5i6uxFEHEyMBW2.99

But Brailsford believes the best is yet to come, claiming his team leader can be competitive in the Tour for years to come.

"It is impossible to say how many Tours Chris will win, but he has all the physical and mental attributes to be able to be competitive in this race, if nothing drastic changes, for quite some time," said Brailsford.

"He is not at his best yet, for sure, he can still reach a better physical condition than he is now."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...s-Team-Sky-principal-Sir-Dave-Brailsford.html

 

[red_flanders]

Ok my dear friend. My last try, and then we prolong, ok?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/grey+area
"an area, situation, etc, lacking clearly defined characteristics"

Thesaurus:
"an intermediate area; a topic that is not clearly one thing or the other"

I hope that helps.

The world isn´t black/white. I told you that before...

Really??? Your answer is that you don't think I understand the definition of "grey area"? I asked you why you are certain that Sky are operating in a grey area and that's all you can offer?

I honestly thought you had some reason. If you're going to make a claim like that, at least attempt to explain your thinking.

You don't have to prove it. But at least offer some reason you think this. Otherwise we're left to assume things like "he thinks so because that's all that's left after months of defending the indefensible".

I'm sure that's not it though, right?

 

[the sceptic]

I take the other side, I suspect, like mellow, froomie gonna just ride it out this year, get one or two good results, but it ain't gonna be robo froome. Let's see who is right.

well he is certainly not peaking for 6 months and winning everything anymore, but I still think he will be in full alien mode for the tour, possibly even better than last year.

my theory is that they saw that Contador would be much better, and figured that another 6 month peak would be too risky.

 

[martinvickers]

At least it fits. The photo with Wiggins (the pill looked like the size of Tramadol), own experience: even though Tramadol really kills pain, it also makes you kinda dizzy (it´s explicit warned to not engage in road traffic. And cycling is very heavy "road traffic"). This could explain the many crashes. Add in the weight loss fetish, and regression to the mean, we pretty much arrived at the very dark "grey area" and explanation of the mounting injuries. My two cents for the most likely...

What is BC? Blood contamination? If you mean that, I would count that out. A team with deep pockets and knowledge certainly knows how to prevent infections. I mean the PDM days are gone...

BC = British Cycling

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Really??? Your answer is that you don't think I understand the definition of "grey area"? I asked you why you are certain that Sky are operating in a grey area and that's all you can offer?

I honestly thought you had some reason. If you're going to make a claim like that, at least attempt to explain your thinking.

You don't have to prove it. But at least offer some reason you think this. Otherwise I am* left to assume things like "he thinks so because that's all that's left after months of defending the indefensible".

I'm sure that's not it though, right?

I thought it was clear to you w/o further explanation (as it is to everybody else, except maybe one more poster).
It´s the same reason as you have for your thoughts of doping: The transformation.

* I corrected the bolded for you, b/c I think you shall not speak for others. Accept? ....

Your original post. How would you have answered and understood this question?

I really don't get what a grey area is. They are either using banned substances or methods or they are not. Again, what does "grey area" mean?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

BC = British Cycling

LOL. Major mess by me...

 

[martinvickers]

Do you have more details on this "grey area"? What does this mean? Who believes this is the case? What are the details of this viewpoint?

the words "doping" "Grey area" have something over 100,000 hits in Google. I find your 'naivite' difficult to credit...

But, for an example...


Explanation :
http://www.docolab.ugent.be/PhD_WVT.pdf

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=doping "grey area"&f=false

 

[red_flanders]

the words "doping" "Grey area" have something over 100,000 hits in Google. I find your 'naivite' difficult to credit...

But, for an example...


Explanation :
http://www.docolab.ugent.be/PhD_WVT.pdf

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=doping "grey area"&f=false

I'm asking why he thinks Sky are operating in a grey area, and what he thinks that means.

I'm pretty clear on the general definition, thanks.

Is my simple question that confusing for both of you?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I'm asking why he thinks Sky are operating in a grey area, and what he thinks that means.

I'm pretty clear on the general definition, thanks.

Is my simple question that confusing for both of you?

Don´t blame Martin:

I really don't get what a grey area is. They are either using banned substances or methods or they are not. Again, what does "grey area" mean?

 

[red_flanders]

Don´t blame Martin:

Pardon me then. Let me rephrase. I don't believe there is a grey area, just as the athlete in Martin's link offers. "I don't believe in grey areas". Never mind that I already stated several times that I understand what a grey area is, I just don't think it's relevant and I wanted to hear what YOU meant.

Now that we have that out of the way, maybe you could answer the questions.

Really feeling like obfuscation here guys. Really. Unless of course you can answer the questions.

 

[martinvickers]

I'm asking why he thinks Sky are operating in a grey area, and what he thinks that means.

I'm pretty clear on the general definition, thanks.

Is my simple question that confusing for both of you?

How on earth would HE know what it means? Is he WADA? Bizzare request.

 

[the sceptic]

I cant wait for the next 10 pages of this riveting discussion.