Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1159 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
nslckevin said:
But you don't. You have assumptions and guesses but you don't really KNOW. You may very well be right. I don't know. But that's my point. You don't KNOW either.
Actually we would. If the sport cleaned up its act that would mean a lot of people found the road to Dasmascus and would be telling us and turning on those who didn't. The silence about doping from the peloton is deafening.

nslckevin said:
That is what I hate. A bunch of people who've never been closer to the pro peloton than watching on TV or maybe on the roadside who KNOW what's going on behind the scenes. I'm in the same boat. I'm just not arrogant enough to assume that I KNOW what is really going on.
If what was going on behind the scenes was clean, then we would see a lot more of it, but we dont. Teams wont release riders srm files....

nslckevin said:
It is possible that Servais Knaven was doped to the gills when he won, but is now a true believer in clean cycling. It's also possible that he is supplying drugs to the whole team. Do you have any evidence of what he's actually doing right NOW or are you just assuming (*** u me) that he's running a dirty team?
You know what evidence i have, it is his silence.

If you believe he was clean as a Paris Roubaix winner when his team took all 3 podium places then forget about trying to discuss doping.

The sports history is a cesspit. If i was clean i would want to distance myself from it at every opportunity. Not too many doing that in a meaningful way.

If they are not trying to show they are clean by being as transparent as possible and addressing the doping then why believe they are different from the past?

I dont see any difference between now and then.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Sky High said:
Great post. Deserves being repeated every single day in the clinic until everyone finally gets it.
Maybe you would like to enlighten the clinic to what has changed in the sport.
 
Jul 22, 2009
205
0
0
Bannockburn said:
There are a fair amount of people here who are much closer to things than you may realize.
A bunch of guys who post using fake names and telling of their behind the scenes knowledge is hardly compelling to me. When people start stepping up and saying "I am xxx and this is what I saw when I worked with rider x or team b" then I will take these claims more seriously.
 
Jul 22, 2009
205
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Actually we would. If the sport cleaned up its act that would mean a lot of people found the road to Dasmascus and would be telling us and turning on those who didn't. The silence about doping from the peloton is deafening.



If what was going on behind the scenes was clean, then we would see a lot more of it, but we dont. Teams wont release riders srm files....



You know what evidence i have, it is his silence.

If you believe he was clean as a Paris Roubaix winner when his team took all 3 podium places then forget about trying to discuss doping.

The sports history is a cesspit. If i was clean i would want to distance myself from it at every opportunity. Not too many doing that in a meaningful way.

If they are not trying to show they are clean by being as transparent as possible and addressing the doping then why believe they are different from the past?

I dont see any difference between now and then.
And yet none of that is proof of anything. If you were a lawyer would you take that to court to prosecute a case?

You never took logic in college did you?

If she floats, she's a witch and we'll BURN HER! If she drowns, then she wasn't a witch.

You miss my point in your fervor.

My point is that I have no idea if any of them are doping now. I may have concerns, but I know NOTHING for a fact. I choose to admit my lack of knowledge and not make statements asserting a riders guilt or innocence.

You take your lack of certain knowledge and make a bunch of hand waving arguments to "prove" your contention that they are all on dope. You might very well be right, but that would only be luck as your arguments are empty.
 
nslckevin said:
A bunch of guys who post using fake names and telling of their behind the scenes knowledge is hardly compelling to me. When people start stepping up and saying "I am xxx and this is what I saw when I worked with rider x or team b" then I will take these claims more seriously.
Libel laws and the very real fear of being hounded out of the sport are just two reasons that this almost never happens until there is no other option for a rider or journo. Just ask David Walsh or Paul Kimmage. How hard is it to understand this???
 
andy1234 said:
...and those people aren't the ones saying everyone dopes.
That might tell you something?
No one besides benotti on here says everyone dopes. That's just a cheap generalization to try and discredit opinions because you don't like that your favourite riders are being accused.

But if you are talking about people saying there is still a doping culture in cycling, then there are plenty of people who very much are behind the scenes who say it does still exist, and you know that. if you don't trust the former dopers who say it (I'm guessing that means you don't trust millar or jv either) then Michael Ashenden and **** Pound for.one have more honour than anyone you can find saying things cleaned up overnight. And they are very much in the know.

But hey, don't let facts ruin your agenda. It's only internet warriors:rolleyes:
 

stutue

BANNED
Apr 22, 2014
875
0
0
How could we tell if anything has changed?

Its not a straightforward question. What would the indicators be?

No failed tests? Think of the lance 500...

Its interesting that the infamous Ashenden quote gets invoked as proof of no change when actually it suggests otherwise. We know that doping was almost ubiquitous, so Ashenden's "there are still small pockets of sophisticated dopers" suggests that it is now a minority.

Of course, the question is whether the small pockets contain the big winners (Sky)
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
nslckevin said:
And yet none of that is proof of anything. If you were a lawyer would you take that to court to prosecute a case?
Well, this is a cycling forum and the burden of proof is not required. Total strawman in cycling since Armstrong was busted on eye witness testimony.

nslckevin said:
You never took logic in college did you?
Logic dictates that if the peloton cleaned up there would be a moment we could all point to and say that was the moment!

nslckevin said:
If she floats, she's a witch and we'll BURN HER! If she drowns, then she wasn't a witch.
Missplaced analogy.

Sky walk like ducks, look like ducks and talk like ducks............

nslckevin said:
You miss my point in your fervor.
No fervor here, that you misinterpret it shows how far removed you are from the reality of the sport or blinded by nationalism, fanboyism, take your pick.

nslckevin said:
My point is that I have no idea if any of them are doping now. I may have concerns, but I know NOTHING for a fact. I choose to admit my lack of knowledge and not make statements asserting a riders guilt or innocence.
This argument gets made all the time in this thread by Sky fans. The answers is very simple. If Sky won 2 TdFs in a row clean, it would mean that anti doping works and riders were not taking risks and were not doping. Can you show what, where and when the peloton decided to clean up, that 'clean' Sky could now win.

nslckevin said:
You take your lack of certain knowledge and make a bunch of hand waving arguments to "prove" your contention that they are all on dope. You might very well be right, but that would only be luck as your arguments are empty.
My arguments are backed up by the peloton. They have a culture to dope, it is part of the fabric. Look at any time a rider tests positive, how the peloton reacts with near and total silence. They have no problem with riders doping if the riders keep quiet.

Your arguments are the same ones made by Armstrong fans. No evidence, no way anyone would dope after Festina scandal, yada yada yada......

My logical reasoning is that if the peloton as a collective made the decision to race clean, then they would be a hell of a lot more vocal in their condemnation of doping. They aren't. The sport is full of ex dopers, doping doctors, doping DS, enablers, soigneurs dealing.........

Sorry I am not buying that the sport got clean without some 'proof' :D
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
stutue said:
How could we tell if anything has changed?

Its not a straightforward question. What would the indicators be?

No failed tests? Think of the lance 500...

Its interesting that the infamous Ashenden quote gets invoked as proof of no change when actually it suggests otherwise. We know that doping was almost ubiquitous, so Ashenden's "there are still small pockets of sophisticated dopers" suggests that it is now a minority.

Of course, the question is whether the small pockets contain the big winners (Sky)
How about the anti doping was funded properly. That would be a start as funding would mean an increase in OOC tests.

That anti doping was made independent of the UCI. That would also help.

How about an increase to a 5 year ban for 1st offence and lifetime ban for second offence.

Since anti doping testing has decreased in recent years why think the sport has cleaned itself up. look at the make up of the people in the sport and find someone in it not linked to doping. Needle in a haystack!

Considering Ashenden did not see a lot of testing and BP parameters are so wide it is virtually impossible to tell blood doping with it, which as the whole point ;) Kohl talks about BP aiding doping regimes.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
stutue said:
Its interesting that the infamous Ashenden quote gets invoked as proof of no change when actually it suggests otherwise. We know that doping was almost ubiquitous, so Ashenden's "there are still small pockets of sophisticated dopers" suggests that it is now a minority.

Of course, the question is whether the small pockets contain the big winners (Sky)
There's small pockets and there's amateurs and there's meatheads like Ricco.

Don't extrapolate "small pockets" to mean anything has changed, coz clearly it hasn't.

Unless you think amateurs dope but pros, who can earn big bucks doping, for some reason do not do so.
 
stutue said:
How could we tell if anything has changed?

Its not a straightforward question. What would the indicators be?

No failed tests? Think of the lance 500...

Its interesting that the infamous Ashenden quote gets invoked as proof of no change when actually it suggests otherwise. We know that doping was almost ubiquitous, so Ashenden's "there are still small pockets of sophisticated dopers" suggests that it is now a minority.

Of course, the question is whether the small pockets contain the big winners (Sky)
Indeed.

What would small pockets of dopers on the supposedly clean teams look like? Maybe a couple riders on a "clean" team who never did anything all of a sudden trouncing everyone and in many cases matching or beating the best times of blood boosting champions from the "dirty era"? Something like that?
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
While your post in and itself is conclusive, and I would agree 100% with the content in general, you did one major blunder: Using the NBA, a private owned non-olympic professional sports entertainment as good example to show the bad of cycling.(blah,blah,blah etc.)

How does anything of what you said detract from the fact that continuing to employ former dopers or doping apologists in cycling is counter-productive to eliminating the culture of doping in cycling?
 
nslckevin said:
That is what I hate. A bunch of people who've never been closer to the pro peloton than watching on TV or maybe on the roadside who KNOW what's going on behind the scenes. I'm in the same boat. I'm just not arrogant enough to assume that I KNOW what is really going on.
Hi - so is your post really focused and Benotti and his 'style' of posting, or are you generalizing about the clinic?
 

stutue

BANNED
Apr 22, 2014
875
0
0
red_flanders said:
Indeed.

What would small pockets of dopers on the supposedly clean teams look like? Maybe a couple riders on a "clean" team who never did anything all of a sudden trouncing everyone and in many cases matching or beating the best times of blood boosting champions from the "dirty era"? Something like that?
That scenario and the implications are entirely possible, but of course it would have to be two riders who previously didn't dope as their actual performances have improved, and not just in relation to other riders.

If that is the case you'd have a dirty peloton becoming clean (small pockets remember!) And the previously clean Wiggins and Froome going dirty against the face of more sophisticated testing (yes, it might still be beatable but the bp is more sophisticated than a mere epo test)

Possible? Yes
Likely? Who knows.
 
stutue said:
How could we tell if anything has changed?

Its not a straightforward question. What would the indicators be?

No failed tests? Think of the lance 500...

Its interesting that the infamous Ashenden quote gets invoked as proof of no change when actually it suggests otherwise. We know that doping was almost ubiquitous, so Ashenden's "there are still small pockets of sophisticated dopers" suggests that it is now a minority.

Of course, the question is whether the small pockets contain the big winners (Sky)
Ashenden in that quote was referring to individuals (or small groups) that are very, very hard to pin down - think not just the product but also the method. Think for example of Bertie. For anyone who thinks the Clen positive was the sole reason for chasing down that positive, they are really, really naïve. The clen was what would stick, so that is what they went with. There are other more recent cases (Salas) that suggest similar. There are rumours in the group, but I'm not going to start spouting hearsay.

Ashenden was not referring to the morons who are still using simple products or routines (think Diluca). That would not be in the realm of sophisticated, that would be in the realm of failed IQ test :D
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
stutue said:
That scenario and the implications are entirely possible, but of course it would have to be two riders who previously didn't dope as their actual performances have improved, and not just in relation to other riders.

If that is the case you'd have a dirty peloton becoming clean (small pockets remember!) And the previously clean Wiggins and Froome going dirty against the face of more sophisticated testing (yes, it might still be beatable but the bp is more sophisticated than a mere epo test)

Possible? Yes
Likely? Who knows.
BP is not sophisticated. They hardly test for it!
 
Oct 21, 2012
1,106
0
0
The Hitch said:
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.
Voeckler only did so well in 2011 because the contenders soft-pedaled through all three stages in the Pyrenees (and even then he lost a little time). When there were serious attacks in the final two Alpine stages, he blew up. Any decent climber (by which I mean somebody who doesn't go out the back within the first 3k of a climb) who took the jersey in the circumstances Voeckler did would have held onto it for a few days and finished within the top 10. If they had raced properly through the Pyrenees then he would have lost the jersey at Luz-Ardiden and probably would have lost a few dozen minutes over the other Pyrenean stages so he could go stage hunting again in the third week.
 
Jul 22, 2009
205
0
0
Ripper said:
Hi - so is your post really focused and Benotti and his 'style' of posting, or are you generalizing about the clinic?
Yes. :)

I'm all for having an opinion on the subject. I am just against this certainty that I see so much of. And that goes both ways. I think it is just as dumb to be certain that Sky is clean as it is to be certain that Sky is doping. I think it's fine to say "I think that Sky is dirty because..." or "I think that Sky is clean because...". I am just turned off by the certainty of so many people.

I don't believe that doping has been eradicated from cycling by any means. But I also don't believe that it's impossible to win big races clean. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm right. For the sake of the sport I hope I'm right, but I don't KNOW. And that's my main point, I don't think that anybody here really does KNOW.
 
Alphabet said:
Voeckler only did so well in 2011 because the contenders soft-pedaled through all three stages in the Pyrenees (and even then he lost a little time). When there were serious attacks in the final two Alpine stages, he blew up. Any decent climber (by which I mean somebody who doesn't go out the back within the first 3k of a climb) who took the jersey in the circumstances Voeckler did would have held onto it for a few days and finished within the top 10. If they had raced properly through the Pyrenees then he would have lost the jersey at Luz-Ardiden and probably would have lost a few dozen minutes over the other Pyrenean stages so he could go stage hunting again in the third week.
They race the first major Alpine stage properly and guess who turned 5th?

But that was about 23 more words than your post deserves.
 
Alphabet said:
Voeckler only did so well in 2011 because the contenders soft-pedaled through all three stages in the Pyrenees (and even then he lost a little time). When there were serious attacks in the final two Alpine stages, he blew up. Any decent climber (by which I mean somebody who doesn't go out the back within the first 3k of a climb) who took the jersey in the circumstances Voeckler did would have held onto it for a few days and finished within the top 10. If they had raced properly through the Pyrenees then he would have lost the jersey at Luz-Ardiden and probably would have lost a few dozen minutes over the other Pyrenean stages so he could go stage hunting again in the third week.


hilarious post.
voeckler lost the tour only because his blood power took control over his mind. he went (mostly in the big ring) over an hour, alone, chasing contador and andy schleck on the galibier. and then he bonked. europcar had one of the strongest jet fuels in recent cycling history in that tour.

tour 2011 wasn't by any means the slowest since massive epo arrival(1993). that title goes to 1999, le tour du renouveau lol. alpes were actually absolutely stratospheric raced. andy almost the fastest ever on izoard, galibier from lautaret record, telegraphe record, galibier from saint michel de maurienne fastest ever. of course most of people only look at alpe d'huez. which was ridden fast too in those conditions.

pyrenees weren't raced THAT easily either. keep in mind that frank schleck went as fast as laiseka in 2001 and vanendert as fast as basso-armstrong in 2004. that is not slow. voeckler was one of the strongest in luz ardiden and 100% the strongest on plateau de beille where he went with all the attacks.
he went 3 minutes faster than in 2004 when he was yellow jersey.
 

stutue

BANNED
Apr 22, 2014
875
0
0
Ripper said:
Ashenden in that quote was referring to individuals (or small groups) that are very, very hard to pin down - think not just the product but also the method. Think for example of Bertie. For anyone who thinks the Clen positive was the sole reason for chasing down that positive, they are really, really naïve. The clen was what would stick, so that is what they went with. There are other more recent cases (Salas) that suggest similar. There are rumours in the group, but I'm not going to start spouting hearsay.

Ashenden was not referring to the morons who are still using simple products or routines (think Diluca). That would not be in the realm of sophisticated, that would be in the realm of failed IQ test :D
To be honest I was taking the above as a given.

Morons will be caught. Sophisticates, maybe, but only with considerable difficulty.

That still leaves the implication that there is a large body of non-dopers......certainly much greater than Tyler Hamiltons estimates of 20% cleans during his era.

I really don't know, but I do think the numbers are probably in a constant state of flux influenced by new methods, who gets to know about the new methods, and how long it takes for authorities to get to know and react

I hope your suspicions about the pursuit of Contador are correct, I really do. I don't care who the riders are, if they are continuing on with this horrible situation they need to be exposed and banned for a long time.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
RobbieCanuck said:
How does anything of what you said detract from the fact that continuing to employ former dopers or doping apologists in cycling is counter-productive to eliminating the culture of doping in cycling?
Nothing. You just used a bad example... I explained that.
 

stutue

BANNED
Apr 22, 2014
875
0
0
Benotti69 said:
BP is not sophisticated. They hardly test for it!
The system is bloody sophisticated. Impressively so.

But yes, you are quite right to suggests a more thorough roll-out is needed.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts