Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1161 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
fmk_RoI said:
So Dave's read Epstein. There's a surprise...
I don't think Epstein agrees with Dave. In fact in his piece he shows multiple examples of how little improvement there has been over the years when technical elements are factored in.
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
When did I say I have no reason for that?
Please answer me one final question: Are you that dumb, or just pretend to be? I didn´t want to go another round with you. But honeestly I couldn´t resist: I just wanted to have the last shot. :p
Another great contribution to the site. Following up your brilliant assessment of the BP's sudden loss of efficacy.
 
Aug 16, 2011
10,821
1
0
Argue intelligently, politely, keep it on topic, and pleas re-frame from insults.

And there is no reason to try to get the last word or last shot. If your post has no other purpose then to get the last word in a conversation then all it is, is pointless bickering and trolling.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
andy1234 said:
............


As I said, the posters who are more than keyboard warriors, with actual insight into the sport, are much more even handed than the armchair experts.
Like you.............I dont think so!
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
the sceptic said:
The BP stopped working exactly at the moment when Horner started sprinting up mountains in the vuelta.

It worked perfectly fine when Chris Badzilla was doing hte same for 2 years. He was just in a gray area of the passport.

Makes perfect sense of course.
The BP never worked in the true anti doping ideal.. It was devised by Hein/Pat to make teams take their doping management programs much more serious and it is also a method of control to threaten teams. Get out of line and we will bust you with the passport and fight it all the way to CAS, see Pelizzotti.

Ignoring Armstrong's numbers on his comeback, Garmin had 2 riders (Wiggins'09TdF and Hesjedal'12Giro) whose blood levels rose in the 3rd week of a GT and the BP was ignored. When queried about it JV put it down to machine error, how convenient.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
stutue said:
The system [ABP] is bloody sophisticated. Impressively so.

But yes, you are quite right to suggests a more thorough roll-out is needed.
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)
stutue said:
I loved the wheel bag thing. It shows they have a wicked sense of humour.

The fake crash was also cool. Shows a knowledge of the rules.
Interesting.
 
Jul 22, 2009
205
0
0
The Hitch said:
I think what really is "dumb" is that you hold such a extremely high opinion of yourself that you believe everyone else MUST reach the same conclusion you have.

I have my own standards thank you very much, no, I'm not going to use yours. I think when a team scores off the charts on every suspicion metric there is and creates some new ones which it also scores off the charts on, then gets caught lying and being dishonest at every turn and is contradicting themselves from year to year, all while offering performances and transformations that require mental summersaults to even be considered clean, then it is simply not possible for that team to be clean.

I'm not going to pretend I don't know because someone like you thinks everyone should play by your rules and reach your conclusion.

I am certain. And so are most people, one way or the other. Thankfully most its the one way.


Nor do I.
So?

That has nothing to do with Sky. They didn't with a bit of luck win 1 big race. They destroyed the entire TDF warmup programme 2 years in a row, following it up both times by making every non sky rider in the world look like first year pros at the biggest race in the world.

Please don't use "i think its possible to win a race clean", in an argument for sky. That's dishonest. If you think Sky could be clean then what you actually believe is that its possible for clean riders to dominate the sport and ride faster than 99% of dopers ever did, for longer than 99% of dopers ever did. Not the same as winning a big race cos you peaked for it and everything went well.

And considering in the same sentence you say you think doping hasn't been erradicated, what you essentially believe is that doping has 0 impact on performance, since the guys who are doping are several levels bellow the guys who are doing it clean .


Good for you. And me, I do KNOW.
Pleased to meet you
LOL. Millions of Christians KNOW that God exists. Millions of Atheists KNOW that God doesn't exist. Millions of Muslims KNOW that theirs in the one true faith. And so on. None of them have hard proof and neither do you.

You BELIEVE.

BELIEVE <> KNOW

I would probably be classified as more of an agnostic. Some signs point one way, some signs point the other way. I BELIEVE that it's better now than it was in the Armstrong era. But I don't KNOW that for a fact. How could I?
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,661
0
0
nslckevin said:
LOL. Millions of Christians KNOW that God exists. Millions of Atheists KNOW that God doesn't exist. Millions of Muslims KNOW that theirs in the one true faith. And so on. None of them have hard proof and neither do you.

You BELIEVE.

BELIEVE <> KNOW

I would probably be classified as more of an agnostic. Some signs point one way, some signs point the other way. I BELIEVE that it's better now than it was in the Armstrong era. But I don't KNOW that for a fact. How could I?
Good post. I think The Hitch is styling him, or is it herself, on Christopher Hitchens, or is it Peter Hitchens, never quite sure? If it's Christopher, then I guess he/she might have an atheist take on things, or maybe not.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Impossible. She transformed from woman to man. To what should a man transform? ;)
A lot of people strongly believe Fl-jo was consuming steroids like a beast. I'd be one of them, though sadly I can't prove it. But since she's dead, I can't libel here either, so way-hey.

But the outrageous sub 10.5 time also has to be weighed with the fact that it was blowing an absolute gale, and yet she was getting 0.0 official wind readings. This while willie banks, in the same stadium was jumping to 18.20 with a 5.5+ at his back - and moreover, when, 2 heats later, the winner of that heat had a +5.0. That's an absolute gale in athletics terms and certainly worth the 0.2-0.3 that would taker her mark back towards Carmelita Jeter (of Bloch fame) and Marion Jones, the only two other women under 10.70.

Frankly the wind readings of 0.0 are not kosher, and that has to be weighed into the times. check the white flag before the race and the bibs on the backs of the runners all rustling in the wind - and yet 0.0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkpTsAmv8XQ

Even the commentators don't really buy it at the time.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
martinvickers said:
A lot of people strongly believe Fl-jo was consuming steroids like a beast. I'd be one of them...
True. The 10.49 was not legit. But what was from this (wo)man? She looked like a black Marita Koch (or Kratochvilova for that matter). She had a growing beard, and her voice was as deep as of "sceptic", may deeper. ;)
And she died young from heart failure. A true doping monster...
Keep in mind this 10.49 was not the only crazy time. Just have a look here (at the 100m, and the 200m):

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/w_100ok.htm
 
nslckevin said:
LOL. Millions of Christians KNOW that God exists. Millions of Atheists KNOW that God doesn't exist. Millions of Muslims KNOW that theirs in the one true faith. And so on. None of them have hard proof and neither do you.

You BELIEVE.

BELIEVE <> KNOW

I would probably be classified as more of an agnostic. Some signs point one way, some signs point the other way. I BELIEVE that it's better now than it was in the Armstrong era. But I don't KNOW that for a fact. How could I?
No, I know.

By your standards I can't know that the spaghetti monster doesn't exist either. I apparently have no proof either way.
 
stutue said:
I loved the wheel bag thing. It shows they have a wicked sense of humour.

The fake crash was also cool. Shows a knowledge of the rules.
Yes, my friend. Not only funny, but pure genius. Not sure who
came up with the idea, but if it was Dr. Peters it shows how
valuable it is to have an expert in 'messing with their minds'
in your corner. I always had a feeling he might have also
been behind Froomey's tweet last year that successfully
got under the skin of Bjarne.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
The Hitch said:
No, I know.

By your standards I can't know that the spaghetti monster doesn't exist either. I apparently have no proof either way.
You don't know that the spaghetti monster and it's noodly appendage doesn't exist. Since it's first appearance in any literature is verifiably tracable to a satirical letter by a secularist, which would appear to be rather good and verifiable evidence of the moment of, and purpose of, its creation, the odds are pretty high that it is his invention. But even if it were, by amazing luck and cheerful happenstance, he may actually have been correct despite himself.

There's absolutely no evidence of its existence, None whatsoever, but then "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". There's no evidence of any deity, yet the majority view of the population of the planet is that there is at least one. Many of them, like you, claiming that the KNOW it.

Hence why Christopher Hitchen's reiterated that in any debate, the burden of proof is on the person MAKING the assertion to prove the assertion; or as he famously put it, what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Now, if you find a poster who says that he KNOWS "Sky are clean" - then sure, the burden of proving it is on him, and since he's trying to prove a negative - that Sky never doped - he's gonna have a viciously hard time doing it.

But the only asserting being done, is by you. and thus the burden is on you to prove your 'KNOWLEDGE'. And, Hitch? You ain't even come close to proving you KNOW anything. You simply assert it and then talk drivel about spaghetti monsters.

Sure, you've asserted it, as KNOWLEDGE, as supposed to suspicion or belief, without evidence of that knowledge. And as such, I'm quite happy to dismiss your assertion, that You KNOW, without evidence. As is my right.

So, when you assert, simpliciter "I KNOW"

I can be quite happy to respond, equally simpliciter. "No. You don't" and know that your namesake is happily on my side.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS