Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Bannockburn]

Yeah I guess some people have their TVs in quite small living rooms.

Welcome to the forum. I look forward to more cutting-edge contributions from you.

 

[sniper]

...
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.

ffs.
we've gone through the fact/proof/evidence discussion plenty of times already. please don't go there again.

 

[The Hitch]

as will 'brits don't dope' standard rhetoric for those whom don't think for themselves

strangely I read more about team sky's ztp here than on team sky's own website

for team sky it's just a statement of intent..........they see no reason to have to prove themselves to those here............sorry guys!

Mark L

Of course they don't, cos they can't. If a team calling itself UK postal, came out during the doping era and started smashing tdfs and setting unrealistic speeds, with riders who had just magically transformed from bottle carriers to tdf winners, and they were clean, they would actually try to show they were clean

This team however, calls doubters ****ers, makes nonesence arguments aimed at idiots about how they proved they are clean by not attacking, selectively release data they know is meaningless and make a big deal out of it, dump their bad news in the offseason, find it offensive that people would ask for the vo2 max of what according to them is the greatest rider ever lived and act all round shocked that anyone would find anything remotely suspicious in the story.

 

[RownhamHill]

ffs.
we've gone through the fact/proof/evidence discussion plenty of times already. please don't go there again.

Could you save us all some time by giving a short precis of what we concluded?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Also most teams have sports psychologists so that cancels it out pretty much.

I'd take this assertion in respect of chefs and dieticians etc. but psychologists and coaches are not all the same.

The most obvious example is Manchester United this season compared to last season. By your argument, they had a manager both seasons, so there's no reason to expect a change in performance. But Sir Alex was a motivational genius and David Moyes was completely out of his depth. Hence the team was cr*p this year.

Likewise, I doubt that simply any psychologist could have handled Queen Vic. It's not to say that Steve Peters was the only one out there that could, but Peters converted her from a basket-case to a flint-eyed killer on the track.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

No chance Dr Steve Peters is simply a very effective beard?

 

[martinvickers]

No chance Dr Steve Peters is simply a very effective beard?

His beardy effectiveness sems to have travelled with him out of cycling - first to Ronnie O'Sullivan, and then to Liverpool FC.

That's some effective fake facial hair, at first glance...or maybe...just maybe, mind...he's actually pretty good at something.

 

[martinvickers]

I'd take this assertion in respect of chefs and dieticians etc. but psychologists and coaches are not all the same.

The most obvious example is Manchester United this season compared to last season. By your argument, they had a manager both seasons, so there's no reason to expect a change in performance. But Sir Alex was a motivational genius and David Moyes was completely out of his depth. Hence the team was cr*p this year.

Likewise, I doubt that simply any psychologist could have handled Queen Vic. It's not to say that Steve Peters was the only one out there that could, but Peters converted her from a basket-case to a flint-eyed killer on the track.

The key is probably that's he's not a psychologist, but a psychiatrist. Rather different things.

 

[20SecondsToComply]

Queen Vic.

Like it .

 

[stutue]

Of course they don't, cos they can't. If a team calling itself UK postal, came out during the doping era and started smashing tdfs and setting unrealistic speeds, with riders who had just magically transformed from bottle carriers to tdf winners, and they were clean, they would actually try to show they were clean

This team however, calls doubters ****ers, makes nonesence arguments aimed at idiots about how they proved they are clean by not attacking, selectively release data they know is meaningless and make a big deal out of it, dump their bad news in the offseason, find it offensive that people would ask for the vo2 max of what according to them is the greatest rider ever lived and act all round shocked that anyone would find anything remotely suspicious in the story.

To be fair, you've some small but important innacuracies here.

"Bottle carrier"- Wiggins? Get off.

"This team calls doubters *****ers*"- No, they don't. This team has never said such a thing. Wiggins has.

The problem with taking Wiggins bone-idle wa**** speech as an indication of a doper under stress is that it could equally plausibly be the legitimate response of a clean rider annoyed at insinuations that his hard won victories are the result of cheating. It works just as well both ways.

" find it offensive that people would ask for the vo2 max" -No, they didn't find it offensive. They said they couldn't release that data because Froome hadn't sat a vo2 for them.

But, most of the rest of your post is fair enough, and you are right to highlight the inconsistency over messages such as 'clean=no attacking'

You think they are putting out a story, and I'd agree that if they are then they certainly aren't getting it straight.

 

[Benotti69]

I'd take this assertion in respect of chefs and dieticians etc. but psychologists and coaches are not all the same.

The most obvious example is Manchester United this season compared to last season. By your argument, they had a manager both seasons, so there's no reason to expect a change in performance. But Sir Alex was a motivational genius and David Moyes was completely out of his depth. Hence the team was cr*p this year.

There has been a recent study of Premier league coaches. It appears that the coaches have as much affect on teams as the chef or dietician would. Cant find the link, but if i do, i will post it.

Moyes was hung out to dry by the 'old' players at ManU, Giggs & Co.

Likewise, I doubt that simply any psychologist could have handled Queen Vic. It's not to say that Steve Peters was the only one out there that could, but Peters converted her from a basket-case to a flint-eyed killer on the track.

Or doping did

 

[andy1234]

You appear to offer little to nothing...




Armstrong made a huge deal over having a technological advantage over others. It counted for little in the end as it was doping that won out, at the time. A gold medal is won more likely with PEDS than without as history has shown, but that tiny little detail is not important when talking about ones own nations athletes

Paris Roubaix has had the indurstrys top names try to win it by using better technology and it always came down to the best program. Canc and his motor-bike might be the exception, but that has not been proven, yet!

Peters can beat dopers, yes of course he can.....

I wondered how long it would be, before the Armstrong gong went off in your Mums house....

Anyhooo...

You have such an analogue view of things, it's hard to have a meaningful discussion.

One coach is the same as any other coach....
Equipment makes no difference....
Psychology is only effective for and against the weak minded....

How do you put your pants on in the morning, if after viewing the world for how ever many years you have been alive, you can you come with this assessment?


If you had spent even a short time in a competitive environment, you would comprehend the vast difference leadership, resources, and emotion can play in a competitive outcome.

Nah.... F**k that, it's easier to hide behind your ignorance and believe its all down to drugs.....

FFS.

 

[andy1234]

There has been a recent study of Premier league coaches. It appears that the coaches have as much affect on teams as the chef or dietician would. Cant find the link, but if i do, i will post it.

Moyes was hung out to dry by the 'old' players at ManU, Giggs & Co.



Or doping did

You are out of your depth here son, and bordering on delusional.

 

[pancakes]

Yes, my friend, it was not the 'technology' that made
the difference for Team GB, it was the 'psychology'.
All their opponents believed they had stiffer bikes,
rounder wheels, faster skinsuits, more aero helmets,
etc. etc. It was Mr. Boardman's job to make the
rest of the world believe that, and I think he was
most successful in that regard.

Reeeealy?

So, Chris 'the missing p1ss' Boardman is so good at mind games he even convinced the clocks at L2012 to give Team GB a world record time nearly every time they rode?

Doesn't matter how scared the opponents are world records on tap are nothing to do with gamesmanship.........my friend.

 

[Benotti69]

flatcap speaks.....

And you were calling me keyboard warrior.

Still have offered nothing that points to when and where to sport cleaned up.........so Sky can win clean.

 

[andy1234]

I am unable to comprehend anything other than doping.

That is clear...

 

[20SecondsToComply]

Moyes was hung out to dry by the 'old' players at ManU, Giggs & Co.

Offtopic but that is fairly spot on - maybe not intentionally at first, but later yes. You have to look at the squad (and the old boy hangers on) - half/most of them had only ever played at ManU and for Fergie. When he leaves its a big wrench for them. They know only his style, etc. Whoever took over was going to have a hard time unless they came in and pushed out some of the old guard quickly (and got results). Moyes didn't do this - and also he came across as compassionate and weak by acknowledging matches would be tough, opponents would be tough, etc.

 

[red_flanders]

"Bottle carrier"- Wiggins? Get off.

Please explain how this is incorrect. We are talking GT's here. Are you suggesting he was a team leader or in any way protected in GT's in his career before his transformation? That would be wrong.

Bottle carrier may not be a great label for someone of Wiggins' track palmares, but when it came to the road and GT's, yes, literally he was a bottle carrier. Grupetto fodder.

In May 2003, Wiggins made his Grand Tour debut at the Giro d'Italia. On the 18th stage he was eliminated from the race, finishing outside of the time limit in a group of 53 riders

In 2005 Wiggins competed in the Giro d'Italia, finishing 123rd overall.

He moved to Cofidis for the 2006 season, and was selected to ride in the Tour de France, finishing his first Tour in 124th place

(2007 DNF, Wiggins making staunchly anti-doping statements) Cofidis withdrew from the race before stage 16 after Cristian Moreni failed a doping test. In the aftermath of the positive drug tests on Moreni and on race leader Alexander Vinokourov of Astana, Wiggins spoke out against dopers in the Tour and threw away his Cofidis kit in a bin in Pau Pyrénées Airport, vowing never to race for the team again. (He did continue to race for the team)

In 2008 at the Giro he was part of the lead-out train that helped Cavendish win two stages. Wiggins came fourth in the final stage's 28.5 km (17.7 mi)-long time trial in Milan, six seconds behind team-mate Marco Pinotti, finishing the race in 134th place, three hours, one minute and 39 seconds down on overall winner Alberto Contador of Astana.

Of course that all changed in 2009 when he was clearly not a bottle-carrier and finished 4th in the Tour. Before that? Absolutely.

 

[20SecondsToComply]

Bottle carrier may not be a great label for someone of Wiggins' track palmares, but when it came to the road and GT's, yes, literally he was a bottle carrier. Grupetto fodder.

That is true. Although not sure whether he ever thought of himself as a GT contender in his first foray in to road (or even his second until a bit later). Prologue and shorter TTs maybe, and a possible lucky breakaway win.

 

[stutue]

with riders who had just magically transformed from bottle carriers to tdf winners

Not a bottle carrier in 09, nor a TdF winner...so bottle carrier when? 2008? That's the latest possible date.

So, four years from 2008 to 2012. Four years isn't an instant transformation by anybody's reckoning.

 

[red_flanders]

That is true. Although not sure whether he ever thought of himself as a GT contender in his first foray in to road (or even his second until a bit later). Prologue and shorter TTs maybe, and a possible lucky breakaway win.

No, clearly he didn't nor did anyone else. And he did passably well in those things which you mention before 2009.

If we're being honest here, his transformation was more surprising than Froome's, though Froome's top end post-transformation was and is shocking.

 

[red_flanders]

Not a bottle carrier in 09, nor a TdF winner...so bottle carrier when? 2008? That's the latest possible date.

So, four years from 2008 to 2012. Four years isn't an instant transformation by anybody's reckoning.

He was a bottle carrier in 2008. Everything changed in 2009. The point was, that he was in fact a bottle carrier for years. Then a miraculous change. I don't see how anyone can dispute those simple facts.

 

[stutue]

If we're being honest here, his transformation was more surprising than Froome's, though Froome's top end post-transformation was and is shocking.

Who is the 'we' and why aren't you honest by default?

But, joking apart, my take is the absolute opposite to yours. I see Wiggins progression as plausible...even more so because of the immediate decline once he'd reached his goal.

Froome plausible? Not so much...

 

[20SecondsToComply]

No, clearly he didn't nor did anyone else. And he did passably well in those things which you mention before 2009.

If we're being honest here, his transformation was more surprising than Froome's, though Froome's top end post-transformation was and is shocking.

Well I'm sure its been covered here many many times, but not having AC around and a "flatter" course with more TT (less brutal mountains) will have helped in 2012.

 

[stutue]

He was a bottle carrier in 2008. Everything changed in 2009. The point was, that he was in fact a bottle carrier for years. Then a miraculous change. I don't see how anyone can dispute those simple facts.

Remember...I was commenting on and disputing Hitch's assertion that Wiggins went from bottle carrier to TdF winner via some kind of instant magical transformation.

2008 to 2012 is not instant.

It took four years. That is 50% of his entire road career at the time. In other words a gradual progression, not an instant one.

Simple fact.