Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[stutue]

Save your breath. Waste of time.

What an utterly poisonous individual he is.

Yuk.

From what I've seen of you, Martin, you seem pretty reasonable...like most people here.

Anyway, this sceptic guy gives me the creeps and I've had enough.

See ya

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Guys - Calm it down please. I've deleted a load of posts that were just trolling, insults and other deviant behaviour, but I can't keep up.

I've recommended a few bans. No surprises as to the posters concerned, I suspect.

 

[ferryman]

FFS sake guys. Just stop it with the tit for tat rubbish. Thank you W & G for cleaning up lots of the nonsense. It's a cycling forum for goodness sake NOT a place for internet warriors.

 

[red_flanders]

FFS sake guys. Just stop it with the tit for tat rubbish. Thank you W & G for cleaning up lots of the nonsense. It's a cycling forum for goodness sake NOT a place for internet warriors.

This is the cleaned up version? Tit for tat is all there is on the last couple pages...can't imagine the full version...

 

[Catwhoorg]

What must we think of Eddie Bo H. doing domestique duty for Ben Swift? Like Froome for Henderson?

Strange days...

Or maybe not if he actually plans on moving elsewhere. Not that Sky should be hurting for WT points though.

 

[Archibald]

This is the cleaned up version? Tit for tat is all there is on the last couple pages...can't imagine the full version...

I thought I'd clicked on a twitter thread by accident instead of the Sky thread...

 

[CycloAndy]

What must we think of Eddie Bo H. doing domestique duty for Ben Swift? Like Froome for Henderson?

Strange days...

Is this more suitable for the non-clinic thread? EBHs lack of progression is not a very good indicator of Sky doping, especially given his elevated status in the team prior to this year. He lacks the top speed necessary for sprints so has been used in a role more suitable.

 

[the sceptic]

Is this more suitable for the non-clinic thread? EBHs lack of progression is not a very good indicator of Sky doping, especially given his elevated status in the team prior to this year. He lacks the top speed necessary for sprints so has been used in a role more suitable.

I know this has been discussed a million of times already, but his lack of progression says something when you compare it to the likes of Dawg and Wiggins.

 

[red_flanders]

Is this more suitable for the non-clinic thread? EBHs lack of progression is not a very good indicator of Sky doping, especially given his elevated status in the team prior to this year. He lacks the top speed necessary for sprints so has been used in a role more suitable.

It might be a very good indicator of other riders on Sky doping, as well as the peloton as a whole. I don't know, but it's as likely as anything.

I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that the level of doping has increased mightily from 2 years ago across the peloton. Sure seems that levels have come back up.

 

[Tournesol]

The first time I saw Lemmy, my friend, was in May 1972
at the legendary Bickershaw Festival near Wigan. He
was still with Hawkwind at the time and he was standing
on top of their bus, for reasons I can no longer recall.

Sounds like a trippy day out that one.

 

[Archibald]

It might be a very good indicator of other riders on Sky doping, as well as the peloton as a whole. I don't know, but it's as likely as anything.

I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that the level of doping has increased mightily from 2 years ago across the peloton. Sure seems that levels have come back up.

might also indicate that it's not a team wide programme if only some riders are progressing while others aren't. Maybe akin to the classroom where the kids who ask for assistance get it and improve more than those who don't ask for help?

It does seem that those riders who were having bad years in the last few years are now back to previous levels and looking good again... AC, Cuddles, Wiggins, et al

 

[JimmyFingers]

So EBH leading out Swift is indicative of doping? That's an almighty twist of logic, either brilliant or bonkers. I'll plump for the latter. I tell you want it means: nothing at all. It's Sky riding for the rider they think has be best chance of winning the stage. Swift is a better pure sprinter than EBH, I'm sure EBH will be let off the leash to go stage hunting at some point in the Giro. He is also likely to leave Sky, hence why he may drop down the hierarchy as a result.

As someone said, a topic for the vanilla cycling forum, debating it here is wasted energy and utter speculation.

 

[Benotti69]

So EBH leading out Swift is indicative of doping? That's an almighty twist of logic, either brilliant or bonkers. I'll plump for the latter. I tell you want it means: nothing at all. It's Sky riding for the rider they think has be best chance of winning the stage. Swift is a better pure sprinter than EBH, I'm sure EBH will be let off the leash to go stage hunting at some point in the Giro. He is also likely to leave Sky, hence why he may drop down the hierarchy as a result.

As someone said, a topic for the vanilla cycling forum, debating it here is wasted energy and utter speculation.

Jimmy, you find the clinic, bonkers, yet to you continue to return time and time again to post........are you trying desperately to convince yourself that Sky are clean due to the so called 'bonkers' posts, which when on the face of it might come across as 'bonkers' but can you point to where the sport cleanED up that a team not doping could win the biggest race on the season twice in a row?

 

[stutue]

Of course, the real trolling going on here is by those who repeatedly try and denounce opinions other than theirs as 'trolling', or those that try and close down critical analysis of their points by trying to claim it is 'disrupting','obfuscating' and so on, ad nauseam.

 

[Benotti69]

You think I buy the marginal gains bs? Think again.

My post is a reflection on the underlying motivations of a fair few posters here....not about the veracity of their actual opinions.

You being here is not to discuss doping but rather criticise the clinic and obfuscate sky related threads.

The sport has not changed it's culture of doping, it has evolved it's methods, so that means Sky are doping.

Those that dont care about Sky's methods don't come into the clinic to post about how Sky win, that is not important to those Sky fans. Those Sky fans who do come in here, is because they are fighting their own inner truths that Sky must be doping to win in a sport that has an ingrained doping culture where all those that enabled and more importantly feed of that culture have not gone away.

 

[stutue]

You being here is not to discuss doping but rather criticise the clinic and obfuscate sky related threads.

That is very revealing.

It shows that you regard 'The Clinic' as some kind of homogenous entity, rather than a collection of individuals expressing a range of opinions.

You just don't want any opinions contrary to yours expressed. You don't want your views critiqued. You don't understand what the word 'forum' means.

Quite apart from that, you clearly hold other members of this forum who share a similar opinion to you in very low regard if you think that their arguments can be 'obfuscated' by critique.

Good arguments stand up to critique. Bad ones (like your one here) don't. That is why many/most of the points made here don't get criticised by me...because they are strong arguments.

 

[Benotti69]

That is very revealing.

It shows that you regard 'The Clinic' as some kind of homogenous entity, rather than a collection of individuals expressing a range of opinions.

bollix, never said that. It is a forum for discussion. Your lack off and contiued criticism of posters show you have no interest in discussion.

You just don't want any opinions contrary to yours expressed. You don't want your views critiqued. You don't understand what the word 'forum' means.

I asked a simple question, ignore it and continue to obfuscate, as i said is your modus......

Quite apart from that, you clearly hold other members of this forum who share a similar opinion to you in very low regard if you think that their arguments can be 'obfuscated' by critique.

Good arguments stand up to critique. Bad ones (like your one here) don't. That is why many/most of the points made here don't get criticised by me...because they are strong arguments.

My argument and discussion around sky is about lack of transparency, hiring dopers, doping doctors, riders from grupetto to podiums, lies, failing to reveal standard testing numbers for riders etc etc.....

.....you have offered little to show Sky are clean, and the biggest factor that could point to sky being clean would be the sport has changed in a monumental way to allow clean riders to beat doped ones and you cant point to that change.

Instead you offer nothing but obfuscation an attack posts, posters and the clinic in general in relation Sky.

 

[stutue]

Im not attacking 'the clinic in general' Im attacking you. Stop trying to hide behind intelligent posters coattails

But....Yawn.....boring. Nobody else wants to read this crap.

Stick me on ignore, pal.

 

[Benotti69]

Im not attacking 'the clinic in general' Im attacking you. Stop trying to hide behind intelligent posters coattails

But....Yawn.....boring. Nobody else wants to read this crap.

Stick me on ignore, pal.

Cant answer the question.....no surprise their and more obfuscation.

I dont do ignore, especially not bots....

 

[stutue]

Whatever.

 

[Afrank]

Guys, attack the post not the poster.

And the clinic as a whole can be discussed elsewhere, let's get back to discussing Sky.

 

[red_flanders]

might also indicate that it's not a team wide programme if only some riders are progressing while others aren't. Maybe akin to the classroom where the kids who ask for assistance get it and improve more than those who don't ask for help?

It does seem that those riders who were having bad years in the last few years are now back to previous levels and looking good again... AC, Cuddles, Wiggins, et al

In my view that's certainly the case.

 

[stutue]

@Afrank

My post was in response to this personal attack..

Jimmy, you find the clinic, bonkers, yet to you continue to return time and time again to post........are you trolling, obfuscating, working for Sky or trying desperately to convince yourself that Sky are clean due to the so called 'bonkers' posts, which when on the face of it might come across as 'bonkers' but can you point to where the sport cleanED up that a team not doping could win the biggest race on the season twice in a row?

 

[Afrank]

@Afrank

My post was in response to this personal attack..

I see, missed that. I'll delete both posts that started the conversation and the same message to Benotti as well. Attack the post, not the poster.

 

[Benotti69]

@Afrank

My post was in response to this personal attack..

This is not a personal attack.