Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Benotti69]

I always got the impression that EBH didn't need cycling like many farmers sons and factory workers sons do.

 

[red_flanders]

I always got the impression that EBH didn't need cycling like many farmers sons and factory workers sons do.

I don't know about his family background, but if that is the case, it would strike me as another check in the "probably not doping" column.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I think this (non) debate of EBH is indicative of how some riders tend to get a softer ride thatn others, and most generally its riders that have performed consistently from a young age, and combative, entertaining riders. EBH is both, and quiet, and a hard worker and generally very likeable. I too think he rides clean.

But at the same time if a rider has been winning from an early age perhaps he has been doping from an early age. If he was doping for those early wins, why would he stop? Why would the team not dope him? He was one of Sky's marquee signings too.

Everyone expected him to the develop like Sagan, he hasn't, but along the way he has notched up some very impressive wins, and his palmares keeps ticking over, so if he is clean, he is likely to be beating doped competitors right?

 

[King Boonen]

Yeah, I just don't think calling out teammates gets you anything. You've got a contract. These guys are your friends and/or co-workers. You'd have to be (IMO) a pretty major ****** to rat them out, even if you did know, which of course is supposition. What do you gain?

You're ostracized by the team and risk never getting another contract. If you're really not happy about it, just wait for your next contract and try to get on a clean team. If such truly exists in a meaningful sense.

His value is rapidly diminishing anyway. I'm not sure I see any WT team taking him on when he inevitably leaves Sky.

If he wrote a book outing Sky then he'd make his money and maybe even increase his chances of sticking around. He'd be a name that would generate press for any team.

In terms of outing dopers, I'd have absolutely no problem with a rider who did that. In fact I'd have huge respect for them, I wouldn't think they were a major **** or anything.

 

[King Boonen]

I think this (non) debate of EBH is indicative of how some riders tend to get a softer ride thatn others, and most generally its riders that have performed consistently from a young age, and combative, entertaining riders. EBH is both, and quiet, and a hard worker and generally very likeable. I too think he rides clean.

But at the same time if a rider has been winning from an early age perhaps he has been doping from an early age. If he was doping for those early wins, why would he stop? Why would the team not dope him? He was one of Sky's marquee signings too.

Everyone expected him to the develop like Sagan, he hasn't, but along the way he has notched up some very impressive wins, and his palmares keeps ticking over, so if he is clean, he is likely to be beating doped competitors right?

I think you're about right in this case and of course Sky's usually style of riding does not win them any fans no matter how effective it can be.

It's certainly possible he was doping when he was younger, but people do develop at very different rates in early age so it's also possible he showed all his potential early on and never went any further because he couldn't and/or wouldn't take the option many do.

 

[red_flanders]

I think this (non) debate of EBH is indicative of how some riders tend to get a softer ride thatn others, and most generally its riders that have performed consistently from a young age, and combative, entertaining riders. EBH is both, and quiet, and a hard worker and generally very likeable. I too think he rides clean.

But at the same time if a rider has been winning from an early age perhaps he has been doping from an early age. If he was doping for those early wins, why would he stop? Why would the team not dope him? He was one of Sky's marquee signings too.

Everyone expected him to the develop like Sagan, he hasn't, but along the way he has notched up some very impressive wins, and his palmares keeps ticking over, so if he is clean, he is likely to be beating doped competitors right?

You could alternately take the simpler view that some riders get ridden hard because they're obviously doping and some don't because they aren't obviously doping. In my view the best posters on this board take this view and spend no time defending their favorites in spite of suspicious or blatant behavior.

Of course none of that has anything to do with the thread topic.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Which cuts to the chase of my point of what makes an obvious doper and what makes an obvious clean rider, as you claimed for EBH? Hence my further questions which you tried to shout down as trolling.

I'm looking for a consistent approach, something I rarely see in this forum. I'm happy to agree EBH is clean, but if you are using his performance as evidence then I have issue with it, since he has won at the very highest level in the past.

Hence the original question. Was he doping when he won 2 Tour stages in 2011?

 

[red_flanders]

Which cuts to the chase of my point of what makes an obvious doper and what makes an obvious clean rider, as you claimed for EBH? Hence my further questions which you tried to shout down as trolling.

I'm looking for a consistent approach, something I rarely see in this forum. I'm happy to agree EBH is clean, but if you are using his performance as evidence then I have issue with it, since he has won at the very highest level in the past.

Hence the original question. Was he doping when he won 2 Tour stages in 2011?

Where to start. I guess with the simple stuff. I never said he was "obviously clean" or the equivalent. I said,

"I think he's a perfect example of a clean rider with talent."

"EBH looks for all the world to me like a rider who chose not to dope."

"Simply my opinion, which could be changed by a good argument that he's doping."

"For my part I see no evidence that he's doping whatsoever. Being on Sky or being a pro cyclist isn't enough for me."

All clearly qualified as a matter of personal opinion, and outright stated that I could be swayed to think otherwise.

Beyond that.

As stated before, my resistance to your questions is twofold. One, you're out to prove some kind of point that I'm coming at this inconsistently or with bias, which I view as wholly incorrect. Everyone has bias, the question is whether one lets that override observable reality. The question about EBH in 2011 is meant as some kind of litmus test for your agenda to show inconsistency on my part, and as such I regard it as trolling coming from you. Had someone else asked me I would respond. Which brings me to the other point, that I have several time in this thread explained my thoughts on EBH. Others have accepted these for what they are. Feel free to read or re-read them, as they answer your questions.

Further, discussions of my views on riders in general is totally off-topic.

I have no bias toward or against EBH which would color my view. I would be curious when the last time before today I have mentioned him–it's got to be some time ago. So the idea that I give him a softer ride because I "like" him is without merit. If you can show otherwise I would be stunned. Back it up or drop it.

So you got me sucked in. To answer you directly, and this assumes a conversation in good faith, here is my view of EBH. He is a talented rider that got some wins in a Tour when there was less doping than there is now.

It is possible that he was doping early and stopped, as postulated here, but I see no evidence of it. Simply winning a few flat/hilly tour stages is not convincing enough for me. As for the question "if doping why would he stop", I don't know. I don't need to know, I'm not trying to make that point. Cunego stopped. I don't know why. It doesn't matter.

Your notion that my views express inconsistency is (IMO) an extension of your own personal perspective and has nothing to do with my actual views. I suspect (but don't know) that you don't like my views as a poster because I've been railing on Froome here for a while, and this colors your view of me. I know you represent yourself as someone "one the fence" about Froome, but from where I sit, you seem to half-defend him in far too many threads to be "on the fence". I think you like him, you know he's a joke, but will never admit it, preferring to launch personal attacks on people who point out what Froome really is, and you use this "inconsistency" argument to attack people. You can't make an actual case for it however.

So it turns out you think I'm biased and I think you're biased. What a shocker.

What's my bias?

I tend to favor english-speaking riders who give insightful views on races in which I'm interested, riders whose personalities I like, riders who ride with power, and riders who show panache and style. In spite of my bias for these kinds of riders, I try to look at the question of whether they're doping as completely separate.

For example, for some of the top riders:

Nibali: No strong feelings before the Vuelta last year. I would be surprised if he isn't doping given his performances. Let's just say it, I think he's doping. So are all the other contenders. However in this race he has shown guts, skill and panache already. Definitely warming to him. Could take a new view on him at some point, but expect this Tour to reveal all.

Contador: Loved that he showed Lance the door. Rides with panache and style consistently. Mentally tough. Can be less than straightforward in personality which I don't like. Overall I like him well enough. Rides to race and generally lets his riding do the talking. Clearly doping since early in his career. Obvious long before he was "caught". Could not be convinced otherwise.

Wiggins: Used to really be impressed with his anti-doping stance, he was brash and straightforward about it. Really called out the BS. Used to love him though he was useless as a rider. Transformation ridiculous, collusion with UCI and IOC likely IMO (2012 Olympics etc.). His total turnaround with regard to doping commentary just slimy. Strongly dislike. Showed some panache in PR this year, warmed me up to him a bit. Clearly doped for his Tour wins. Could not be convinced otherwise.

Froome: Most absurd transformation I've personally ever witnessed in the sport. Dislike him for that reason alone. Horrible riding style, painful to watch. Didn't have any view on him personally until he came out with the book, of which I've seen only excerpts. Comes of as a total liar in Kimmage interview. Obviously doping. Could not be convinced otherwise.

Sagan: Love his riding style. Aggressive, skilled, audacious and confident. Inspiring. Seems like a totally immature pr!ck personality-wise. Doping? Probably. Not sure, but would be surprised if clean. Clearly uber-talented since a very young age. A rider like him could be a winner in a relatively clean peloton, so I would never just outright call him a doper. Some chance he's clean.

Boonen: Love him. Love his style, personality and rides like a beast. Doper. Could not be convinced otherwise.

Cancellara: Like his riding style. A great career with great wins. Rides with power and panache. A big personality but entirely too full of himself. Doper. Could not be convinced otherwise.

Martin: No strong feelings about his personality, today was the first time he's impressed me on the road. Drools. Rides with power and style otherwise. Hard to believe a guy can put out that kind of power for that long clean. Have to assume he's doping. Could take a new view on him at some point.

Horner: Great personality, great insights into the races. Look forward to him retiring and commenting on races. Doper. Could not be convinced otherwise.

Cunego: Clearly doped in the Giro vs. Simoni, clearly has stopped doping. Could not be convinced otherwise.

Talansky: Not enough on the record to say for sure one way or another, but highly, highly suspicious. I would expect to form an opinion of him based on performance in the mountains over the next two weeks. Could take a new view on him at some point, but this will be the test, won't it.

Teejay: Less suspicious than Talansky based on performance, but suspect. I could buy him as a clean rider. Could be talked into a new view on him at this point.

So let me know how any of that is "inconsistent" other than that I form different opinions of different riders. The main problem with my view for some people is that I accept that people I like to watch ride are doping. I love the sport and understand it has always been this way, so I have chosen to root for people on other criteria than "are they doping?"

As for who is doping, I base it mostly on what I believe to be possible clean, and of course BP evidence, positive tests, and other information, in descending order. I think less riders are doping now than in the early part of the 2000's, but it's just as bad at the top and getting worse fast.

 

[Taxus4a]

Gerrans: Best results when he left SKY. He has won Liege and San Remo, and take yellow jersey on the TdF...

Uran: similar before and after SKY, he has follow his natural progresion

Downset: He won ITT of the Giro to Wiggings, Nibali, etc...

EBH: he is not getting the resulteverybody expect from him when he start pro.

Rogers. He is the same than in SKy, peope said: he is old already and he climb better than ever (that is not true, he was better in TdS, with Ulle and company), and this year he won in Zoncolan...

Nordhaug: he is maybe the only one that get worse results after leave SKY, but he has been not very lucky with crashes, and he sometimes performes really strong, in fact, in 2013, he was better in Lieje than all the SKY riders: Henao, Froome, Urán...

And if Froome or Wiggo leave SKy he will get similar results.

Anyway, I think that SKy is a good team to perform well, becouse they have a lot of possibilities for training, good profesionals,...

Thay have been revolutionaries, but now all the teams have copied them, so now that advantage is less than 2 years ago.

 

[BradCantona]

Nobody would attempt such a play other than a Brit.

What a load of horse crap. Seriously, you seem to have issues

I read this forum a lot more than I post, and at it's best, it truely helps highlight and question some issues which others would seemingly like to brush under the carpet. At it's worst, it's the kind of bile Buckle has posted here, with barely any challenge. Really pathetic stuff

 

[red_flanders]

What a load of horse crap. Seriously, you seem to have issues

I read this forum a lot more than I post, and at it's best, it truely helps highlight and question some issues which others would seemingly like to brush under the carpet. At it's worst, it's the kind of bile Buckle has posted here, with barely any challenge. Really pathetic stuff

You should report that kind of thing. Nationalistic attacks are inherently offensive to a large # of posters and liable to be taken personally. As such I think they're worthy of reports.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Your notion that my views express inconsistency is (IMO) an extension of your own personal perspective and has nothing to do with my actual views. I suspect (but don't know) that you don't like my views as a poster because I've been railing on Froome here for a while, and this colors your view of me. I know you represent yourself as someone "one the fence" about Froome, but from where I sit, you seem to half-defend him in far too many threads to be "on the fence". I think you like him, you know he's a joke, but will never admit it, preferring to launch personal attacks on people who point out what Froome really is, and you use this "inconsistency" argument to attack people. You can't make an actual case for it however.

Red mate, I think you are reading far too much into my agenda. You call me a troll for asking a pretty straight forward question about your views on EBH, and I asked it because I felt the view to be inconsistent i.e. citing poor recent results as a reason you think he rides clean, so asked you what you opinion of his 2011 stage wins were, since they were wins at the very highest level.

As for throwing Froome into the mix, not sure how that is anyway relevant, and it is a complete strawman anyway.

I was talking much more generally about inconsistently anyway, I haven't noticed inconsistencies in your posting before, I don't think of you as inconsistent or massively biased, but you are not the first to champion EBH, and so I posited reasons why I thought many people gave him an easier ride than other Sky riders.

And please can you point me to the times I've launched personal attacks on people in defence of Froome? If you think Froome's a cheat I have zero problem about, if you are being a ****** about it I will point that out.

I would try to relax and stop jumping at shadows. There were none. You voiced an opinion, I asked you to explain your reasoning, you called me a troll. And yet it's me launching the personal attacks.

 

[buckle]

G: "From a selfish point of view losing Contador (and Froome) is good for us!"

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

G: "From a selfish point of view losing Contador (and Froome) is good for us!"

I saw that too, he definitely said it was a good thing that Froome was out.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I'm looking for a consistent approach, something I rarely see in this forum.

To the bolded, that's impossible.
We know the UCI is not a fair dealer, we know the bio-passport permits doping, we know lots more things that makes it impossible to reach a Grand Unified Theory of Doping in Cycling.

It's a forum. People post opinions against a backdrop of complete uncertainty. Complaining about consistency in a forum is like arguing about the tide at the ocean's edge.

 

[roundabout]

G: "From a selfish point of view losing Contador (and Froome) is good for us!"

Seems like a very reasonable thing.

 

[Granville57]

For example, for some of the top riders:

That was a damn fine post. All of it.

 

[red_flanders]

That was a damn fine post. All of it.

Thanks. It was certainly long.

 

[TheSpud]

Originally Posted by buckle View Post
G: "From a selfish point of view losing Contador (and Froome) is good for us!"



I saw that too, he definitely said it was a good thing that Froome was out.

On the basis that in any sport that when the top favourites are out its good for the other competitors. I don't think you can read anything else in it than that.

It doesn't mean he hates Froome or Contador. You'd get the same comment if Man Utd / Chelsea / etc. were out of the FA Cup. Or if Rosberg & Hamilton screwed up in F1 qualifying and ended up at the back of the grid.

 

[buckle]

What a load of horse crap. Seriously, you seem to have issues

I read this forum a lot more than I post, and at it's best, it truely helps highlight and question some issues which others would seemingly like to brush under the carpet. At it's worst, it's the kind of bile Buckle has posted here, with barely any challenge. Really pathetic stuff

In the words of the great British playwright William Shakespeare, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Excellent post (the long one) by red_flanders. I agree with everything there.

 

[the sceptic]

It appears sky have lost their doping edge.

Porte looks almost normal. No more trains or super domestiques dropping other captains. I do hope this continues, but they need to get rid of Dawg if they want to become credible.

Brailsford has the excuse. If Dawg goes back to being a bottle carrier, he can just claim he never fully recovered from his injuries.

 

[BroDeal]

Brailsford has the excuse. If Dawg goes back to being a bottle carrier, he can just claim he never fully recovered from his injuries.

They will claim testosterone deficiency based on his wife having all the balls in the family.

 

[zlev11]

i still think Porte is going to win this. much better at the TT than nibali and if he can pull off another 2013 Ax3d performance it's entirely possible that he could take back a minute or so before the TT. it's long from over IMO.

 

[thehog]

i still think Porte is going to win this. much better at the TT than nibali and if he can pull off another 2013 Ax3d performance it's entirely possible that he could take back a minute or so before the TT. it's long from over IMO.

And Porte totally deserves the win as well. Niballi really has just sat on for the yellow.