Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[RownhamHill]

See - you don't have to blame me entirely for the misunderstanding. How about copying and pasting the sentence(s) or words where I (allegedly) said "G needs to lose weight to win a GT but is doing it very slowly compared to Wiggins', or whatever it is you think I wrote?

That way I can learn which part of my delivery completely fooled you?

Otherwise, we appear to be in agreement - G is generating more W/kg @ VO2max than Wiggins apparently can, yet is not ripping up the GTs.

Maybe it's a case of "he could but is being held back by that Dawg Froome"?

I guess only time will tell.

Assuming, of course, Geraint was being honest in the tweet I cannot find.

So, taking your professed desire to learn how you're fooling people with your delivery at face value, this post itself is a really good example of where you could work on your delivery. I said 'I'm sorry I misunderstood your point about weight.' You said, 'see, you don't have to blame me entirely for the misunderstanding', and then go onto start haranguing me to prove I'm wrong and you're right (again, you'll probably say that's not your intention, but that's exactly how it comes across).

Now, I genuinely can't see how I did blame you for the misunderstanding - it certainly wasn't my intention, it's certainly not what I wrote (I'm sorry, I misunderstood your post about weight). So no I'm not going to try and copy and paste words from a post I misunderstood to show why I misunderstood it, when I've already explained I misunderstood it and apologised accordingly - what would be the purpose in that?

In fact, you might have considered cutting the first two paragraphs completely, instead writing 'thanks for apologising', and then I'd be much more likely to read the rest of your post in the spirit of openness and generosity that would allow us all to have a civil exchange of views, instead of being slightly narked at your reaction, and more likely to misunderstand what you're saying.

I'm sure as you read this post you're probably having a similar slightly irritated reaction - so we end up as two people shouting across a valley in the wind. . .

So there you go - the impression you create that you're aggressively spoiling for a fight the whole time is the bit of your delivery that fools posters like Jimmy (and me to be fair) into thinking that you're aggressively spoiling for a fight the whole time, rather than recognising you as the mild-mannered, politely incredulous poster you've explained is your intention.

Shrug.

Anyway, back to your substantive point, I'm not sure we are in agreement. I can't see how Thomas is generating higher w/kg than Wiggins used to, and yet consistently finishing minutes down in the climbs rather than climbing with the elite group - it just makes no sense in the empirical sense of watching Thomas ride GTs. Which would lead me to think that he isn't. (Though again, maybe I'm misunderstanding the science here, I'm not an expert.)

Yet, I'm happy to accept that on the track they have a similar pedigree/comparable power outputs (as they're both multiple olympic/WC in pursuits). So there's obviously something interesting going on in the difference between their performances on the road; I'm interested in why that would be. That said, since the whole conversation hangs on a tweet that no one can find, I guess there's some uncertainty in the dataset in any case.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So, taking your professed desire to learn how you're fooling people with your delivery at face value, this post itself is a really good example of where you could work on your delivery. I said 'I'm sorry I misunderstood your point about weight.' You said, 'see, you don't have to blame me entirely for the misunderstanding', and then go onto start haranguing me to prove I'm wrong and you're right (again, you'll probably say that's not your intention, but that's exactly how it comes across).

Now, I genuinely can't see how I did blame you for the misunderstanding - it certainly wasn't my intention, it's certainly not what I wrote (I'm sorry, I misunderstood your post about weight). So no I'm not going to try and copy and paste words from a post I misunderstood to show why I misunderstood it, when I've already explained I misunderstood it and apologised accordingly - what would be the purpose in that?

Yes, you did write that. But then you wrote this:

As for your confusion that native English speakers 'misinterpret' your posts, maybe it's like my attempts to crack jokes.

We both need to work on our delivery.

And I am really bamboozled that you would write that, and then completely ignore it 2 posts later when responding to my post. Like. Is it something you can't see? Or invisible? Or????


This is how I read your post (and also provides an example of what I am asking for: someone says: XYZ and you can respond asking, "Do you mean XYW?" and work out what is in fact being communicated).

Sorry, I misunderstood.
If you're wondering why I misunderstood...

You need to work on your delivery.

Hence my response along the lines of: you don't need to blame me entirely. Show me where my delivery was lacking, given we've clarified what I did in fact say, and let's fix it up.

 

[SundayRider]

See - you don't have to blame me entirely for the misunderstanding. How about copying and pasting the sentence(s) or words where I (allegedly) said "G needs to lose weight to win a GT but is doing it very slowly compared to Wiggins', or whatever it is you think I wrote?

That way I can learn which part of my delivery completely fooled you?

Otherwise, we appear to be in agreement - G is generating more W/kg @ VO2max than Wiggins apparently can, yet is not ripping up the GTs.

Maybe it's a case of "he could but is being held back by that Dawg Froome"?

I guess only time will tell.

Assuming, of course, Geraint was being honest in the tweet I cannot find.

I don't think G Thomas will ever win a GT.

 

[RownhamHill]

Yes, you did write that. But then you wrote this:



And I am really bamboozled that you would write that, and then completely ignore it 2 posts later when responding to my post. Like. Is it something you can't see? Or invisible? Or????

So, the last line is intended as a self-deprecating joke about how I'm aware that sometimes my attempts to use dry humour on this forum sometimes leads to my posts being misinterpreted. No more, no less.

QED.

This is how I read your post (and also provides an example of what I am asking for: someone says: XYZ and you can respond asking, "Do you mean XYW?" and work out what is in fact being communicated).



Hence my response along the lines of: you don't need to blame me entirely. Show me where my delivery was lacking, given we've clarified what I did in fact say, and let's fix it up.

Yeah, but I didn't blame you at all. I read your post, could see that I'd misinterpreted it, and said sorry. Shall we move on?

Why do you think that two pursuit riders with a very similar (and very elite - ie double OG gold medalist) track pedigree, coming out of the exact same performance system, with the exact same coaches, on the exact same team have different performance/development on the road?

 

[SundayRider]

So, taking your professed desire to learn how you're fooling people with your delivery at face value, this post itself is a really good example of where you could work on your delivery. I said 'I'm sorry I misunderstood your point about weight.' You said, 'see, you don't have to blame me entirely for the misunderstanding', and then go onto start haranguing me to prove I'm wrong and you're right (again, you'll probably say that's not your intention, but that's exactly how it comes across).

Now, I genuinely can't see how I did blame you for the misunderstanding - it certainly wasn't my intention, it's certainly not what I wrote (I'm sorry, I misunderstood your post about weight). So no I'm not going to try and copy and paste words from a post I misunderstood to show why I misunderstood it, when I've already explained I misunderstood it and apologised accordingly - what would be the purpose in that?

In fact, you might have considered cutting the first two paragraphs completely, instead writing 'thanks for apologising', and then I'd be much more likely to read the rest of your post in the spirit of openness and generosity that would allow us all to have a civil exchange of views, instead of being slightly narked at your reaction, and more likely to misunderstand what you're saying.

I'm sure as you read this post you're probably having a similar slightly irritated reaction - so we end up as two people shouting across a valley in the wind. . .

So there you go - the impression you create that you're aggressively spoiling for a fight the whole time is the bit of your delivery that fools posters like Jimmy (and me to be fair) into thinking that you're aggressively spoiling for a fight the whole time, rather than recognising you as the mild-mannered, politely incredulous poster you've explained is your intention.

Shrug.

Anyway, back to your substantive point, I'm not sure we are in agreement. I can't see how Thomas is generating higher w/kg than Wiggins used to, and yet consistently finishing minutes down in the climbs rather than climbing with the elite group - it just makes no sense in the empirical sense of watching Thomas ride GTs. Which would lead me to think that he isn't. (Though again, maybe I'm misunderstanding the science here, I'm not an expert.)

Yet, I'm happy to accept that on the track they have a similar pedigree/comparable power outputs (as they're both multiple olympic/WC in pursuits). So there's obviously something interesting going on in the difference between their performances on the road; I'm interested in why that would be. That said, since the whole conversation hangs on a tweet that no one can find, I guess there's some uncertainty in the dataset in any case.

When Thomas stops being bone idle he might be able to climb with the elite group and smash everyone in the TTs.

 

[RownhamHill]

When Thomas stops being bone idle he might be able to climb with the elite group and smash everyone in the TTs.

So is that a dig at Wiggins, Thomas, or both?

 

[SundayRider]

So is that a dig at Wiggins, Thomas, or both?

It was Wiggisn retort to people who questions a track riders transformation into Tour winner

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Why do you think that two pursuit riders with a very similar (and very elite - ie double OG gold medalist) track pedigree, coming out of the exact same performance system, with the exact same coaches, on the exact same team have different performance/development on the road?

The obvious answer is: 1 of them is riding cleaner.

Who coached Wiggo on the track? It wasn't Ellingworth.

 

[oldcrank]

I have two friends that have exactly (within .14 of a second)
the same PB in the 1500 run. Both were internationals, but one
was basically an 800 runner (who saw occasional duty as a
4x400 runner) and the other was a 5000/10,000 runner.

I used to have some very close races in the pursuit with a
club-mate who also had the club-records in the 25 and 50
mile time-trials while I was (briefly) the club record holder
in the 1 kilometre time trial.

Nobody expected either pair of athletes to be as competitive
across the full spectrum of distances as they/we were at one
event in the middle. Nobody.

 

[RownhamHill]

It was Wiggisn retort to people who questions a track riders transformation into Tour winner

Yeah I know.

 

[RownhamHill]

The obvious answer is: 1 of them is riding cleaner.

Who coached Wiggo on the track? It wasn't Ellingworth.

Yeah, thought that might be your answer.

As for your second question, I don't know - I would guess Shane Sutton. I don't know what the relevance of Ellingworth is in this context (as you're not explaining your thought process), but is it relevant that he did coach Thomas in his BC Academy days when he was doing a lot of track riding?

 

[IndianCyclist]

Sky should join MPCC if they want to project a clean image

 

[the sceptic]

Sky should join MPCC if they want to project a clean image

sky could learn a lot from Horner on transparency and anti doping.

Perhaps they can hire him as a consultant next year.

 

[happychappy]

sky could learn a lot from Horner on transparency and anti doping.

Perhaps they can hire him as a consultant next year.

They should hire him as a rider. Ultimate cleans team.

 

[MatParker117]

The obvious answer is: 1 of them is riding cleaner.

Who coached Wiggo on the track? It wasn't Ellingworth.

Chris Boardman & Shane Sutton.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Chris Boardman & Shane Sutton.

Did they train him for the 2009 Tour as well?

 

[MatParker117]

Did they train him for the 2009 Tour as well?

He worked with the coaches at the BC academy in Italy which I think where Sutton, Ellingworth and Max Sciandri.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

He worked with the coaches at the BC academy in Italy which I think where Sutton, Ellingworth and Max Sciandri.

Nah highly douht he worked with Ellingworth. So Sutto and Sciandri then?

Thanks.

 

[TailWindHome]

Sky should join MPCC if they want to project a clean image

That's not the company to be keeping if you want to convince people you're clean.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Sky should join MPCC if they want to project a clean image

Lampre: Cleaner than Sky

 

[Parker]

He worked with the coaches at the BC academy in Italy which I think where Sutton, Ellingworth and Max Sciandri.

At the risk of sounding like I'm on a wind up, from 2007 onwards he was trained by Matt Parker along with Sutton. Parker is sports scientist. And that was the same up until Kerrison took over. (And Parker took a job in rugby or football. I forget which).

Clearly you're not that Matt Parker (and neither am I).

 

[red_flanders]

Lampre: Cleaner than Sky

I think overall, yes, they have been over the last 5 years.

 

[thehog]

sky could learn a lot from Horner on transparency and anti doping.

Perhaps they can hire him as a consultant next year.

Yes, the difference between Horner/MPCC and Froome/TUE is a crevice the size of the Gran Canyon.

 

[del1962]

I think overall, yes, they have been over the last 5 years.

Hmm that will be the team that during this time period had a rider training with a banned sports doctor called ferrari.

 

[the sceptic]

Hmm that will be the team that during this time period had a rider training with a banned sports doctor called ferrari, I fear the trollkraft is strong tonight.

Yes, please stop trolling del.