Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1240 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 24, 2014
516
0
0
pastronef said:
agree, low fat % and veins are not so rare. clinic and twitter Illuminati put their dancing shoes on as soon as Kennaugh posted that pic

I agree, I love seeing Sky getting called out but this is a non story I'm afraid. Moving swiftly on ....
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
ralphbert said:
While I'm normally the first to dance naked around the dopers bonfire in this case the clinic Illuminati have it wrong imo. My brother and i have similar vascular legs and we are both clean. Well i know for sure i am. He climbs like a goat and always tries to drop me so the jury is out on him.
no, it is ceteris paribus. those arteries never existed in that degree previously. Your bro is natural, but still a certain natural standard deviation.

these guys, when that major artery down the thigh is prominent, that is DANGEROUS. show me an athlete with that artery so prominent in the century before 2000. You wont be able to show me one.

Prominent veins are nothing new, especially in forearms and guys going to the gym. I had significant veins in my arms.

That leg artery, if it is severed, you can bleed out ones life in a few minutes. I would like to have some subcutaneous dermis tissue surrounding that artery.

I have never seen that artery prominent in sport before. Even running, where they all are even leaner than GT cyclists on the 21st day, and they are carrying less weight. OK, one could argue, proportionately, but i believe my point stands, and is valid.

To have that leg artery prominent, cannot be safe. One could argue, well, ones carotoid artery is always on display, and yes, i concede this.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
deeno1975 said:
I agree, I love seeing Sky getting called out but this is a non story I'm afraid. Moving swiftly on ....
not the spidery leg veins. And ESPECIALLY, the artery running down the leg. These veins have never been SO prominent.

salient term, SO. all things being equal, ceteris paribus.

If you can find me one athlete that has had the leg artery showing, i will go "he". or, "go he"
 
Mar 3, 2014
31
0
0
blackcat said:
no, it is ceteris paribus. those arteries never existed in that degree previously. Your bro is natural, but still a certain natural standard deviation.

these guys, when that major artery down the thigh is prominent, that is DANGEROUS. show me an athlete with that artery so prominent in the century before 2000. You wont be able to show me one.

Prominent veins are nothing new, especially in forearms and guys going to the gym. I had significant veins in my arms.

That leg artery, if it is severed, you can bleed out ones life in a few minutes. I would like to have some subcutaneous dermis tissue surrounding that artery.

I have never seen that artery prominent in sport before. Even running, where they all are even leaner than GT cyclists on the 21st day, and they are carrying less weight. OK, one could argue, proportionately, but i believe my point stands, and is valid.

To have that leg artery prominent, cannot be safe. One could argue, well, ones carotoid artery is always on display, and yes, i concede this.
Would that not be a vein and not an artery? Or is your medication causing hallucinations again?

I had a Biology teacher that had veins like that on his arms. Caused by vegietism in his case. Some of those pictures are deliberately posed so the veins are prominent. Prove nothing and are just gross to see.

Has anybody found some actual proof that TeamSky are doping their riders? Real court standard proof that would finish this nonsense once and for all?
 
blackcat said:
not the spidery leg veins. And ESPECIALLY, the artery running down the leg. These veins have never been SO prominent.

salient term, SO. all things being equal, ceteris paribus.

If you can find me one athlete that has had the leg artery showing, i will go "he". or, "go he"
They are veins, not arteries. The most prominent artery in that region is the femoral artery and it follows the femur quite closely under/through many layers of muscle.

As for earlier riders not having veins that prominent, think back to Sean Kelly

 
May 10, 2009
4,638
1
0
42x16ss said:
They are veins, not arteries. The most prominent artery in that region is the femoral artery and it follows the femur quite closely under/through many layers of muscle.

As for earlier riders not having veins that prominent, think back to Sean Kelly

Fair enough...although Kelly doped almost all his career.
 
Peter70 said:
Would that not be a vein and not an artery? Or is your medication causing hallucinations again?

I had a Biology teacher that had veins like that on his arms. Caused by vegietism in his case. Some of those pictures are deliberately posed so the veins are prominent. Prove nothing and are just gross to see.

Has anybody found some actual proof that TeamSky are doping their riders? Real court standard proof that would finish this nonsense once and for all?
Pete, caution when saying such things, remember the big Texan boy.

those are veins anyway, and are not proving doping, despite everybody came rushing as soon as someone posted a 2013 team sky member photo.
the pic is from the 2013 tour de france.
late birds
they'll go down, but not because of kennaugh's veins
 
pastronef said:
Pete, caution when saying such things, remember the big Texan boy.

those are veins anyway, and are not proving doping, despite everybody came rushing as soon as a team sky member posted the pic.
That pic is from 2013 though :p

Oh dear, fanboys asking for evidence that would hold up in court... Lance déjà vu
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Ventoux Boar said:
I mean, normally I find your posts full of bombastic tripe, but this is just mince. BR 'rayjay' reincarnates as 'ray j willings', and you want to shut it down? That's so wrong, man.
Thanks for your defence VB. Much appreciated.

I was always more of a Dawkins fan myself ;)
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Peter70 said:
.......

Has anybody found some actual proof that TeamSky are doping their riders? Real court standard proof that would finish this nonsense once and for all?
Froome and Wiggins swore affidavits to Del, Tailwind, Andy4321 and Parker that they were on full Team PED programs.

But those posters are playing silly ******s and wont release the info.:rolleyes:

Oh yeah, the clinic aint a court, but for those with a smattering of grey matter it is obvious what Wiggins and Froome are dopers.
 
Benotti69 said:
Froome and Wiggins swore affidavits to Del, Tailwind, Andy4321 and Parker that they were on full Team PED programs.

But those posters are playing silly ******s and wont release the info.:rolleyes:

Oh yeah, the clinic aint a court, but for those with a smattering of grey matter it is obvious what Wiggins and Froome are dopers.
Except for those with a smattering of grey matter for whom it isn't obvious, of course, or is that inconvenient to you?

Don't worry, nobody really cares too much about the clinic view on this. If you had resolved this fully and to unanimous satisfaction of the wider world there would be nothing else to say.

It's great fun to agree fully in the Clinic though. Proceed.
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Peter70 said:
Would that not be a vein and not an artery? Or is your medication causing hallucinations again?

I had a Biology teacher that had veins like that on his arms. Caused by vegietism in his case. Some of those pictures are deliberately posed so the veins are prominent. Prove nothing and are just gross to see.

Has anybody found some actual proof that TeamSky are doping their riders? Real court standard proof that would finish this nonsense once and for all?
Unless you see a big syringe with the words illegal dope marked on it and the needle going into a sky riders veins up close filmed in ultra HD by Dave Brailsford who at the exact time confesses to doping his riders ,other than that nothing will convince them. If Sky ever do get caught please remember that its a cycle race and its not worth killing yourself over :D same advice for TWH.
I would like to mention as a side line that the Sky believers do not suffer the same kind of abuse on this site as the Sky non believers do on the BR site.
It just shows how well balanced the realists are and how angry and out of control the Sky fan boys can get.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
wrinklyvet said:
Except for those with a smattering of grey matter for whom it isn't obvious, of course, or is that inconvenient to you?
All the arguments about Sky not being dopers have been whined in here ad infinitum before about Armstrong.


wrinklyvet said:
Don't worry, nobody really cares too much about the clinic view on this.
Yet here you are caring. Thanks.

wrinklyvet said:
If you had resolved this fully and to unanimous satisfaction of the wider world there would be nothing else to say.

It's great fun to agree fully in the Clinic though. Proceed.
The wider world does not care much about a minority sport. Sports fans in the wider world fully believe that all cyclists dope. Sports pages in national publications tend to only print cycling stories that involve doping, hence the wider world thinks they all dope.

This little echo chamber with its 12 members is not really worth getting ones under garments in a twist, unless one is inclined to do that for pleasure and who am I to judge you...:)
 
Benotti69 said:
All the arguments about Sky not being dopers have been whined in here ad infinitum before about Armstrong.




Yet here you are caring. Thanks.



The wider world does not care much about a minority sport. Sports fans in the wider world fully believe that all cyclists dope. Sports pages in national publications tend to only print cycling stories that involve doping, hence the wider world thinks they all dope.

This little echo chamber with its 12 members is not really worth getting ones under garments in a twist, unless one is inclined to do that for pleasure and who am I to judge you...:)
Absolutely right except that there are sports columns in national publications that do not confine cycling reports to doping stories. It probably depends on which papers you are talking about.

The papers can print known facts and they can print general observations about the sport, but what they can't normally do is to make allegations that are not fair comment and cannot be proved, because they don't have bottomless pockets from which to pay out. That sort of thing is a Clinic luxury. I really don't begrudge it to anyone as long as, now and again, they can see the other view and tolerate it without unpleasantness.

Thanks for you comment. Do have a great 2014! :)
 
Is there a leg-vein-o-meter or some kind of vein swatch chart I can download to determine what riders are doping from their Instagram selfies please?

Also, I'm a little worried my doping program is only working on my left leg, because this one has two very pronounced veins, yet the right doesn't have any? Is it worth switching from Chinese to European doping suppliers to get more balanced veins or should I just do some one legged turbo and hope the right leg catches up?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
42x16ss said:
They are veins, not arteries. The most prominent artery in that region is the femoral artery and it follows the femur quite closely under/through many layers of muscle.

As for earlier riders not having veins that prominent, think back to Sean Kelly

thnx for the reference 42x16
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Benotti69 said:
This little echo chamber with its 12 members is not really worth getting ones under garments in a twist, unless one is inclined to do that for pleasure and who am I to judge you...:)
we did have 12. But I invited 2 more. blackcat seconded their induction. So we have 14. enough for a quorum to be chaired by JV.
 
Sep 8, 2009
15,305
0
0
cyclists were fit as hell back in the 40's

gino bartali, one of the greatest riders of all time(for me way better than merckx)



something like ullrich in his best shape. a true force of nature and one of the best climbers of all time
 
wrinklyvet said:
Absolutely right except that there are sports columns in national publications that do not confine cycling reports to doping stories. It probably depends on which papers you are talking about.

The papers can print known facts and they can print general observations about the sport, but what they can't normally do is to make allegations that are not fair comment and cannot be proved, because they don't have bottomless pockets from which to pay out. That sort of thing is a Clinic luxury. I really don't begrudge it to anyone as long as, now and again, they can see the other view and tolerate it without unpleasantness.

Thanks for you comment. Do have a great 2014! :)
The newspapers can't even do that.

It Christmas and I am having a grand sort out. I have a big pile of newspapers and magazines I don't throw away. I like to keep them because I hope that, occasionally "truth will out" and the odd thief and their complicit associates in the administration gravy train, who so disfigure sport will get exposed. I found an Observer Sport Monthly for July 2009 I kept for its "Lance comeback" special. It needs to be shown to every 18 year old contemplating a life in sport. I will save the St David of Millardom quotes within it, for another post, suffice to say at that time, the wind the dawg found to blow him so strongly around each and every hairpin of the Ventoux was blowing St David towards Lance, to whom he plighted his fidelity with "Our relationship has always been close". [Where is an icon for - puking into a sick-bag and the contents overfilling and falling onto your feet -when you need it ?]

But back to Wrinkly and the rightness of the free press. Latest addition to my sad pile of newsprint is the Telegraph double page spread with headline screaming "THE BIGGEST DOPING COVER-UP IN ATHLETICS HISTORY". So where has this gone? If we believe the poster on Bike Radar who sent a pm to RaceRadio, RR replied that he already knew the answer to his tweet to Paula Radcliffe when he asked her if it was her name on the list. Her "super aggressive" lawyers have locked down the revealing of FACTS that a whilstleblower tried to expose. It appears that in this case the IAAF establishment have acted with an athlete to make sure we don't get the FACTS. Do I find this unusual? Look at that selfie the idiot Cookson took with dopers Eddie and Gilbert (who I see has several fellow team-mates calling him out). Cookson took it at a symposium for Juniors helping them find their way in the sport. "Look - stealing and cheating pays" it screamed.

Radcliffe, Wiggins, Boardman and now Froome are all major figures in the iconography of UK sport. All are put forward by the press as clean icons not to be tainted by dirty johnny foreigner they thrashed. Belief that whilst PEDs were rampant in their sports, these "stars" can somehow set a collection of records, is suspended. Do I believe any of them are clean ? I don't have a the tiniest belief any of them are anything other than a sham exactly like born-again St David was in July 2009 in his so eloquent love letter to Lance so carefully recorded in the Observer.

I think it is quite simple. Factually, all had committed to their careers with no fall back. I propose they all met their Calvary. They discovered the playing field had a slope on it and the authorities were like Cookson with his seflie - actively promoting the known dopers. Boardman is quoted as being sick of cycling at the end of 1991 and talks of leaving the sport. He had two kids and lived in a two bed terrace with no money. He had just been thrashed at the Pursuit Worlds by riders using the new undetectable drug epo. The choice was give up cycling do more casual labour helping out decorating or "join them". Critically, he also had alongside him an adviser with little to lose but plenty to gain if Boardman took all the risks; a malevolent voice in his ear. Boardman chose "join them" and hasn't it worked out well for Boardman and the "professor" alongside him. The Lotus bike made excellent cover for his wiggo/dawg like improvements, provided one does not look at the comparative improvements achieved by Colin Wallace or Bryan Steel when they were riding it at the time.

Brad was on the fringes of it all. He had won Olympic gold and found out like Boardman before, that this didn't make him rich and so went and lived in the boozer. He was out of it. No future. Undoubtedly his father's end was a vivid signpost to the choices that lay ahead. Brailsford dried him out and like Keen before him, Brailsford had plenty to gain and little to lose, so reinforced the stark choices ahead and gave him a vision of how Wiggo (and Sir David) could make money from this seriously scr**ed up sport. Wiggo went full genius and the rest is history.

As other posters have so eloquently put it Froome was about to lose his contract with Sky. The dream was over. Obscurity and poverty beckoned. Why have a few years as a domestique and walk away to nothing when he too could do even better what Wiggo and Brailsford was doing ? Yes, he should have won in 2012. The 2013 pay-back that saw the defending Tour champ not even take the start line, was awesome to behold. How seriously does Brailsford despise the fans, that he thinks so many cannot see through it ?

For Radcliffe it was the same. At the 93 World Championships she had a 7th; 5th in 95. At the Olympics in 1996 it was a 5th as well. The World Champs in 97 and the CG in 98 brought no spoils. This career was going to end with none of the riches, the Monaco life style, the hobnobbing with "stars" of the day - "look mummy who is that alongside the gallant knight Sir Chris, close by Sir David ?" I don't know about the relationship with her husband but it draws comment elsewhere. Was he taking the role of a Brailsford or Keen, "WE have put X years into this and all you have to do now is ....." You can decide if in 1999, after 6 years of getting her teeth kicked in, Radcliffe found the precursor of "marginal gains" and was able to fine tune her training regime so that she went from "plucky Brit loser" to fastest ever, ever, in the history of humankind, just at a time when epo usage was at its most epic. That this "clean" athlete seems so reluctant to share with the World the science behind why she was able to explain away her "red" readings to so august and determined a body as the IAAF on their relentless search to out the dopers and instead appears, if indeed raceradio is calling it right, and it is her, to instead be resorting to a "highly aggressive legal team" to keep it all under wraps, must be baffling to her apostles.

To those of us who keep old newspapers and pictures of idiot Cookson and his selfies, the Radcliffe silence is not comforting, because she still holds every wrongly gained asset she possesses.

Did they dope ? I am only speculating.

Common sense, held by the majority, as expressed to you by Benotti, is that - "professional cycling is riddled with dopers. Brad is a doper, the dawg is a doper and a lot of the other Brit cyclists are dopers too". Common sense also informs the common person that a real sporting hero is not going to be found with riches and awards overfilling their cup, but will have a very different profile. For a couple, let's keep it Brit centric and look at the pursuit in the period 1989 to 1996. Two Brit riders there stand head and shoulders above the Brit who could win the World TT championship. (For f.s., who in their right mind thinks Boardman could beat them clean ? )

Yes, Wrinkly and the rest of the fanboys, I admire you posting here and the sincerity of your belief. Sadly that belief requires a recalibration.

The saddest piece of the 2009 Observer Lance-fest was a piece by Mike Grisenthwaite, founder of UK charity of Cyclists Fight Cancer. It was a piece of religion backed with "how could so nice and great a World star possibly commit such a fraud ?". Sir Brad, Sir David, Sir Chris, all of these have found the palms laid in their path placed by idiots like Cookson. If you want to run an investigation to detect dopers you would not employ anyone like Cookson in any capacity whatsoever. A fanboy of the worst sort - one who cannot counter an alternative view.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Freddythefrog said:
The newspapers can't even do that.

It Christmas and I am having a grand sort out. I have a big pile of newspapers and magazines I don't throw away. I like to keep them because I hope that, occasionally "truth will out" and the odd thief and their complicit associates in the administration gravy train, who so disfigure sport will get exposed. I found an Observer Sport Monthly for July 2009 I kept for its "Lance comeback" special. It needs to be shown to every 18 year old contemplating a life in sport. I will save the St David of Millardom quotes within it, for another post, suffice to say at that time, the wind the dawg found to blow him so strongly around each and every hairpin of the Ventoux was blowing St David towards Lance, to whom he plighted his fidelity with "Our relationship has always been close". [Where is an icon for - puking into a sick-bag and the contents overfilling and falling onto your feet -when you need it ?]

But back to Wrinkly and the rightness of the free press. Latest addition to my sad pile of newsprint is the Telegraph double page spread with headline screaming "THE BIGGEST DOPING COVER-UP IN ATHLETICS HISTORY". So where has this gone? If we believe the poster on Bike Radar who sent a pm to RaceRadio, RR replied that he already knew the answer to his tweet to Paula Radcliffe when he asked her if it was her name on the list. Her "super aggressive" lawyers have locked down the revealing of FACTS that a whilstleblower tried to expose. It appears that in this case the IAAF establishment have acted with an athlete to make sure we don't get the FACTS. Do I find this unusual? Look at that selfie the idiot Cookson took with dopers Eddie and Gilbert (who I see has several fellow team-mates calling him out). Cookson took it at a symposium for Juniors helping them find their way in the sport. "Look - stealing and cheating pays" it screamed.

Radcliffe, Wiggins, Boardman and now Froome are all major figures in the iconography of UK sport. All are put forward by the press as clean icons not to be tainted by dirty johnny foreigner they thrashed. Belief that whilst PEDs were rampant in their sports, these "stars" can somehow set a collection of records, is suspended. Do I believe any of them are clean ? I don't have a the tiniest belief any of them are anything other than a sham exactly like born-again St David was in July 2009 in his so eloquent love letter to Lance so carefully recorded in the Observer.

I think it is quite simple. Factually, all had committed to their careers with no fall back. I propose they all met their Calvary. They discovered the playing field had a slope on it and the authorities were like Cookson with his seflie - actively promoting the known dopers. Boardman is quoted as being sick of cycling at the end of 1991 and talks of leaving the sport. He had two kids and lived in a two bed terrace with no money. He had just been thrashed at the Pursuit Worlds by riders using the new undetectable drug epo. The choice was give up cycling do more casual labour helping out decorating or "join them". Critically, he also had alongside him an adviser with little to lose but plenty to gain if Boardman took all the risks; a malevolent voice in his ear. Boardman chose "join them" and hasn't it worked out well for Boardman and the "professor" alongside him. The Lotus bike made excellent cover for his wiggo/dawg like improvements, provided one does not look at the comparative improvements achieved by Colin Wallace or Bryan Steel when they were riding it at the time.

Brad was on the fringes of it all. He had won Olympic gold and found out like Boardman before, that this didn't make him rich and so went and lived in the boozer. He was out of it. No future. Undoubtedly his father's end was a vivid signpost to the choices that lay ahead. Brailsford dried him out and like Keen before him, Brailsford had plenty to gain and little to lose, so reinforced the stark choices ahead and gave him a vision of how Wiggo (and Sir David) could make money from this seriously scr**ed up sport. Wiggo went full genius and the rest is history.

As other posters have so eloquently put it Froome was about to lose his contract with Sky. The dream was over. Obscurity and poverty beckoned. Why have a few years as a domestique and walk away to nothing when he too could do even better what Wiggo and Brailsford was doing ? Yes, he should have won in 2012. The 2013 pay-back that saw the defending Tour champ not even take the start line, was awesome to behold. How seriously does Brailsford despise the fans, that he thinks so many cannot see through it ?

For Radcliffe it was the same. At the 93 World Championships she had a 7th; 5th in 95. At the Olympics in 1996 it was a 5th as well. The World Champs in 97 and the CG in 98 brought no spoils. This career was going to end with none of the riches, the Monaco life style, the hobnobbing with "stars" of the day - "look mummy who is that alongside the gallant knight Sir Chris, close by Sir David ?" I don't know about the relationship with her husband but it draws comment elsewhere. Was he taking the role of a Brailsford or Keen, "WE have put X years into this and all you have to do now is ....." You can decide if in 1999, after 6 years of getting her teeth kicked in, Radcliffe found the precursor of "marginal gains" and was able to fine tune her training regime so that she went from "plucky Brit loser" to fastest ever, ever, in the history of humankind, just at a time when epo usage was at its most epic. That this "clean" athlete seems so reluctant to share with the World the science behind why she was able to explain away her "red" readings to so august and determined a body as the IAAF on their relentless search to out the dopers and instead appears, if indeed raceradio is calling it right, and it is her, to instead be resorting to a "highly aggressive legal team" to keep it all under wraps, must be baffling to her apostles.

To those of us who keep old newspapers and pictures of idiot Cookson and his selfies, the Radcliffe silence is not comforting, because she still holds every wrongly gained asset she possesses.

Did they dope ? I am only speculating.

Common sense, held by the majority, as expressed to you by Benotti, is that - "professional cycling is riddled with dopers. Brad is a doper, the dawg is a doper and a lot of the other Brit cyclists are dopers too". Common sense also informs the common person that a real sporting hero is not going to be found with riches and awards overfilling their cup, but will have a very different profile. For a couple, let's keep it Brit centric and look at the pursuit in the period 1989 to 1996. Two Brit riders there stand head and shoulders above the Brit who could win the World TT championship. (For f.s., who in their right mind thinks Boardman could beat them clean ? )

Yes, Wrinkly and the rest of the fanboys, I admire you posting here and the sincerity of your belief. Sadly that belief requires a recalibration.

The saddest piece of the 2009 Observer Lance-fest was a piece by Mike Grisenthwaite, founder of UK charity of Cyclists Fight Cancer. It was a piece of religion backed with "how could so nice and great a World star possibly commit such a fraud ?". Sir Brad, Sir David, Sir Chris, all of these have found the palms laid in their path placed by idiots like Cookson. If you want to run an investigation to detect dopers you would not employ anyone like Cookson in any capacity whatsoever. A fanboy of the worst sort - one who cannot counter an alternative view.
worth reposting. :cool:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS