Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Netserk]

I know it's not against forum rules, but it's probably best not to make reference to some information you have if you're not prepared to divulge said information. I'm not doubting you; it's just infuriating to be tempted with the promise of inside knowledge only to be let down at the vital moment.

Do you say the same to RR or is it only in this case?

Is it just your private opinion, or are you advising him as an admin?

 

[pastronef]

except i have never committed myself either way..............as others here I am yet to discover the truth

for now there is no proof only suggestion

the only difference between the clinic 12 and myself..............our intrepid

dozen hope team sky are doping i hope that they are not

my own perceived probability of doping...wiggo 59%....froome 78%

Mark L

dozen know they are doping. you hope they are not
I don't care, they are not racing against clean opponents

 

[TailWindHome]

wiggo 59%....froome 78%

Interesting
I'd put Wiggins lower and Froome higher.
But there you go.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Do you say the same to RR or is it only in this case?

Anyone really. I don't recall anything quite so blatant from RR. It is genuinely childish, as primary school kids do the "I know something really important but I'm not going to tell you" thing all the time, just to put down the person they're not telling. Knowledge is power and all that!

Is it just your private opinion, or are you advising him as an admin?

Good question. It's my personal public opinion, but not against forum rules, so it's not an admin issue.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Interesting
I'd put Wiggins lower and Froome higher.
But there you go.

I think Wiggo is right at about 60%. (Some room for doubt but on balance, clearly more likely than not.)

I'd put Froome at 99%.

 

[the sceptic]

I think Wiggo is right at about 60%. (Some room for doubt but on balance, clearly more likely than not.)

I'd put Froome at 99%.

Not sure why Froome is so much more obvious.

He did actually show a tiny bit of talent before his magical transformation, which is more than you can say about Wiggo who was literally on the same level as Cavendish wrt future grand tour potential.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Had the UCIs one man TUE panel backdate a TUE and rush through Froomes TUE
He also had Hayles go over 50% Hct at BC
Had an athlete pulled from Athens due to reasons currently not widely known
Rumours of 3 missed ooc tests abound too
So what is this all about?
http://t.co/m14zgGv9VL

Selective amnesia must be exacerbated by cortisone use!

Excellent post. This is the beauty of BC operating a team. Wiesel and USAC did the exact same thing for their team too.

For the casual reader, the UCI fast-tracking a TUE so someone 'never tests positive' is nothing new. Zorzoli's complicity is fundamental to minimize podium controversy in the sport.

 

[thehog]

Excellent post. This is the beauty of BC operating a team. Wiesel and USAC did the exact same thing for their team too.

For the casual reader, the UCI fast-tracking a TUE so someone 'never tests positive' is nothing new. Zorzoli's complicity is fundamental to minimize podium controversy in the sport.

And who can forget Henao....

“In our latest monthly review, our experts had questions about Sergio’s out-of-competition control tests at altitude — tests introduced this winter by the anti-doping authorities. We need to understand these readings better,” team principal Dave Brailsford said in a team release.

“We contacted the relevant authorities — the UCI and CADF [the UCI’s Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation] — pointed to these readings and asked whether they could give us any insights. We’ve also taken Sergio out of our race program whilst we get a better understanding of these profiles and his physiology.”

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/03/news/sky-sidelines-henao-over-questionable-anti-doping-test-results_320639#tLiY5jFwoeX5GE3G.99

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Not sure why Froome is so much more obvious.

He did actually show a tiny bit of talent before his magical transformation, which is more than you can say about Wiggo who was literally on the same level as Cavendish wrt future grand tour potential.

It's due to Wiggo being a serial winner at World and Olympic level on the track. The ability to perform consistently when it matters over a number of years is not a common quality but one that is very important in stage races. When Wiggo isn't in "CBA" mode, he very rarely goes AWOL physically or mentally.

I'll grant you that this aspect to Wiggo might actually explain why he succeeded in the Tour when most dopers don't rather than why Wiggo might have won clean!

 

[sniper]

Anyone really. I don't recall anything quite so blatant from RR. It is genuinely childish, as primary school kids do the "I know something really important but I'm not going to tell you" thing all the time, just to put down the person they're not telling. Knowledge is power and all that!

Not a great analogy.

what's childish about posting that rather interesting piece of info on here?
Day in day out this forum is flooded with posts, only a small percentage of which is able to really excite the regulars. Bobbins' post (in fact many of his posts) belong to that small percentage.
I'd thank bobbins for posting it rather than dismiss it as 'childish' and 'blatant'.

Also, I understand bobbins' reluctance to post the name.
And in the broader scheme of things (is Sky doping and if so how? Is Brailsford a fraud?), the actual name of the rider is not really important.

 

[The Hitch]

Interesting
I'd put Wiggins lower and Froome higher.
But there you go.

But you won't explain how Wiggins managed to lose all that weight and gain all that power the very year a drug that allows riders to lose lots of weight while gaining lots of power came into the sport.

Funny that.

Oops, an actual discussion about the doping rather than a flame war with the hog or sceptic. Time to disapear again twh I guess. Have a little sleep. Maybe in 2 hours you can argue the semantics of a sentence with hog again and pretend you are doing something else than trolling the thread

 

[The Hitch]

It's due to Wiggo being a serial winner at World and Olympic level on the track. The ability to perform consistently when it matters over a number of years is not a common quality but one that is very important in stage races. When Wiggo isn't in "CBA" mode, he very rarely goes AWOL physically or mentally.

I'll grant you that this aspect to Wiggo might actually explain why he succeeded in the Tour when most dopers don't rather than why Wiggo might have won clean!

You don't want bobbins to be allowed to post that he knows people within BC cycling. Ok. How is pointing to the success wiggins had in a totally different sport that required totally different talents any more valid?

 

[The Hitch]

Not sure why Froome is so much more obvious.

He did actually show a tiny bit of talent before his magical transformation, which is more than you can say about Wiggo who was literally on the same level as Cavendish wrt future grand tour potential.

The wiggins fanboys are in total denial about the fact that Froome and Wiggins are by now totally joined at the hip when it comes to doping or not.

The point at which they could toss froome aside as a scapegoat to save their crush is long past. There is no way Brailsford and Sky spent all those resources and finances to dope Froome only for him to come 2nd to someone clean. There is no way they were hiring all those people with mid 2000's doping experience to get Froome to the exact same power outputs, season peaks etc that wiggins just happened to manage doing clean.

They just found the only rider in the history of the world who could ride that fast clean and they decided to risk it all by devoting all their resources to dope someone else. Yeah

 

[sniper]

The wiggins fanboys are in total denial about the fact that Froome and Wiggins are by now totally joined at the hip when it comes to doping or not.

The point at which they could toss froome aside as a scapegoat to save their crush is long past. There is no way Brailsford and Sky spent all those resources and finances to dope Froome only for him to come 2nd to someone clean. There is no way they were hiring all those people with mid 2000's doping experience to get Froome to the exact same power outputs, season peaks etc that wiggins just happened to manage doing clean.

They just found the only rider in the history of the world who could ride that fast clean and they decided to risk it all by devoting all their resources to dope someone else. Yeah

agreed,
it's not from this earth to suggest there is even the slightest chance that Wiggo is clean if Froome turns out to be doped.

some of this bot-logic is just nonsensical.

 

[blackcat]

But you won't explain how Wiggins managed to lose all that weight and gain all that power the very year a drug that allows riders to lose lots of weight while gaining lots of power came into the sport.

Funny that.

Oops, an actual discussion about the doping rather than a flame war with the hog or sceptic. Time to disapear again twh I guess. Have a little sleep. Maybe in 2 hours you can argue the semantics of a sentence with hog again and pretend you are doing something else than trolling the thread

imo, it was less AICAR, and more lipotropin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipotropin

 

[Dr. Juice]

imo, it was less AICAR, and more lipotropin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipotropin

Could be a combination of both. AICAR became popular in 2008 before the Olympic Games. Just at the end of that year Wiggins lost that weight while keeping all the power. Which resulted in a 4th place in the TdF the year after.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

what's childish about posting that rather interesting piece of info on here?

Unfortunately, posting that you know some at BC/Sky/Anywhere that told you something "juicy" but you can't divulge further details for fear of [insert favourite excuse/reason here] isn't interesting. It's just annoying. (Maybe childish was a bit strong.) Better not make the claim than to claim and then fail to deliver when asked to do so.

If you know something, want to tell folk, but can't divulge names then the standard form is either "I was talking to a bloke in the pub who told me..." or "One of the guys on our club run at the weekend told me..." Such introductions set expectations as to receiving real juicy details as opposed to yet more gossip at a suitably low level. (Though I guess one could take the view that even if someone claims to have the inside track that names won't be divulged, as they (almost?) never are.)

 

[djpbaltimore]

You don't want bobbins to be allowed to post that he knows people within BC cycling. Ok. How is pointing to the success wiggins had in a totally different sport that required totally different talents any more valid?

Strawman alert. What was recommended to not be posted was evidence of Sky misdeeds that are impossible to be substantiated without additional information. That kind of evidence completely lacks credibility. The danger is that once time passes and the claim is repeated often enough, the context of the claim evaporates and it becomes part of the fabric of the argument.

 

[thehog]

Unfortunately, posting that you know some at BC/Sky/Anywhere that told you something "juicy" but you can't divulge further details for fear of [insert favourite excuse/reason here] isn't interesting. It's just annoying. (Maybe childish was a bit strong.) Better not make the claim than to claim and then fail to deliver when asked to do so.

If you know something, want to tell folk, but can't divulge names then the standard form is either "I was talking to a bloke in the pub who told me..." or "One of the guys on our club run at the weekend told me..." Such introductions set expectations as to receiving real juicy details as opposed to yet more gossip at a suitably low level. (Though I guess one could take the view that even if someone claims to have the inside track that names won't be divulged, as they (almost?) never are.)

We'll call it the "moncoutie" provision

Bobbins didn't state it was "juicey". He merely mentioned in the course of an entire list. There was nothing sensationalist about it.

 

[blackcat]

Could be a combination of both. AICAR became popular in 2008 before the Olympic Games. Just at the end of that year Wiggins lost that weight while keeping all the power. Which resulted in a 4th place in the TdF the year after.

yep, definitely both. but the lipoctropin worked a treat to render the functional tissue, the red muscle tissue, from even his thighs. IMO, all the epo, and all the kms, and all the caloric deficient diet could not have done that on its own, which i am comapring to what would happen to an AICAR fuelled diet.

Still could get the sunken and disappearing cheeks, and skin like Jacky Durand after 15 pro seasons riding 30 thousand miles a year.

The loss of muscle mass, all over his body, and his quads and hammies and buttocks and calves, tells me it was something else. And yes, I know that if you put Hoy on a diet of 30 thousand miles and hors categorie mountain passes, he would have skinnier legs. But that would all be normal(ish).

add lipotropin to the mix, and Hoy could be like Theo Bos, really lean in upper body and legs.

 

[the sceptic]

Strawman alert. What was recommended to not be posted was evidence of Sky misdeeds that are impossible to be substantiated without additional information. That kind of evidence completely lacks credibility. The danger is that once time passes and the claim is repeated often enough, the context of the claim evaporates and it becomes part of the fabric of the argument.

thanks Martin.

 

[djpbaltimore]

thanks Martin.

Serious? Is that an official sockpuppet prediction? Maybe you ought to look at my previous posts before making that prediction.

 

[thehog]

thanks Martin.

Do you think he even understand his own posts?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

At a guess a bunch of lower level guys used lipoctropin and didn't die or suffer horrendous facial anomalies, which encouraged the guys who could actually generate meaningful (1M vs 10k in salary increase$) results with it to give it a try.

 

[TailWindHome]

Oops, an actual discussion about the doping rather than a flame war with the hog or sceptic. Time to disapear again twh I guess. Have a little sleep. Maybe in 2 hours you can argue the semantics of a sentence with hog again and pretend you are doing something else than trolling the thread

I was attempting to have a discussion about the alleged doping. Bobbins introduced (not for the first time) the suggestion of a previous incident regarding a back dated TUE, I asked him for further details which he declined on the basis of protecting people close to the team.

Now here's the question.

As someone avocating discussion about the evidence why aren't you interested in this?

But you won't explain how Wiggins managed to lose all that weight and gain all that power the very year a drug that allows riders to lose lots of weight while gaining lots of power came into the sport.

How did Wiggins lose the weight and retain power?

Careful management of calories in versus calories out.

Cyclist does a thing
There's a drug that helps with that thing
Cyclist must have taken drug

You come across as an intelligent fella, you can see yourself how weak that is as 'evidence'. Have you anything more to support the assertion that the weight loss was acheived illegally?