Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[thehog]

Stop moving them then.

You're the one telling the world GCs are easy to ride

Why use drugs if they're so easy! you are hilarious though, a good laugh. Please do keep it up. I'm lovin it

 

[Parker]

You're the one telling the world GCs are easy to ride

Why use drugs if they're so easy! you are hilarious though, a good laugh. Please do keep it up. I'm lovin it

How many times have you been banned for trolling etc now (under this name)? Twenty is it.

The only goalposts you see look like this

________
| 30 bans |

Have you thought about collecting stamps instead?

 

[thehog]

How many times have you been banned for trolling etc now (under this name)? Twenty is it.

The only goalposts you see look like this

________
| 30 bans |

Have you thought about collecting stamps instead?

Why get personal?

Because you've moved the goalposts so often that no one actually understands what it you're arguing.

But, please continue, it's very entertaining; apparently no one has seen Lance Armstrong climb and GC riders don't attack on the flat except the ones that have

This truly is comedy gold. Keep up the botlogic. Gold. Go Sky!

 

[Parker]

Because you've moved the goalposts so often that no one actually understands what it you're arguing.

You're the one who keeps moving them, because you don't actually have any ideas of your own worth airing - just the trolling and wind ups. It's all you're capable of.

But, please continue, it's very entertaining; apparently no one has seen Lance Armstrong climb and GC riders don't attack on the flat except the ones that have

Hoglogic, on the other hand, states that Richie Porte is as good as Armstrong was and sprinters stages are key GC opportunities.

 

[thehog]

Hoglogic, on the other hand, states that Richie Porte (best Tour position 19th) is as good as Armstrong was and sprinters stages are key GC opportunities.

Sorry, never compared Porte final GC to Armstrong. You're simply making stuff up again in a vain attempt to gain some standing after your day of misfires and missteps.

Don't worry too much. Tomorrow is another day. You can make some more things up and move the goalposts a few more times

GC riders don't attack when the road is flat! LOL! loving it. Botlogic

 

[MarkvW]

Sorry ParkerBot, never compared Porte final GC to Armstrong. You're simply making stuff up again in a vain attempt to gain some standing after your day of misfires and missteps.

Don't worry too much. Tomorrow is another day. You can make some more things up and move the goalposts a few more times

GC riders don't attack when the road is flat! LOL! loving it. Botlogic

Sometimes they attack, as Contador once learned to his irritation.

 

[sittingbison]

Okey doke gentle(wo)men,
can we please get back to the subject matter...I think its Sky?

Ahhh, here it is, the OP:

Does anyone apart from me think there's been something fishy about this team for a while now? Today's performance in Dauphiné reminded me of the bygone days of Lance's teammates at the Tour, when all of them (except he, of course) were doped to the gills ....No offence intended.

and I have bolded a pertinent element of the OP

cheers
bison

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Sometimes they attack, as Contador once learned to his irritation.

One can't make simple statements that are consistent with every race in history, but Parker's claim that "GC contenders don't attack on flat stages" doesn't seem a bad generalisation for the current era.

And in terms of the physiological implications, "GC contender attacks" on the flat (particularly in crosswinds) are generally implemented by riders other than the GC contender and are more an issue of tactics/timing than energy expenditure. I doubt, for example, that Lance worked any harder on the road to Grande Motte than Berto did just because he was "attacking". (In fact, he probably had an easier ride, as HTC were helping to drive the lead bunch for their own reasons.)

 

[LaFlorecita]

Did you see Contador in the final kms of the first couple of flat stages last year? Do you think that was easy?

Yeah he was pushing it really hard. Had to give it all to keep up with monster Toso

Berto did attack once in what was supposed to be a sprint stage and gained a handful of seconds at the 2011 Giro. But it was on a little (emphasis on little) climb

 

[TheSpud]

I think possibly what Parker should have said is "in general a GC contender isn't going to attack on a flat stage, except perhaps cobbles or if echelons happen". That would have prevented the word for word analysis that we have just been through, although I understood what he was getting at.

 

[Hawkwood]

Yes, he did. It was in 1995, though, the stage to Liege. Bruyneel tagged along for the ride, and Bjarne Riis fought for dear life in Yellow in the peloton. I think there were something like 30 riders or so left in the shattered peloton at the finish line. The ITT was the day after, as you mention, BYOP88, the stage where Riis suddenly discovered he could time trial, and almost beat Big Mig. Hilarious!

You're right it was hilarious, the bunch and reporters went wtf this isn't in the script. When the bunch finally got organised it still couldn't hold Indurain. Afterwards Bruyneel said it had been like sitting behind a motorbike. Indurain had taken lots of stick for never attacking, well when he did it was certainly worth waiting for.

 

[Benotti69]

thought this was relevant to this thread...

taken from member suspensions thread..

First of all for the bilharzia. So if, as you think, he is lying about it all (as opposed to bad reporting) - what does that show? It doesn't excuse anything. Just bad form, which doesn't need an excuse.

'bad reporting' as you call it, works both ways. When Walsh say they are clean because they wash hands, dont eat nutella, take their own pillows, put pineapple juice in their water bidons, that is bad reporting.

But we live in an age where communication has never been easier for people and Froome can put the story straight on his own time line, but he hasn't. He could tell us his Vo2max, but he doesn't.

Where's this strong evidence then. Leinders is decent evidence but getting weaker by the day.

The hiring of a known doping doctor is never going to get weaker by the day. If and I believe he was hired for doping, he worked for Sky doping riders, that evidence does not get weaker by the day. Absolute bollix and obfuscation on your part.

This is the sport of cycling, it is known that the culture of the sport is doping. For that to change there needs to be a monumental shift in the sport and we have not seen that. That Astana got caught by the police invetigators in Italy using Ferrari shows that those who run this sport have no interest in changing this culture. So ask yourself did Sky really win 2 TdFs on pineapple juice in their bidons, washing hands, a nutella ban and with a swimming coach beating doping teams.....if you really believe that then goodluck, but trying to convince people of a sound disposition that Sky reinvented the wheel is for the birds......and trolling of course.

 

[thehog]

I think possibly what Parker should have said is "in general a GC contender isn't going to attack on a flat stage, except perhaps cobbles or if echelons happen". That would have prevented the word for word analysis that we have just been through, although I understood what he was getting at.

Parker pobably should just cut his losses. Besides he was really only following what TWH started. TWH was slippery enough to slide out the back door early and not continue the conversation. Parker was left holding the baby and persisted blindly.

So why are we here? Because some were trying to justify a Wiggins Tour victory over 3000km on varying terrain wasn't much different from a winning a pursuit over 4000m on a track.

Laughable.

 

[grizzlee]

Parker pobably should just cut his losses. Besides he was really only following what TWH started. TWH was slippery enough to slide out the back door early and not continue the conversation. Parker was left holding the baby and persisted blindly.

So why are we here? Because some were trying to justify a Wiggins Tour victory over 3000km on varying terrain wasn't much different from a winning a pursuit over 4000m on a track.

Laughable.

You sir are just a

TROLL

I was gonna use a different word to describe you but your not worth it and I didn't fancy getting banned, At least some of you collegues can come up with some valid points in a discussion. You on the other hand are just a troll with no valid points of your own, you just agree with all your mates and slag off other people for having an opinion

 

[veganrob]

Parker pobably should just cut his losses. Besides he was really only following what TWH started. TWH was slippery enough to slide out the back door early and not continue the conversation. Parker was left holding the baby and persisted blindly.

So why are we here? Because some were trying to justify a Wiggins Tour victory over 3000km on varying terrain wasn't much different from a winning a pursuit over 4000m on a track.

Laughable.

Or even riding to get an ice cream cone. Provided its not too hilly.

 

[MarkvW]

One can't make simple statements that are consistent with every race in history, but Parker's claim that "GC contenders don't attack on flat stages" doesn't seem a bad generalisation for the current era.

And in terms of the physiological implications, "GC contender attacks" on the flat (particularly in crosswinds) are generally implemented by riders other than the GC contender and are more an issue of tactics/timing than energy expenditure. I doubt, for example, that Lance worked any harder on the road to Grande Motte than Berto did just because he was "attacking". (In fact, he probably had an easier ride, as HTC were helping to drive the lead bunch for their own reasons.)

Yeah. I think you can probably say that GC contenders almost never 'attack the race' on a flat stage, but occasionally they will 'attack contenders' who are positionally disadvantaged.

 

[Benotti69]

Former Sky Doctor who transformed SkyTeam domestique to TdF winner is handed a lifetime ban from sport.

 

[D-Queued]

Former Sky Doctor who transformed SkyTeam domestique to TdF winner is handed a lifetime ban from sport.

The fanbots haven't caught up with this news yet.

It is, however, an irreconcilable smoking gun.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

The fanbots haven't caught up with this news yet.

It is, however, an irreconcilable smoking gun.

Dave.

I believe the Bot line is that Brailsford made a innocent mistake. Because DB terminated Leinders as soon found out about this notorious past in line with ZTP.

According to Walsh's book...

 

[Benotti69]

This is a crazy decision, I mean why and how can they ban a guy for weighing riders in the morning and saddle sores?? Doesn't make sense..................

 

[D-Queued]

I believe the Bot line is that Brailsford made a innocent mistake. Because DB terminated Leinders as soon found out about this notorious past in line with ZTP.

According to Walsh's book...

If we knew about Leinders, then how on earth could Brailsford ever get away with that?

Not knowing = not knowing anything anything about your area of claimed expertise (pro cycling) and not being qualified to make statements about anti doping.

If one claims to be following a certain strategy, then one is expected to implement the most basic elements to stand behind that claim.

The most obvious are: 1. Don't hire actively doping dopers. 2. Don't hire actively doping doctors.

Casual doping doctors are one thing, but aggressive, widely known doping doctors with known pedigrees another.

Can it be any more obvious?

Shouldn't be so hard.

If the actions and the words are inconsistent, then the proposed strategy is merely a smokescreen as implemented against the real strategy.

If one hires actively doping dopers and doctors, then it is obvious that the strategy is doping. that being supported by results when you scoop up all the hardware at all the races with folks that couldn't previously succeed at anything longer than 4 km races around a flat and smooth oval.

If the real strategy is doping, then it is fully consistent that the public be fed horse manure to hide the real strategy.

Dave.

 

[bobbins]

There's only one reason a team hires a doctor like Leinders.

It isn't rocket science to work out why.

 

[D-Queued]

There's only one reason a team hires a doctor like Leinders.

It isn't rocket science to work out why.

Once upon a time in a Sky Boardroom...

"Gosh, we need someone!"

"Ferrari?"

"I hear he's making a comeback, but the wagons are circling and its just a matter of time before his orange juice stand is permanently closed."

"Ok, how about Fuentes?"

"I like him, but might be a little too obvious especially with the Puerto trial underway and Operacion Gaigo coming to light. Maybe we can go after him in a couple of years, though, when these stories die down a bit."

"Del Moral?"

"No. That damn JV went and made everyone aware of his services. JV has no idea how to run a real anti-anti-doping team."

"Leinders?"

"Ah, that's the ticket!! Get him on the phone. Is he available?"

Dave.

 

[thehog]

There's only one reason a team hires a doctor like Leinders.

It isn't rocket science to work out why.

It was a masterstroke by putting him on the books as a “consultant” as it didn’t look like a nefarious Ferrari secret payment. Good guy to have on the team and not really at races.

 

[Benotti69]

It was a masterstroke by putting him on the books as a “consultant” as it didn’t look like a nefarious Ferrari secret payment. Good guy to have on the team and not really at races.

What should we call Geert?

Team Doctor? No

Team Gynacologist? No

Team Consultant? yes perfect!