Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[The Hitch]

incredible how history repeats.

the pro sky journos don't even seem to be capable of basic writing.

In this country ****ing 10 years olds fail their exam if they aren't able to use P.E.E properly - point evidence explain.

**** like this would fail

He was the first manager in cycling to look at each and every area of performance in order to gain an advantage for his athletes over their rivals, and he transferred these methods to Team Sky with similar success.

Statement that Brailsford was the first manager to look at each area of performance. Total lack of explanation or evidence or research. Just making stuff up without the slightest clue in the world as if its true and passing it off as fact in newspapers.

 

[ebandit]

snipe

In this country ****ing 10 years olds fail their exam if they aren't able to use P.E.E properly - point evidence explain.

**** like this would fail

OP coulda done that instead of posting unrelated statements and sitting

back in awe at their clever post

Mark L

 

[wrinklyvet]

incredible how history repeats.

Many of the arguments (if you could call them that) on this forum proceed as variants of this:

If A is true, then B is true.
A is false.
Therefore, B is false.

That's a non sequitur folks! Congratulations.

Very often even part of that series is left out, to leave:

A is false.
Therefore, B is false.

 

[the sceptic]

the pro sky journos don't even seem to be capable of basic writing.

In this country ****ing 10 years olds fail their exam if they aren't able to use P.E.E properly - point evidence explain.

**** like this would fail

Statement that Brailsford was the first manager to look at each area of performance. Total lack of explanation or evidence or research. Just making stuff up without the slightest clue in the world as if its true and passing it off as fact in newspapers.

I've literally never seen an article questioning anything about Brailsford or marginal gains in british media. Just an endless stream of fanboys fawning over the Great Leader. Surely it can't be that hard to do a tiny bit of independent thinking or opening google? Just goes to show that these "journalists" are only interested in writing about the agenda fed to them by Sky.

I also love the irony of bots coming to this forum to whine about lack of evidence, when they themselves have no problem accepting this kind of garbage which is of course based on no evidence at all.

 

[sniper]

I've literally never seen an article questioning anything about Brailsford or marginal gains in british media. Just an endless stream of fanboys fawning over the Great Leader. Surely it can't be that hard to do a tiny bit of independent thinking or opening google? Just goes to show that these "journalists" are only interested in writing about the agenda fed to them by Sky.

I also love the irony of bots coming to this forum to whine about lack of evidence, when they themselves have no problem accepting this kind of garbage which is of course based on no evidence at all.

true points.

the astonishing thing for me is that, after the USADA revelations, there was a brief moment of self reflection in and from the press/media around the world, reporters&journos finally asking themselves if they had perhaps been a tidbit too credulous/gullible/naive (etc.) wrt the coverage of Armstrong's victories.

To now see the same press uncritically pick up the exact same talking points (marginal gains -- obsessive attention to detail -- the first to do this and that -- other teams wanting to copy them), only replacing USPS for Sky, that beggars belief.

 

[Electress]

I've literally never seen an article questioning anything about Brailsford or marginal gains in british media. Just an endless stream of fanboys fawning over the Great Leader. Surely it can't be that hard to do a tiny bit of independent thinking or opening google? Just goes to show that these "journalists" are only interested in writing about the agenda fed to them by Sky.

It's because - for now at least - 'we' want to BELIEVE. Gives us all a warm glow to think 'we've' single-handedly cleaned up and revolutionised the whole sport. But build 'em up and tear 'em down is a long established model in the UK media, so it'll be interesting to see if it does change in due course...

I wouldn't mind so much (though I hate the soul-destroying relentless micro-management approach with a passion) but at the same time as bigging up Sky, the media cannot seem to write an article about any other team which doesn't allude in some way to cheating or doping. The wilful blindness combined with the relentless cynicism about everyone else is just a tad galling. Consistency and at least an attempt at detachment would sit better with me.

 

[Ethics|Gradient]

I've literally never seen an article questioning anything about Brailsford or marginal gains in british media. Just an endless stream of fanboys fawning over the Great Leader. Surely it can't be that hard to do a tiny bit of independent thinking or opening google? Just goes to show that these "journalists" are only interested in writing about the agenda fed to them by Sky.

I also love the irony of bots coming to this forum to whine about lack of evidence, when they themselves have no problem accepting this kind of garbage which is of course based on no evidence at all.

Not to quibble, but I've studied the form fairly closely and don't see much irony. Perhaps you would share some recent (last 12 months) links? But not to worry, even the greatest investigative journalist of his generation has his blind spots:

'FORGET logic, forget reason and most of all, forget the presumption that one is innocent until proven guilty; the fact that not one shred of evidence existed did little to deter those determined to find a good story.'

 

[the sceptic]

Not to quibble, but I've studied the form fairly closely and don't see much irony. Perhaps you would share some recent (last 12 months) links? But not to worry, even the greatest investigative journalist of his generation has his blind spots:

links to what? your other accounts?

 

[gillan1969]

It's because - for now at least - 'we' want to BELIEVE. Gives us all a warm glow to think 'we've' single-handedly cleaned up and revolutionised the whole sport. But build 'em up and tear 'em down is a long established model in the UK media, so it'll be interesting to see if it does change in due course...

I wouldn't mind so much (though I hate the soul-destroying relentless micro-management approach with a passion) but at the same time as bigging up Sky, the media cannot seem to write an article about any other team which doesn't allude in some way to cheating or doping. The wilful blindness combined with the relentless cynicism about everyone else is just a tad galling. Consistency and at least an attempt at detachment would sit better with me.

i wouldn't mind so much if they had employed Nibali or Contador or a 'proper cyclist'...with Froome however they are taking the pi**, rubbing our noses in it, and making us drink it...before repeating the process every time he puts his spindly legs over a bicycle and sticks his spindly elbows out...wiggins of course being another slightly different story....

 

[Ethics|Gradient]

links to what? your other accounts?

Login sucks, eh? Got links to the bots wot botter you so much?

At the time of the supposed scoop, other details were in the domain of the media but conveniently played down. Lance Armstrong's urine sample did contain traces of corticoids, but their presence at one thirtieth of the level required to provide a positive test hardly suggested premeditated doping.

 

[pastronef]

i wouldn't mind so much if they had employed Nibali or Contador or a 'proper cyclist'...with Froome however they are taking the pi**, rubbing our noses in it, and making us drink it...before repeating the process every time he puts his spindly legs over a bicycle and sticks his spindly elbows out...wiggins of course being another slightly different story....

proper cyclist?

 

[TheSpud]

Login sucks, eh? Got links to the bots wot botter you so much?

Its the usual Sceptic post. New = sockpuppet.

 

[the sceptic]

Login sucks, eh? Got links to the bots wot botter you so much?

Maybe you should read this thread. It's all here.

Surely you must see the irony here? Even for a brand new poster like yourself?

If someone says sky are doping, skyfans will get very upset and demand evidence. You simply cannot make such an outrageous claim without a mountain of evidence to back it up with.

However, these same people will have absolutely no problem with believing everything Brailsford says, even though of course there is much less evidence backing up his hallucinations than sky doping.

It's beautiful.

 

[sniper]

good article pointing out the media's complicity in the Lance fraud.
http://www.newstatesman.com/lifesty...-affair-are-writers-and-riders-who-first-spok

Consider the role of the mainstream media in the great Armstrong deception. Most cycling journalists knew it was highly unlikely that Armstrong could have raced at that level without drugs. Not only did the vast majority remain silent, they actively froze out the few writers ? such as David Walsh and Paul Kimmage ? who were brave enough to fight the Armstrong conspiracy.

It is an indictment of so-called expertise. The writers who were supposed to know more about cycling than anyone else in the world were unable to write what they must have known to be the truth.

It is ironic that the insights of ?insiders? are valued more than ever. And yet it is obvious that insiders find it difficult to write stories that might lead them to being excluded from the system of patronage and leaks that oils the wheels of daily journalism.

The real losers in this game are the clean riders and the writers who contradict the mood of the moment

seems remarkably little has changed.
arguably it has gotten worse.

 

[the sceptic]

good article pointing out the media's complicity in the Lance fraud.
http://www.newstatesman.com/lifesty...-affair-are-writers-and-riders-who-first-spok









seems remarkably little has changed.
arguably it has gotten worse.

Well, the UK have very powerful laws to protect rich and influential people from getting their lies exposed, so I would guess it's very hard for anyone in the mainstream media to even think about doing something that goes against the agenda. So if the people in power are saying sky are cleans, then that's the official truth and no one will write about anything else.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Well, the UK have very powerful laws to protect rich and influential people from getting their lies exposed, so I would guess it's very hard for anyone in the mainstream media to even think about doing something that goes against the agenda. So if the people in power are saying sky are cleans, then that's the official truth and no one will write about anything else.

That's true enough, even if it's a slightly skewed way of looking at it. No journalist, when the onus falls on him to prove that what he wrote is true wants to have only this in his armoury - "I found it on Google" or "It's all over the Clinic".

It won't do to just say, "Look at the similarities with US Postal!" History does repeat itself but the repeated version is usually a mutation of the original one, almost in the same way as viruses mutate. So recognising a real repetition (and more especially, proving it) is not that easy.

As a matter of fact these laws you mention are designed to protect all reputations from damage by the published written word if what is said can't be justified by one of the relevant defences against libel, though in fact you are right in a way because only the richer people can afford to litigate.

Equally, most journalists and their editors and in-house libel lawyers steer clear of accusations that can't be substantiated sufficiently to satisfy legal requirements.

Meanwhile, isn't it fun that one can play here and have no livelihood to lose by whatever speculation takes one's fancy? You are free to have and express opinions that you don't have to justify. I don't either.

That's the basic difference between life outside the internet and life in the Clinic. At least in the UK, freedom of speech is a qualified version. It's freedom under, or subject to, the law. It's not perfect but on balance it does work well enough for the majority of citizens.

I would not blame any journalist for having all that in mind. If he isn't trusting his material he can be subtle, of course, leaving some possibilities for restrained doubt, but it is naive just to wade in and accuse.

 

[sniper]

small reminder what real journalism can look like.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...attle-cyclings-drug-demons--Paul-Kimmage.html

?To spend virtually three weeks alongside him, competing directly with him for a podium place, was not something I had ever envisaged in my career, especially after he retired in 2005. It was the stuff of dreams and we began to develop a decent rapport, enjoying a gossip early in the day before the racing kicked off properly.?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kimmage-unconvinced-by-sky-and-wiggins

?If you apply the same standards to Tour winner Bradley Wiggins as to Lance Armstrong, concerning inquiries and logic, then there are similarities which are alarming.?

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...n-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx

?When asked about doping, the answers from Wiggins now sound the same as with Armstrong and Floyd.?

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/paul-...gins-attacking-messenger-sky-sports-interview

Oh, last thing Bradley, if you would like to address those issues in an interview, I'd be more than happy to sit down with you.

 

[thehog]

Well, the UK have very powerful laws to protect rich and influential people from getting their lies exposed, so I would guess it's very hard for anyone in the mainstream media to even think about doing something that goes against the agenda. So if the people in power are saying sky are cleans, then that's the official truth and no one will write about anything else.

Age old problem. Journalists are not really journalists, more so those who fill column inches. If that means ripping an article from AP, reworking it slightly to meet a deadline, then so be it. There are very few journalists whom are fortunate enough to be allowed the time to work a story.

Most get pulled into the editors office with,

"I've just spoken to the press secretary down there at Sky in Manchester. They said you can interview Wiggins on his hour attempt. They'll pay our transport and take you for dinner afterwards so make sure you say nice things about them or we won't get a invite to the corporate trip for the Tour"

Before the journalist goes down to Manchester the press secretary emails a pre-written article ready with quotes. The journalist turns up gets drunk and re-works the text without asking a single question.

Most of the time they just do a phone interview and the text is sent to them prior.

 

[gillan1969]

proper cyclist?

yes...proper cyclist

in my world froome would be whisked back in time to try and attack Hinault with his ridiculous ventoux spin fest...only to have the badger slam it it in the big ring and bludgeon past with a sideways look and growl...ahh...I can but dream..............

 

[pastronef]

yes...proper cyclist

in my world froome would be whisked back in time to try and attack Hinault with his ridiculous ventoux spin fest...only to have the badger slam it it in the big ring and bludgeon past with a sideways look and growl...ahh...I can but dream..............

this post confirms what I always said. that's not a problem of doping. that's a problem of sympathy and choosing your favourite rider.
and I am ok with that

 

[Netserk]

this post confirms what I always said. that's not a problem of doping. that's a problem of sympathy and choosing your favourite rider.
and I am ok with that

It's not possible that it is both? Some have preferences based on PRR criteria, while others' are based on clinic criteria and some with a mix?

 

[Hawkwood]

Age old problem. Journalists are not really journalists, more so those who fill column inches. If that means ripping an article from AP, reworking it slightly to meet a deadline, then so be it. There are very few journalists whom are fortunate enough to be allowed the time to work a story.

Most get pulled into the editors office with,

"I've just spoken to the press secretary down there at Sky in Manchester. They said you can interview Wiggins on his hour attempt. They'll pay our transport and take you for dinner afterwards so make sure you say nice things about them or we won't get a invite to the corporate trip for the Tour"

Before the journalist goes down to Manchester the press secretary emails a pre-written article ready with quotes. The journalist turns up gets drunk and re-works the text without asking a single question.

Most of the time they just do a phone interview and the text is sent to them prior.

A good summary. I'm extremely unfamous, however I have been interviewed by the press and TV a few times, it was amazing just how badly my views/quotes could be mangled. Pieces to camera can be heavily edited such that you're shown to be answering a question that was never put to you. And one occasion a journalist and film crew arrived to interview me 3 hours late, because they'd noticed a pub just down from where I lived!

 

[blackcat]

Age old problem. Journalists are not really journalists, more so those who fill column inches. If that means ripping an article from AP, reworking it slightly to meet a deadline, then so be it. There are very few journalists whom are fortunate enough to be allowed the time to work a story.

Most get pulled into the editors office with,

"I've just spoken to the press secretary down there at Sky in Manchester. They said you can interview Wiggins on his hour attempt. They'll pay our transport and take you for dinner afterwards so make sure you say nice things about them or we won't get a invite to the corporate trip for the Tour"

Before the journalist goes down to Manchester the press secretary emails a pre-written article ready with quotes. The journalist turns up gets drunk and re-works the text without asking a single question.

Most of the time they just do a phone interview and the text is sent to them prior.

stenographers as fans
fans as stenographers.

or, pornographers with print typeset

 

[blackcat]

It's not possible that it is both? Some have preferences based on PRR criteria, while others' are based on clinic criteria and some with a mix?

my favourite rider was ricky riccio.

mcewen was good.

cavendish was good, for his first 3 years before he started coming down on Kenny Robert Van Hummell, then I jumped in with Mrs John Murphy and started calling him Frodo and poking fun at him.

Cancellara, Vladimir Gussev until the UCI got too pis$ed at him, I liked Haussler, but he backed off. Cooke definitely Baden Cooke. With Ricky Riccio, Cookie is a boss. never really saw much in Vino. And really hate Jens Voigt cos he is a sham. Robbie Hunter, I like for challenging Popo to go the knuckle at California. big balls the saffa. And Daryl Impey, might be my favourite rider going around today. Gerro was, but I was a little disappointed that he hedged at Worlds last year and did not try and win it and just wanted to sprint for it.

 

[thehog]

Well, the UK have very powerful laws to protect rich and influential people from getting their lies exposed, so I would guess it's very hard for anyone in the mainstream media to even think about doing something that goes against the agenda. So if the people in power are saying sky are cleans, then that's the official truth and no one will write about anything else.

Not just in cycling. Many in business were happy to promote that a 10-20% year on year increase in market values were the new normal.

Whilst there's a still a good news story in Sky doing it clean, which sells copy, I don't believe anyone will be writing against them. Only on Twitter and perhaps here. The mass capitulation of Lance fans after his demise suggests they always knew they just weren't willing to admit it.

Froome is even more obvious than Armstrong. My sense is it won't take much to tip the believers into non-believers. Just needs a UCI insider to make it happen lke TUE-gate.

I'd give it one to two years.