Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[IndianCyclist]

Re:

Col de la Madone

Richie Porte 29:40
Chris Froome 30:09
Tom Danielson 30:24
Lance Armstrong 30:45
Tony Rominger 31:30
Tyler Hamilton 32:32
Sky = Doping.

I suspect the times posted by the known dopers are unlikely to be heavily doped times as heavy doping would be specifically during the race.

 

[TheSpud]

Re:

Self reported training test times

And did they have the same start / end points? The end point I guess is easy - its the top. But where to start from, and how do we know they are started from the same point. Were they standing starts or were they going full pelt as they crossed it?

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

They "weren't insiders", and were totally in the dark as to who doped, but yet these very same people within 2 years were coming up with revolutionary training methods and equipment adjustments that those who have dedicated their life to the sport, still haven't figured out.

Makes sense.

So there were absolutely no gains to be made in areas that didn't involve sticking a needle in a vein?

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

Col de la Madone

Richie Porte 29:40
Chris Froome 30:09
Tom Danielson 30:24
Lance Armstrong 30:45
Tony Rominger 31:30
Tyler Hamilton 32:32
Sky = Doping.

I suspect the times posted by the known dopers are unlikely to be heavily doped times as heavy doping would be specifically during the race.

https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily/sta ... 4708254720

And he was almost 3 minutes slower than Porte...

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re: Re:

Self reported training test times

And did they have the same start / end points? The end point I guess is easy - its the top. But where to start from, and how do we know they are started from the same point. Were they standing starts or were they going full pelt as they crossed it?

No-one knows if the answers are consistent for everyone on the list.

In the end such self reported figures are about as trustworthy* as comments riders make about their own weight and power.

*ie not very.

 

[happychappy]

Re: Re:

Col de la Madone

Richie Porte 29:40
Chris Froome 30:09
Tom Danielson 30:24
Lance Armstrong 30:45
Tony Rominger 31:30
Tyler Hamilton 32:32
Sky = Doping.

I suspect the times posted by the known dopers are unlikely to be heavily doped times as heavy doping would be specifically during the race.

The more you dope during training the more training you can do. The more training you do the faster you go. The more dope you do the faster you can recover to do more training. Are we learning yet?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Col de la Madone

Richie Porte 29:40
Chris Froome 30:09
Tom Danielson 30:24
Lance Armstrong 30:45
Tony Rominger 31:30
Tyler Hamilton 32:32
Sky = Doping.

I suspect the times posted by the known dopers are unlikely to be heavily doped times as heavy doping would be specifically during the race.

Lets just deflect

Doesn't matter when it was acheieved. It points to doping. End of. Not allowed dope while training for races or during races. End of. So it points to doping. Get it. Doping.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

They "weren't insiders", and were totally in the dark as to who doped, but yet these very same people within 2 years were coming up with revolutionary training methods and equipment adjustments that those who have dedicated their life to the sport, still haven't figured out.

Makes sense.

So there were absolutely no gains to be made in areas that didn't involve sticking a needle in a vein?

Well that's a trolling strawman, but if there were, the best people to exploit them probably weren't the same guys who this morning you were claiming knew nothing about the sport.

In either case, if we go down the route of whether sky were able to use more advanced training techniques, you'll quite quickly find yourself hitting the wall that is more educated posters showing you links of teams and athletes using sky's "new training" techniques decades earlier. At which point you will disappear from the discussion, and reenter at some other point to poke more small meaningless holes in minor arguments while ignoring the big ones.
And the whole circle will start again.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

They "weren't insiders", and were totally in the dark as to who doped, but yet these very same people within 2 years were coming up with revolutionary training methods and equipment adjustments that those who have dedicated their life to the sport, still haven't figured out.

Makes sense.

So there were absolutely no gains to be made in areas that didn't involve sticking a needle in a vein?

Well that's a trolling strawman, but if there were, the best people to exploit them probably weren't the same guys who this morning you were claiming knew nothing about the sport.

In either case, if we go down the route of whether sky were able to use more advanced training techniques, you'll quite quickly find yourself hitting the wall that is more educated posters showing you links of teams and athletes using sky's "new training" techniques decades earlier. At which point you will disappear from the discussion, and reenter at some other point to poke more small meaningless holes in minor arguments while ignoring the big ones.
And the whole circle will start again.

They "weren't insiders", and were totally in the dark as to who doped, but yet these very same people within 2 years were coming up with revolutionary training methods and equipment adjustments that those who have dedicated their life to the sport, still haven't figured out.

Makes sense.

So there were absolutely no gains to be made in areas that didn't involve sticking a needle in a vein?

Well that's a trolling strawman, but if there were, the best people to exploit them probably weren't the same guys who this morning you were claiming knew nothing about the sport.

In either case, if we go down the route of whether sky were able to use more advanced training techniques, you'll quite quickly find yourself hitting the wall that is more educated posters showing you links of teams and athletes using sky's "new training" techniques decades earlier. At which point you will disappear from the discussion, and reenter at some other point to poke more small meaningless holes in minor arguments while ignoring the big ones.
And the whole circle will start again.

I didn't say they knew nothing about the sport at all, I said that DB could claim that what they may have been up to wasn't fully in the public domain. Even the great wise Clinic posters knew Jack about Leinders when he was hired by SKY.

But I digress - I never claimed anything about SKYs training, I merely asked whether there were no other gains to be made elsewhere.

 

[skippythepinhead]

I like this "foes" list now. If I wanted to read about the non-dopers on Sky, I'd check out the Froome and Porte threads elsewhere, thanks. Here are a couple of links to get you started:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=18293&start=3980

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=20368&start=560

 

[D-Queued]

Re: Re:

Spud, stop trolling. We're here to explain two of the most fantastic transformations the world of sport has ever seen, and at least one (2015 included: two) years of USPS-like team dominance.
Your theory seems born out of complete ignorance of the (recent as well as more remote) history of cycling.

...
I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were using cortisone as a weight loss substance OOC as many have claimed.

would you be surprised if Sky were microdosing EPO and using illegal weight loss drugs other than OOC cortisone?
yes or no will do.

Yes

Whoa! I'm surprised by that.

Col de la Madone

Richie Porte 29:40
Chris Froome 30:09
Tom Danielson 30:24
Lance Armstrong 30:45
Tony Rominger 31:30
Tyler Hamilton 32:32

So 2 Sky riders have beaten doped times up the madone, on supposedly marginal gains and people believe this?

Times are supposed to be slower, or did UCI forget to send out JVs memo to teams..

Sky = Doping.

Any context? Are these all TT times? A mix? stage 1(?) of a three week tour? etc.

Context?

Yes.

You've heard of marginal gains, correct?

You've also heard of climate change, correct?

Please allow me to introduce you to gravitational shift!


Oooooh!


Only one of the above has any substance or reality.

Unfortunately, it is the other two that we can expect to be claimed as responsible for these performances. The truthful explanation not even being on the list in the first place.

Dave.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

But I digress - I never claimed anything about SKYs training, I merely asked whether there were no other gains to be made elsewhere.

You digress a lot.

That sports scientists have not been working on gains since Merckx's time and we are expected to believe a swimming coach and pushing every little gain has added up to massive transformations that enables gruppetto fodder and a half decent rider to obliterate the times of big time epo abusers?

Context. Fastest time up Madone = big time doping.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Col de la Madone

Richie Porte 29:40
Chris Froome 30:09
Tom Danielson 30:24
Lance Armstrong 30:45
Tony Rominger 31:30
Tyler Hamilton 32:32

So 2 Sky riders have beaten doped times up the madone, on supposedly marginal gains and people believe this?

Times are supposed to be slower, or did UCI forget to send out JVs memo to teams..

Sky = Doping.

Any context? Are these all TT times? A mix? stage 1(?) of a three week tour? etc.

Context?

Yes.

You've heard of marginal gains, correct?

You've also heard of climate change, correct?

Please allow me to introduce you to gravitational shift!


Oooooh!


Only one of the above has any substance or reality.

Unfortunately, it is the other two that we can expect to be claimed as responsible for these performances. The truthful explanation not even being on the list in the first place.

Dave.

So you're saying they had a tailwind?

 

[robertmooreheadlane]

Re: Re:

"Clearly I don't have a copy of his contract, but I do know something about employment law. I would assume he would have to be in breach of contract or guilty of gross misconduct for his contract to be terminated, and there would need to be a process of investigatory meetings, disciplinary meetings and possibly employment tribunals if he contests the termination. You can also manage people out of jobs i.e. give them various warnings/performance reviews/targets until they either quit or you have good reason to fire them"

Of course you are assuming that the employment contract is based upon some type of english employment law.

And here is another area where your argument falls apart as you say yourself that you haven't seen the contract and so can't assume anything.
It could be an "At will" contract which would give either side the ability to terminate for any reason at a weeks notice.

You are trying to make arguments about something you know nothing about obviously - it is an international team with a large corporation backing it and it will do as it pleases when it pleases because it knows it's lawyers are better and more expensive than anyone else and will win.

I have worked for these type of organisations my whole career 25 years of it and they are all the same.

Equally in these organisations the only currency is success and you do whatever it takes to get it.

Any thought that the SKY brand would not employ whatever methods needed to get the job done whether legal or not are rather naive, this is the same corporate entity that owned the News of the World - remember the newspaper that was apparently willing to tap into dead peoples phones for a news story!!!!
Yeah that makes me think of a really up standing and wonderful organisation.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Why would anyone brag about a climbingtime on a climb used to measure performances by carreer megadopers? Just to troll?

Nah, Ax3 Domaines and Ventoux say hi.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

Spud, stop trolling. We're here to explain two of the most fantastic transformations the world of sport has ever seen, and at least one (2015 included: two) years of USPS-like team dominance.
Your theory seems born out of complete ignorance of the (recent as well as more remote) history of cycling.

...
I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were using cortisone as a weight loss substance OOC as many have claimed.

would you be surprised if Sky were microdosing EPO and using illegal weight loss drugs other than OOC cortisone?
yes or no will do.

Yes

Whoa! I'm surprised by that.

I'm not saying they aren't chemically enhanced, just not the run of the mill / old school stuff. As I said earlier, my view is that they are doing whatever isn't ruled out and pushing the boundaries. Maybe in the past that was Tramadol (not illegal), Xenon gas (dubious) or similar, Telmisartan? (not illegal I believe).

The quote from Sutton that people talk about was "not illegal but unethical" or words to that effect - that is a big grey area.

My view is that they will do anything / everything that isn't illegal to get a performance gain. Now, in some peoples minds they may think that is clean and in others they may not - fair enough.

And what happened in 2010/11? Well, again my view is that they tried 'pan y agua' (or similar) and were someway behind. At this stage (and go with me on assuming they want to complete "clean") I believe DB could have thrown the towel in and just said "We cant do it, the sport is too broken" or, they decide to really push the envelope (either that's an independent decision or knowledgeable people they know / who are on the team say it could be possible, maybe due to ABP limiting others?).

If they are to push it to the limits they need experience in what is going on (both legal and illegal). But what about ZTP? Well, it was there (the sponsors want it, etc.), so, they need to recruit someone to the medical team who hadn't hit the headlines fully (no public scandal, no charges, etc.) but who may be at the cutting edge. No-one associated with Ferrari or Fuentes can be used. Cue Leinders (perhaps). Tell him the brief - "design a medical program that will give us the boost but is within the rules. If there is a whiff of a dodgy past - you're out. If you dope the riders - you're out". Who better than an experienced doctor to know what is / isn't allowed? A bit like employing a hacker to secure your corporate computer network. Why take the risk with known illegal drugs that could at any time be caught in a slip up?

It is entirely consistent with DB being shifty about things, and also not being transparent. After all, do you really expect him to come out and say "we're jacking the guys up on cortisone to lose weight"?

Now - is that a direction we want the sport (any sport) to go in, I would have said not, but at the moment that is the way the rules are. I have 2 kids who are sporty and I woundn't want that situation for them.

I saw a post last week (or before) from Sniper (I think) that said instead of a banned list, why not have an allowed list. That to me makes perfect sense. Then, the definition of doping (in my view) would be easier.

That is my position / opinion.

 

[TheSpud]

Re:

Why would anyone brag about a climbingtime on a climb used to measure performances by carreer megadopers? Just to troll?

Nah, Ax3 Domaines and Ventoux say hi.

Who knows for sure, but as I have said before - generally they are not the sharpest knives in the block ...

 

[The Hitch]

No. Because a little bit of cortisone wouldn't turn two riders who struggled their whole careers to break into the world top 400 to overnight lose around 1/8th of their entire weight and turn into armstrongesque superhulks who out climb and out tt the fastest doped times in recent history, then wake up the next day and do it over again.

That together with about 3 dozen other things mentioned routinely on the forum explains why "they grey are a few puffs of a weak steroid that's legal in many sports and would give a tiny advantage", that would account for a few seconds of the minutes froome was putting into his competitors in 2013 on single stages, is not a valid explanation for sky's dominance.

Besides, you said this forum is worthless and only trolls participate, why do you keep coming back here to say "I believe they are grey area doping" if all the readers are worthless to you anyway. You've already said that a hundred times and you haven't provided a shred of evidence or argument to back it up besides "cos I think db is a good guy". We are all worthless idiots and none of us care what you claim to think if you just repeat it without argument anyway so I don't see what reposting that in every discussion is meant to achieve.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

It is entirely consistent with DB being shifty about things, and also not being transparent. After all, do you really expect him to come out and say "we're jacking the guys up on cortisone to lose weight"?

So DB is shifty in a sport that is a cesspit. And some want us to believe that Sky being shifty is not ethical but not illegal. Yet they wont release Froome's Vo2max or they tell us he has never being tested!

A shifty team in cycling is not a clean team. They proved that by hiring Leinders. Telling Leinders to develop a clean program that can beat doped programs of Ferrari, Ibauguren and the likes of Fuentes! Do peope really think that Leinders who is known for doping riders was able to find a program in a few months that turned Froome from nowhere to podium. PULEEEEAAAASSSSE. Take your head out of your behind.

FFS. What utter utter utter stupidity that people really want to believe their so called 'heroes' can do it clean. Go find some real heroes in life to believe in, not available in professional sport.

 

[TheSpud]

Re:

No. Because a little bit of cortisone wouldn't turn two riders who struggled their whole careers to break into the world top 400 to overnight lose around 1/8th of their entire weight and turn into armstrongesque superhulks who out climb and out tt the fastest doped times in recent history, then wake up the next day and do it over again.

That together with about 3 dozen other things mentioned routinely on the forum explains why "they grey are a few puffs of a weak steroid that's legal in many sports and would give a tiny advantage", that would account for a few seconds of the minutes froome was putting into his competitors in 2013 on single stages, is not a valid explanation for sky's dominance.

Besides, you said this forum is worthless and only trolls participate, why do you keep coming back here to say "I believe they are grey area doping" if all the readers are worthless to you anyway. You've already said that a hundred times and you haven't provided a shred of evidence or argument to back it up besides "cos I think db is a good guy". We are all worthless idiots and none of us care what you claim to think if you just repeat it without argument anyway so I don't see what reposting that in every discussion is meant to achieve.

Ok, so how did Hamilton lose so much weight whilst maintaining power - look at that awful picture? I don't remember reading about AICAR (or similar) in his book /confession? EPO for harder training, but AICAR? No. If so - what page?

And, if you note, I mention Telmisartan - long suspected of being used for weight loss but not illegal. I'm sure there are many others. Many times people have said it isn't possible to lose weight and maintain power unless AICAR or similar was being used. Well, Tyler never used it. And the CIRC report quotes a situation where Cortisone was used. So - two examples.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

It is entirely consistent with DB being shifty about things, and also not being transparent. After all, do you really expect him to come out and say "we're jacking the guys up on cortisone to lose weight"?

So DB is shifty in a sport that is a cesspit. And some want us to believe that Sky being shifty is not ethical but not illegal. Yet they wont release Froome's Vo2max or they tell us he has never being tested!

A shifty team in cycling is not a clean team. They proved that by hiring Leinders. Telling Leinders to develop a clean program that can beat doped programs of Ferrari, Ibauguren and the likes of Fuentes! Do peope really think that Leinders who is known for doping riders was able to find a program in a few months that turned Froome from nowhere to podium. PULEEEEAAAASSSSE. Take your head out of your behind.

FFS. What utter utter utter stupidity that people really want to believe their so called 'heroes' can do it clean. Go find some real heroes in life to believe in, not available in professional sport.

So the usual shout shout shout response rather than wanting to discuss.

Why shouldn't someone that on here has been described as one of the best dopers be able to devise a clean (but grey) program in 2010/11? After all, the rules changed in 2008 (ok, I'm not claiming it was stopped) but it makes older methods (potentially) worth revisiting. 1980s US cycling team - transfusions. 1990s cycling - EPO. 2000s cycling - transfusions. What about other / newer drugs / methods that aren't "illegal"? And when you say 'clean' are you thinking 'pan y agua' or not being illegal? There is a big difference in my view.

 

[D-Queued]

Re: Re:

...

So you're saying they had a tailwind?

Yup, that must be the answer!

...and if it was produced by multiple Harriers, because even 'copter wash wouldn't be enough...

Dave.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

...

So you're saying they had a tailwind?

Yup, that must be the answer!

...and if it was produced by multiple Harriers, because even 'copter wash wouldn't be enough...

Dave.

Parsnips and cabbage ...

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

No. Because a little bit of cortisone wouldn't turn two riders who struggled their whole careers to break into the world top 400 to overnight lose around 1/8th of their entire weight and turn into armstrongesque superhulks who out climb and out tt the fastest doped times in recent history, then wake up the next day and do it over again.

That together with about 3 dozen other things mentioned routinely on the forum explains why "they grey are a few puffs of a weak steroid that's legal in many sports and would give a tiny advantage", that would account for a few seconds of the minutes froome was putting into his competitors in 2013 on single stages, is not a valid explanation for sky's dominance.

Besides, you said this forum is worthless and only trolls participate, why do you keep coming back here to say "I believe they are grey area doping" if all the readers are worthless to you anyway. You've already said that a hundred times and you haven't provided a shred of evidence or argument to back it up besides "cos I think db is a good guy". We are all worthless idiots and none of us care what you claim to think if you just repeat it without argument anyway so I don't see what reposting that in every discussion is meant to achieve.

Ok, so how did Hamilton lose so much weight whilst maintaining power - look at that awful picture? I don't remember reading about AICAR (or similar) in his book /confession? EPO for harder training, but AICAR? No. If so - what page?

And, if you note, I mention Telmisartan - long suspected of being used for weight loss but not illegal. I'm sure there are many others. Many times people have said it isn't possible to lose weight and maintain power unless AICAR or similar was being used. Well, Tyler never used it. And the CIRC report quotes a situation where Cortisone was used. So - two examples.

who's paying you? hope he pays well.

so Tyler used EPO...
still didn't come close to Froome's clean time up the Madone.
ow, and Tyler as a matter of fact doped with cortisone (wasn't just using it OOC). Broke the rules.
still didn't loose 7kg like Wiggins did in 09.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

who's paying you? hope he pays well.

so Tyler used EPO...
still didn't come close to Froome's clean time up the Madone.
ow, and Tyler as a matter of fact doped with cortisone (wasn't just using it OOC). Broke the rules.
still didn't loose 7kg like Wiggins did in 09.

Firstly, no-one is paying me.
Secondly, Tyler doing IC cortisone is irrelevant. If not, please show why.
Thirdly, For the weight loss - Tyler probably wasn't as over-heavy as Wiggins as he had not been a track rider.
Fourthly, the Madone times are all BS as we don't know who started / finished where - they were all self reported. Basically worthless as a comparison.