• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1337 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

daz said:
If sky really wanted to race clean they would have fired the riders who were doping a few years ago instead of the doctors and staff who had nothing to do with it
Who do you think facilitates it? All of the staff released had either doped themselves (Yates, Julich, De Jongh etc) or had actually doped athletes (Leinders). Getting rid of the bad influences is just as important as removing the guys who won't stop cheating.

It was a shallow, token gesture from Sky (they expected to get away with it) but if other teams followed that lead then many of cycling's issues would be reduced.
 
Re: Re:

Cimber said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
Enrico Gimondi said:
‏@lancearmstrong - Clearly Froome/Porte/Sky are very strong. Too strong to be clean? Don't ask me, I have no clue.
Beautiful. At the rate Sky is going, if Lance keeps these comments up he's going to be my hero.

Wonder if Sky and Froome would have whipped USP and Lance if they were head to head today

Sky would have tested positive. The UCI were busy "growing cycling" in the U.S. They'd never do that again.
...
.....
......
http://humanrace.co.uk/news/cycling/item/851-l%E2%80%99etape-london-by-le-tour-de-france


Nah...
......
...........
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/london-bid-for-2017-tour-de-france-grand-dpart/
..
ASO enriched by Sky winning le Tour? That's crazy talk!!!
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
CJ6i4FNUsAAmSfX.jpg:large
 
Jul 4, 2015
91
0
0
Visit site
Re: Sky

dlwssonic said:
You guys should go to /r/peloton in reddit.

The amount of sky fanboys and "believers" there are toxic

Sounds like most of Reddit these days. Full of clueless people who haven't sniffed the real world or overused memes... r/peloton looks like it is 95% the former.

The PRR forum here is close enough, luckily it just has enough subtle cynicism to keep you sane.
 
Jul 17, 2011
95
0
0
Visit site
The Tour heads into the Pyrenees today, as the team prepares Froome for the inevitable doping questions he will likely face in the days ahead. Anticipating the criticism, Team Sky chose to gather data to back up their faith that the 2013 Tour champion is riding clean. The British team now believes the data files have been stolen in order to suggest Froome may be doping.

Video has been on youtube but it is now deleted. Video shows Froome and Quintana on Mont Ventoux. Froome is able to attack on his Max puls.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Visit site
Re:

Alexandre B. said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/chris-froome/11740195/Chris-Froome-suffers-from-legacy-of-Lance-Armstrong-after-classic-performance-in-first-mountain-stage.html

It was a stunning finale, but the time gaps were not that huge. Froome beat Quintana by just over a minute. Eddy Merckx won a stage by over nine minutes back in 1969.

:eek:

Clean, I tell you ,clean!!!
 
May 26, 2015
344
0
0
Visit site
No matter as much dirty and altered chimps Froome and co. can be, the fact that people glorify Eddy to this day and age, makes me feel sorry for the way better athletes that saw their path as cyclists become tainted or hold back, just because they were born on an era where people are as ignorant as they were, but more stupid.

As long as eddy has those wins, Armstrong is Mr. Tour de France.
 
Re: Sky

Cancelled said:
dlwssonic said:
You guys should go to /r/peloton in reddit.

The amount of sky fanboys and "believers" there are toxic

Sounds like most of Reddit these days. Full of clueless people who haven't sniffed the real world or overused memes... r/peloton looks like it is 95% the former.
I don't visit reddit, nor have I any interest in exploring these other forums, but from my experience on here and on twitter, the vast majority of Sky's defenders seem to come from the otherside of the spectrum, middle to old age men, all extremely nationalistic , for whom wiggos and now froomes victories "on behalf" of Great Britain, represent something far more emotional than just a guy winning a sports event and for that reason feel strongly compelled to defend it, against al logic.

Most of the younger posters, even those who support Froome, ultimately succumb to the logic.
 
Sep 14, 2011
1,980
0
0
Visit site
Re:

Singer01 said:
sky should do everything in their power to sign the yates brothers, the sudden transformation stick would suddenly become useless.

Sky don't improve decent riders though and most get considerably worse for them. Would be a stupid move for the Yates brothers to sign for them.
 
May 2, 2010
466
0
0
Visit site
Re: Sky

I saw it clear as light when I opened this thread. Today, 3 years and thousand os posts later, I can only say that the joke is still getting bigger and bigger, with no hints of ever stopping...wonder how longer it's gonna last.
 
Re:

vedrafjord said:
Anyone miss the glory days three years ago of Wiggins riding tempo at 5.7 w/kg shielded by team mates? Seems pretty believable compared to the current shenanigans.

I've always said the way Wiggins won the tour was believable.

NOTE!!! I'm not saying I necessarily believe Wiggins was clean or that specifically he could win the Tour like that. just that the WAY in which the tour was won that year seemed much more believable.
 
This will be slightly long-winded post, but here is my opinion/feeling about the Team Sky...

1) Team Sky is only a tip of the iceberg, but the roots are in British Cycling & National Cycling Centre/Manchester Velodrome.

2) National Cycling Centre (from here on NCC) was opened in 1994 to promote & develop British Track Cycling. It is state-funded, institutionalised centre with open (and likely hidden) access to co-operation with universities, medical schools etc. in a way which (maybe except Astana) no road cycling trade team can even dream about...

3) NCC understandably started with an emphasis on track cycling as many track events are PURE performance sports with no tactics adaptation to daily conditions (elements of nature) etc. included. The results started to pile up :

1996 Olympics : no medals on track (Boardman & Sciandri took medals on road, but they had nothing to do with NCC, really)
2000 Olympics : Gold for Jason Queally in 1000 m TT, 3 other medals. No yet success in more tactical events like individual sprint, madison, keirin etc.
2004 Olympics : 2 Golds thru' Sir Brad & Chris Hoy
2008 Olympics : Total domination! 7 golds out of total of 10 available on track. Every "performance event" gold to UK! Only points races and men's madison slipped away...

4) 2009 : The birth of Team Sky in a very close co-operation of British Cycling...

I am bluntly accusing that NCC is a hotbed of very advanced doping research and the natural progression has been to start with the "easiest" pure performance sports and move towards most tactical, most pricey sport (= professional road cycling).

This would also explain why it is mostly British riders who do advance to "alien"-level in Team Sky. As it is national institution, the best of "knowledge" is not to be given for your competitors. While they are teammates in Sky, they are "enemies" of British Cycling in WCs/Olympics etc. Sky has employed a lot of talented foreigners, but the only one who appears to have been given "full 5-course meal" is Richie Porte. Otoh, numerous foreign riders (EBH, Löfkvist, Gerrans, Uran, Henao, Deignan, Roche, König etc) have remained very mortal, stagnated or even plummeted off the cliff while in Sky. So it is not only a "peloton a deux vitesses", but also "team a deux vitesses".

And this separates Team Sky from almost ALL of its competition... Even the richest competitors are still private teams - only Astana has similar governmental backing. However, I also think that cutting-edge sports medicinal research is more likely to happen in UK, than in Kazakhstan.

And this leads to...

5) I don't think Team Sky are BIGGER cheats than most of their competition (although they are the most double-faced in their insistence of innocence). Frankly, yesterday Froome put a whipping for plenty of riders/teams, which have no moral qualms in using any available PEDs/methods as long as they avoid being caught. However, the rest of the teams are restricted to "known methods" of blood transfusion / micro-dosing etc. while I'm pretty convinced Team Sky has some completely unknown, off-the-market, unpublicised stuff which they can utilise freely without ANY danger of detection (at this moment). Quite BALCOish, but likely with public sources / funding instead of private lab.

6) So, do I feel sorry for beaten "cheats" like Contador, Nibali, Piti etc. for them being caught way behind in "arms race". Not really. They would do the same without any remorse given a half-chance...

7) But at the same time - this is

- killing the suspense
- making the world of cycling even MORE unfair for riders. If the best stuff is (at least for a moment) available only for riders of certain nationality, why should others bother?

8) I am strong supporter of CLEAN sport. I also believe that to be unrealistic ideal. However, a world where the doping is limited to certain known methods/PEDs and doping controls can even hinder and put limitations to a use of those known "evils", the field is rather fair and even. The guys who want to ride clean will likely not win too often, but they are not in unconquerable disadvantage AND they pretty much know how much of headstart the dopers have...

9) But in a world where one group of riders (apparently not even close to a full team) have stuff which no one else knows about... That is no longer a sport. It is WORSE that Lance-years. At least Lance used same stuff as everybody else. He only could use it more efficiently as he had the "immunity" from getting caught and a "private line" to whistle-blow whomever had the audacity to raise their bar to match him (Hamilton, Mayo).
 
King Boonen said:
vedrafjord said:
Anyone miss the glory days three years ago of Wiggins riding tempo at 5.7 w/kg shielded by team mates? Seems pretty believable compared to the current shenanigans.

I've always said the way Wiggins won the tour was believable.

NOTE!!! I'm not saying I necessarily believe Wiggins was clean or that specifically he could win the Tour like that. just that the WAY in which the tour was won that year seemed much more believable.
Bearing in mind he had been on a peak for 6 months?

Even Froome said that he feels better this year because in 2013 he had been riding hard all year and got tired from that. Wiggo did that to an even greater extent in 2012. He was 2nd in Algarve in Feb, won Paris Nice in March, won Romandie in April/May, won Dauphine in June, then came 2nd in the prologue on day 1 and won by a minute the final tt that came on the penultimate day, exactly 3 weeks later. He also won the 1st tt which came half way into the race, podiumed a mountain stage and didn't have a single bad day in the race.
1 week later he was arguably the strongest rider in the olympic road.
4 days after that he won the olympic time trial. Easily

So even if we take the wiggins factor out of it and ignore for a sec the discussion about whether wiggins was capable of climbing and tt ing like that, I don't think that performance that year is remotely believable. As I've posted before here he scored 48 points per day cq wise that year. The next best (besides Froome at 47) is Gilbert 2011 at 43 and Contador 09 is 42 and Armstrong at his best was mid 30's.
 
Re:

The Hitch said:
King Boonen said:
vedrafjord said:
Anyone miss the glory days three years ago of Wiggins riding tempo at 5.7 w/kg shielded by team mates? Seems pretty believable compared to the current shenanigans.

I've always said the way Wiggins won the tour was believable.

NOTE!!! I'm not saying I necessarily believe Wiggins was clean or that specifically he could win the Tour like that. just that the WAY in which the tour was won that year seemed much more believable.
Bearing in mind he had been on a peak for 6 months?

Even Froome said that he feels better this year because in 2013 he had been riding hard all year and got tired from that. Wiggo did that to an even greater extent in 2012. He was 2nd in Algarve in Feb, won Paris Nice in March, won Romandie in April/May, won Dauphine in June, then came 2nd in the prologue on day 1 and won by a minute the final tt that came on the penultimate day, exactly 3 weeks later. Then was praised as the strongest rider in the olympic road race 1 week later, and won the olympic time trial another 4 days later.

So even if we take the wiggins factor out of it and ignore for a sec the discussion about whether wiggins was capable of climbing and tt ing like that, I don't think that performance that year is remotely believable. As I've posted before here he scored 48 points per day cq wise that year. The next best (besides Froome at 47) is Gilbert 2011 at 43 and Contador 09 is 42 and Armstrong at his best was mid 30's.

You're talking about the specific performance though and over the year though, I'm not. I'm just saying that the method of the victory in the TdF is what I would think clean cycling would look like, not that Wiggins was clean that those kind of performances other an extended period are likely etc.


I have no idea about cq points, how they are awarded, what is worth what etc. so I won't comment on that.