Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

Yeah.... I think he was looking for the final nail in the coffin with the power stuff on Armstrong. With Sky we are missing the coffin, the coffin lid, a load of other nails...... and a hammer.

Why does power data matter any more with regards to Armstrong than it does to Froome?

A journalist should want and ask for all the information he can get regardless of who it's about. Treating the two riders differently is bias by definition.

 

[bigcog]

Walsh is Irish, why would he cover up for Sky and Froome ?

 

[Tommy79]

Re: Re:

Yeah.... I think he was looking for the final nail in the coffin with the power stuff on Armstrong. With Sky we are missing the coffin, the coffin lid, a load of other nails...... and a hammer.

Why does power data matter any more with regards to Armstrong than it does to Froome?

A journalist should want and ask for all the information he can get regardless of who it's about. Treating the two riders differently is bias by definition.

It doesn't, power data will never do anything more than trigger suspicion - and used that way to target investigations it could be useful. As Tucker said in his blog today it won't prove someone is or isn't doping.

Great to create a dialogue with hindsight on someone you know was doping I suppose, Walsh was throwing the kitchen sink at Lance and included it for good measure. The 6 team mates who told him he was doping in the first 3 years of the investigation were infinitely more important.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

It doesn't, power data will never do anything more than trigger suspicion - and used that way to target investigations it could be useful. As Tucker said in his blog today it won't prove someone is or isn't doping.

Great to create a dialogue with hindsight on someone you know was doping I suppose, Walsh was throwing the kitchen sink at Lance and included it for good measure. The 6 team mates who told him he was doping in the first 3 years of the investigation were infinitely more important.

So there shouldn't be any reason why Sky can't publish the actual, untampered data.

As Tucker says, knowing Froome's maximum outputs is about as valuable to his competitors as a 100 metre sprinter knowing that he needs to run somewhere around a 9.6 or a 9.7 to beat Bolt (and Gatlin now too).

 

[zalacain]

Re:

Walsh is Irish, why would he cover up for Sky and Froome ?

Money, money, money .......

 

[Tommy79]

Re: Re:

It doesn't, power data will never do anything more than trigger suspicion - and used that way to target investigations it could be useful. As Tucker said in his blog today it won't prove someone is or isn't doping.

Great to create a dialogue with hindsight on someone you know was doping I suppose, Walsh was throwing the kitchen sink at Lance and included it for good measure. The 6 team mates who told him he was doping in the first 3 years of the investigation were infinitely more important.

So there shouldn't be any reason why Sky can't publish the actual, untampered data.

As Tucker says, knowing Froome's maximum outputs is about as valuable to his competitors as a 100 metre sprinter knowing that he needs to run somewhere around a 9.6 or a 9.7 to beat Bolt (and Gatlin now too).

Only that it would be misinterpreted by idiots.... as well as those who might know what they are doing.

Would there be an advantage in knowing the power Froome is riding to during the first part of a climb as they wear people down? Maybe.... I'm not qualified to say.

Personally I wish they would just chuck it all out.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

Walsh is Irish, why would he cover up for Sky and Froome ?

Money, money, money .......

I dunno, wouldn't he make more money from writing another book about it if that was the case ?

 

[jalep]

Re: Re:

Walsh is Irish, why would he cover up for Sky and Froome ?

Money, money, money .......

I dunno, wouldn't he make more money from writing another book about it if that was the case ?

Not if he had a bullet in his head.

 

[Ironhead Slim]

Re: Re:

It doesn't, power data will never do anything more than trigger suspicion - and used that way to target investigations it could be useful. As Tucker said in his blog today it won't prove someone is or isn't doping.

Great to create a dialogue with hindsight on someone you know was doping I suppose, Walsh was throwing the kitchen sink at Lance and included it for good measure. The 6 team mates who told him he was doping in the first 3 years of the investigation were infinitely more important.

So there shouldn't be any reason why Sky can't publish the actual, untampered data.

As Tucker says, knowing Froome's maximum outputs is about as valuable to his competitors as a 100 metre sprinter knowing that he needs to run somewhere around a 9.6 or a 9.7 to beat Bolt (and Gatlin now too).

Only that it would be misinterpreted by idiots.... as well as those who might know what they are doing.

Would there be an advantage in knowing the power Froome is riding to during the first part of a climb as they wear people down? Maybe.... I'm not qualified to say.

Personally I wish they would just chuck it all out.

Do you hear yourself? Everyone is either an idiot or only 'might' be able to understand the data?

They are the team that boasts transparency. As someone said a few days ago, their partial transparency is a lot worse than none. Put out the data! What secrets will be revealed if they are clean?

 

[Tommy79]

Re: Re:

It doesn't, power data will never do anything more than trigger suspicion - and used that way to target investigations it could be useful. As Tucker said in his blog today it won't prove someone is or isn't doping.

Great to create a dialogue with hindsight on someone you know was doping I suppose, Walsh was throwing the kitchen sink at Lance and included it for good measure. The 6 team mates who told him he was doping in the first 3 years of the investigation were infinitely more important.

So there shouldn't be any reason why Sky can't publish the actual, untampered data.

As Tucker says, knowing Froome's maximum outputs is about as valuable to his competitors as a 100 metre sprinter knowing that he needs to run somewhere around a 9.6 or a 9.7 to beat Bolt (and Gatlin now too).

Only that it would be misinterpreted by idiots.... as well as those who might know what they are doing.

Would there be an advantage in knowing the power Froome is riding to during the first part of a climb as they wear people down? Maybe.... I'm not qualified to say.

Personally I wish they would just chuck it all out.

Do you hear yourself? Everyone is either an idiot or only 'might' be able to understand the data?

They are the team that boasts transparency. As someone said a few days ago, their partial transparency is a lot worse than none. Put out the data! What secrets will be revealed if they are?

I don't think anyone believes it to be an exact science, hence the "might"

Also if they release training data it does give up their training plans and therefore an advantage. So what value does race data have without the training data? Not a lot.

So we get the half assed pr disaster. Shame. Does this suggest dopage? Nopage.

 

[hrotha]

Re: Re:

Yep, not credible because he found nothing.

And nothing wrong with that logic!

Walsh is not credible because he didn't find anything. He's not credible because of his double standards and hypocrisy in how he approaches Sky vs how he approached everyone else, the most obvious example of this being how climbing speeds and W/kg were good enough to call out Armstrong and Contador, but when it's Froome's turn they're suddenly pseudoscience.

Yeah.... I think he was looking for the final nail in the coffin with the power stuff on Armstrong. With Sky we are missing the coffin, the coffin lid, a load of other nails...... and a hammer.

Again, he also used the power stuff to call out Contador in 2009.

 

[the sceptic]

will be funny to see Walsh try to spin Landa as cleans.

 

[BYOP88]

Re:

will be funny to see Walsh try to spin Landa as cleans.

Someone better get a picture/link of that tweet. Regarding unwatchable Giro.

 

[Ironhead Slim]

Re: Re:

It doesn't, power data will never do anything more than trigger suspicion - and used that way to target investigations it could be useful. As Tucker said in his blog today it won't prove someone is or isn't doping.

Great to create a dialogue with hindsight on someone you know was doping I suppose, Walsh was throwing the kitchen sink at Lance and included it for good measure. The 6 team mates who told him he was doping in the first 3 years of the investigation were infinitely more important.

So there shouldn't be any reason why Sky can't publish the actual, untampered data.

As Tucker says, knowing Froome's maximum outputs is about as valuable to his competitors as a 100 metre sprinter knowing that he needs to run somewhere around a 9.6 or a 9.7 to beat Bolt (and Gatlin now too).

Only that it would be misinterpreted by idiots.... as well as those who might know what they are doing.

Would there be an advantage in knowing the power Froome is riding to during the first part of a climb as they wear people down? Maybe.... I'm not qualified to say.

Personally I wish they would just chuck it all out.

Do you hear yourself? Everyone is either an idiot or only 'might' be able to understand the data?

They are the team that boasts transparency. As someone said a few days ago, their partial transparency is a lot worse than none. Put out the data! What secrets will be revealed if they are?

I don't think anyone believes it to be an exact science, hence the "might"

Also if they release training data it does give up their training plans and therefore an advantage. So what value does race data have without the training data? Not a lot.

So we get the half assed pr disaster. Shame. Does this suggest dopage? Nopage.

Race data only, like motorsports telemetry. It's a start. Not looking for the proof of doping there, but saves having to guess at it from what we are seeing and measuring from TV without actual data. Also, what is the harm if they are clean?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

I don't think anyone believes it to be an exact science, hence the "might"

Also if they release training data it does give up their training plans and therefore an advantage. So what value does race data have without the training data? Not a lot.

So we get the half assed pr disaster. Shame. Does this suggest dopage? Nopage.

What facts would be needed for you to believe Sky's results are due to doping?

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

What facts would be needed for you to believe Sky's results are due to doping?

Please say positive tests. Please say positive tests. Please say positive tests.

It would be Armstrong all over again for real.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

Race data only, like motorsports telemetry. It's a start. Not looking for the proof of doping there, but saves having to guess at it from what we are seeing and measuring from TV without actual data. Also, what is the harm if they are clean?

Actually, getting times off a broadcast stream is very accurate because landmarks don't move. GPS radios used in these sport devices simply aren't very accurate. You only need enough video feed to set a start somewhere at the bottom and a finish somewhere at the top. The GC contenders will generally start as a group, so it's good data.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

What facts would be needed for you to believe Sky's results are due to doping?

Please say positive tests. Please say positive tests. Please say positive tests.

It would be Armstrong all over again for real.

Patience. Sometimes they come back with some interesting responses if you don't feed them an answer.

 

[Singer01]

Re: Re:

I don't think anyone believes it to be an exact science, hence the "might"

Also if they release training data it does give up their training plans and therefore an advantage. So what value does race data have without the training data? Not a lot.

So we get the half assed pr disaster. Shame. Does this suggest dopage? Nopage.

What facts would be needed for you to believe Sky's results are due to doping?

for me to believe it would have to be more, much more. thats not to say i don't suspect, but believe and suspect are a whole different kettle of fish.

it would also help if the people who 'know 100%' that sky are doping were just a bit less of a bunch of zealots (not that pro sky people aren't just as capable of that).

to sum up, i suspect some of them may cheat, but i think there should be more out there than 'they lie and they ride fast and like to keep secrets' (for the overly literal of you on here, i am being facetious).

 

[Pierrot le Fou]

Re:

Walsh is Irish, why would he cover up for Sky and Froome ?

The fact that his boss and the main sponsor of Team Sky are the same person might be a reason?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

for me to believe it would have to be more, much more.

Like what exactly? It's an honest question. I'm not setting some sort of rhetorical trap and certainly won't criticize you for an opinion. We all have opinions.

 

[Ironhead Slim]

Re: Re:

Race data only, like motorsports telemetry. It's a start. Not looking for the proof of doping there, but saves having to guess at it from what we are seeing and measuring from TV without actual data. Also, what is the harm if they are clean?

Actually, getting times off a broadcast stream is very accurate because landmarks don't move. GPS radios used in these sport devices simply aren't very accurate. You only need enough video feed to set a start somewhere at the bottom and a finish somewhere at the top. The GC contenders will generally start as a group, so it's good data.

Yes, you're right, thanks. I am just not capable of that. It would be cool to see telemetry onscreen during the race!

 

[gazr99]

I know cycling has storied past in doping but I do prefer to believe in innocent until proven guilty rather than the other way round.

Would suggest like everyone says an independent agency monitoring blood passport, power data, weight, etc. But I'm sure if a team say like Sky were found to be clean people would just think they paid the agency off

 

[BYOP88]

Re:

I know cycling has storied past in doping but I do prefer to believe in innocent until proven guilty rather than the other way round.

Would suggest like everyone says an independent agency monitoring blood passport, power data, weight, etc. But I'm sure if a team say like Sky were found to be clean people would just think they paid the agency off

For me if an independent agency said 'Teams A,B,C,D,E, etc etc' were clean that would be good enough for me, even if Sky were one of the teams listed as being clean. But sadly an independent agency running that show will never ever happen.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

I know cycling has storied past in doping but I do prefer to believe in innocent until proven guilty rather than the other way round.

Would suggest like everyone says an independent agency monitoring blood passport, power data, weight, etc. But I'm sure if a team say like Sky were found to be clean people would just think they paid the agency off

For me if an independent agency said 'Teams A,B,C,D,E, etc etc' were clean that would be good enough for me, even if Sky were one of the teams listed as being clean. But sadly an independent agency running that show will never ever happen.

WADA or VADA?

Or will people still see WADA as corrupt?