Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1360 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 20, 2015
653
0
0
Re:

dwyatt said:
Could someone summarize this thread for me, thanks?
Sky is the most disliked team in the peloton (they sort have brought that on themselves) and people believe they are doping because they win the TDF regularly
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
ChewbaccaDefense said:
Saint Unix said:
Tommy79 said:
If guilty it will come out eventually, not many big fish slip through the net.
Wow, you totally win the "Cyclingnews Clinic Intertubes Super Awesome Award" for today!!

Great post!
I had a laugh as well, but Merckx did get popped in the Giro at one point. Amphetamines IIRC.
Merckx was popped thrice, actually. Hinault refused a test once and was later reported to have used amphetamines. Indurain no longer denies having used PEDs. LeMond is by all non-clinic accounts clean. That covers everyone who won it 3+ times in the last 50 years.
 
Jul 8, 2009
162
0
0
Re: Re:

gazr99 said:
dwyatt said:
Could someone summarize this thread for me, thanks?
Sky is the most disliked team in the peloton (they sort have brought that on themselves) and people believe they are doping because they win the TDF regularly
I always think its a pity their drugs only work properly in France.
 
Re:

The Carrot said:
The Ministry Of Truth aka the BBC had two people on this morning's breakfast programme who were defending team sky. They were:

1. Matt White, drugs cheat.
2. Charly Wegelius, I have natural very high hematocrit level, honest gov!

Now of course, 'Joe public' won't know their history, they'll just accept it that the accusations against Sky are unfounded, because these regular guys from other teams say they're legit.
Charlie Wegelius, who tweeted "Cobo? Really?" during the 2011 Vuelta, but saw nothing strange about Chris Froome being up there.
 
Jul 8, 2009
162
0
0
Re: Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
The Carrot said:
The Ministry Of Truth aka the BBC had two people on this morning's breakfast programme who were defending team sky. They were:

1. Matt White, drugs cheat.
2. Charly Wegelius, I have natural very high hematocrit level, honest gov!

Now of course, 'Joe public' won't know their history, they'll just accept it that the accusations against Sky are unfounded, because these regular guys from other teams say they're legit.
Charlie Wegelius, who tweeted "Cobo? Really?" during the 2011 Vuelta, but saw nothing strange about Chris Froome being up there.
To be fair Cobo was so suspect he really rivals froome
 
Re: Re:

carton said:
Merckx was popped thrice, actually. Hinault refused a test once and was later reported to have used amphetamines. Indurain no longer denies having used PEDs. LeMond is by all non-clinic accounts clean. That covers everyone who won it 3+ times in the last 50 years.
Doesn't change the fact that they're being ferried around Paris in an adorable little red car to be celebrated by the masses.
 
Re: Re:

gazr99 said:
dwyatt said:
Could someone summarize this thread for me, thanks?
Sky is the most disliked team in the peloton (they sort have brought that on themselves) and people believe they are doping because they win the TDF regularly
It does your arguments little credit for you to come back with a comment like this after reading (we assume) dozens if not scores of well thought-out posts which go into detail into why people think Sky is doping.

I've literally never heard anyone claim they think Sky are doping because they win. This race or any other. It's weak for you to make that assertion.
 
Re: Re:

dwyatt said:
Libertine Seguros said:
The Carrot said:
The Ministry Of Truth aka the BBC had two people on this morning's breakfast programme who were defending team sky. They were:

1. Matt White, drugs cheat.
2. Charly Wegelius, I have natural very high hematocrit level, honest gov!

Now of course, 'Joe public' won't know their history, they'll just accept it that the accusations against Sky are unfounded, because these regular guys from other teams say they're legit.
Charlie Wegelius, who tweeted "Cobo? Really?" during the 2011 Vuelta, but saw nothing strange about Chris Froome being up there.
To be fair Cobo was so suspect he really rivals froome
Cobo had a GT top 10 and stage win (2009 Vuelta) and had won mountainous WT stage races (2007 País Vasco).

Everything about the situation within the 2011 Vuelta was more or less comparable to Froome - the medical background we can debate (Cobo's history of depression and motivational issues are well documented), the big jump in form (although Cobo's came earlier, as he built up to that Vuelta by podiuming Burgos - the Vuelta's traditional warmup race since the move to September. He wasn't considered as a potential winner but quite a few had him marked as a possible top 10 especially after Burgos), the past at dubious teams. The difference was his team leader failed earlier so he got the free hand to go and win the race, while Sky hamstrung Froome by making him work for Wiggins until it was too late.

Nevertheless, from an official perspective there was no more evidence that Cobo is doping than there was Froome. He's never been named in an investigation, never tested positive, never flagged up the biopassport. He's a pretty suspicious guy obviously, but he's also an unusual case because of his psychological history.
 
Re: Re:

Saint Unix said:
carton said:
Merckx was popped thrice, actually. Hinault refused a test once and was later reported to have used amphetamines. Indurain no longer denies having used PEDs. LeMond is by all non-clinic accounts clean. That covers everyone who won it 3+ times in the last 50 years.
Doesn't change the fact that they're being ferried around Paris in an adorable little red car to be celebrated by the masses.
Red? I'd say scarlet ;)
 

Irondan

Administrator
Moderator
Re: Re:

gazr99 said:
dwyatt said:
Could someone summarize this thread for me, thanks?
Sky is the most disliked team in the peloton (they sort have brought that on themselves) and people believe they are doping because they win the TDF regularly
People hate Astana just as much if not more than Sky. See previous pages for the reason people think they're doping. It all becomes very clear.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
I've literally never heard anyone claim they think Sky are doping because they win. This race or any other. It's weak for you to make that assertion.
Not the wins per se, but the performances. The ancillary stuff is hardly categorical. Marginal gains would simply be dismissed as ridiculous marketing spiel. Do you honestly think they'd have anywhere near as much shade thrown at them if not for the performances? They'd be a British Cannondale.
 
Jul 20, 2015
653
0
0
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
gazr99 said:
dwyatt said:
Could someone summarize this thread for me, thanks?
Sky is the most disliked team in the peloton (they sort have brought that on themselves) and people believe they are doping because they win the TDF regularly
It does your arguments little credit for you to come back with a comment like this after reading (we assume) dozens if not scores of well thought-out posts which go into detail into why people think Sky is doping.

I've literally never heard anyone claim they think Sky are doping because they win. This race or any other. It's weak for you to make that assertion.
Well technically they do without saying it, because they believe the riders can't improve and start performing so well. If the riders didn't perform so well, they wouldn't be winning would they and then probably wouldn't have a thread dedicated to them because people think they're doping
 
Jul 20, 2015
653
0
0
Re: Re:

irondan said:
gazr99 said:
dwyatt said:
Could someone summarize this thread for me, thanks?
Sky is the most disliked team in the peloton (they sort have brought that on themselves) and people believe they are doping because they win the TDF regularly
People hate Astana just as much if not more than Sky. See previous pages for the reason people think they're doping. It all becomes very clear.
I understand why people think they're doping but if they weren't winning especially so often at the TDF how many people would be saying it? I think at the moment anyway, Sky are edging Astana for most hated team
 
Re: Re:

gazr99 said:
red_flanders said:
gazr99 said:
dwyatt said:
Could someone summarize this thread for me, thanks?
Sky is the most disliked team in the peloton (they sort have brought that on themselves) and people believe they are doping because they win the TDF regularly
It does your arguments little credit for you to come back with a comment like this after reading (we assume) dozens if not scores of well thought-out posts which go into detail into why people think Sky is doping.

I've literally never heard anyone claim they think Sky are doping because they win. This race or any other. It's weak for you to make that assertion.
Well technically they do without saying it, because they believe the riders can't improve and start performing so well. If the riders didn't perform so well, they wouldn't be winning would they and then probably wouldn't have a thread dedicated to them because people think they're doping
Nah, they would. It'd be a wee bit shorter, though:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=20765
 
Jul 8, 2009
162
0
0
Re: Re:

Eagle said:
dwyatt said:
gazr99 said:
dwyatt said:
Could someone summarize this thread for me, thanks?
Sky is the most disliked team in the peloton (they sort have brought that on themselves) and people believe they are doping because they win the TDF regularly
I always think its a pity their drugs only work properly in France.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT8DdEdhy0A
:cool:
Still only 2nd overall. 2nd is just the first loser
 
After Vuelta 2011, Froome's data has been consistent which indicates that there is little doping involved. It is the jump in 6 months from zero to hero in the 2011 season that is difficult to explain as it is unheard of except with the greatest GT talents who are usually found at a very young age(mind you that this has also been proven wrong with Ricco) compared to Froome. Sky have explained it as Bilharzia.
Also Wiggins TT position is to minimize any body movement except for pedaling and steering to minimize losses and improve aerodynamics. Froome's TT position is all over the bike and yet he is close to the TT specialists.
It is difficult to explain all of this as "Marginal Gains" which Sky repeatedly tries to do
Plus the rather hypocritical way of hiring only those who sign their zero doping policy helps those with the omerta attitude like Knaven whereas the more repentant guys like Julich and De Jongh get kicked out. if all their employees were truthful more than 50% would be probably kicked out
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re:

IndianCyclist said:
After Vuelta 2011, Froome's data has been consistent which indicates that there is little doping involved. It is the jump in 6 months from zero to hero in the 2011 season that is difficult to explain as it is unheard of except with the greatest GT talents who are usually found at a very young age(mind you that this has also been proven wrong with Ricco) compared to Froome. Sky have explained it as Bilharzia.
After Vuelta'11 Froome's data has been consistent with EPO users.

Why and how? Since Sky wont give the answer, (ps it aint he is the most gifted cyclist ever) it points to like 99.9% of the rest of the winners. cheating and doping.

IndianCyclist said:
Also Wiggins TT position is to minimize any body movement except for pedaling and steering to minimize losses and improve aerodynamics. Froome's TT position is all over the bike and yet he is close to the TT specialists.
It is difficult to explain all of this as "Marginal Gains" which Sky repeatedly tries to do
Plus the rather hypocritical way of hiring only those who sign their zero doping policy helps those with the omerta attitude like Knaven whereas the more repentant guys like Julich and De Jongh get kicked out. if all their employees were truthful more than 50% would be probably kicked out
Wiggins another guy who transformed from grupetto to TdF winner with doping.

Sky dont do marginal gains anymore than the rest of the teams.
 
Re: Re:

gazr99 said:
red_flanders said:
gazr99 said:
dwyatt said:
Could someone summarize this thread for me, thanks?
Sky is the most disliked team in the peloton (they sort have brought that on themselves) and people believe they are doping because they win the TDF regularly
It does your arguments little credit for you to come back with a comment like this after reading (we assume) dozens if not scores of well thought-out posts which go into detail into why people think Sky is doping.

I've literally never heard anyone claim they think Sky are doping because they win. This race or any other. It's weak for you to make that assertion.
Well technically they do without saying it, because they believe the riders can't improve and start performing so well.
No, people know riders can improve. What they also know is that you don't improve 15% in the span of a few years such that you're now beating the best riders ever on full programs. Big difference.


If the riders didn't perform so well, they wouldn't be winning would they and then probably wouldn't have a thread dedicated to them because people think they're doping
There are threads dedicated to every top GT rider and several teams. What does that have to do with anything anyway? Does it really make sense to come to the doping section and complain that there are threads about doping? Strikes me as railing at windmills.

Anyway, you're characterizing the arguments of others with absurd, simplistic and completely incorrect strawman arguments to make the arguments look stupid. It's weak. It's pointless and dismisses you as someone serious about the topic. Try refuting the actual points people make instead of ignoring them and coming back later with this weak sauce. It would be far more interesting. IMO.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
.........snipped for brevity........

Anyway, you're characterizing the arguments of others with absurd, simplistic and completely incorrect strawman arguments to make the arguments look stupid. It's weak. It's pointless and dismisses you as someone serious about the topic. Try refuting the actual points people make instead of ignoring them and coming back later with this weak sauce. It would be far more interesting. IMO.
There are a number of posters in sky related threads who others posters have taken the time to carefully explain the arguments towards why sky are being called out, but these 'new' posters continue to ignore these 'reasoned arguments' and continue to post the same sky bulletin points.

The next step is Froome and Sky never tested positive.
 
Jul 20, 2015
653
0
0
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
gazr99 said:
red_flanders said:
gazr99 said:
dwyatt said:
Could someone summarize this thread for me, thanks?
Sky is the most disliked team in the peloton (they sort have brought that on themselves) and people believe they are doping because they win the TDF regularly
It does your arguments little credit for you to come back with a comment like this after reading (we assume) dozens if not scores of well thought-out posts which go into detail into why people think Sky is doping.

I've literally never heard anyone claim they think Sky are doping because they win. This race or any other. It's weak for you to make that assertion.
Well technically they do without saying it, because they believe the riders can't improve and start performing so well.
No, people know riders can improve. What they also know is that you don't improve 15% in the span of a few years such that you're now beating the best riders ever on full programs. Big difference.


If the riders didn't perform so well, they wouldn't be winning would they and then probably wouldn't have a thread dedicated to them because people think they're doping
There are threads dedicated to every top GT rider and several teams. What does that have to do with anything anyway? Does it really make sense to come to the doping section and complain that there are threads about doping? Strikes me as railing at windmills.

Anyway, you're characterizing the arguments of others with absurd, simplistic and completely incorrect strawman arguments to make the arguments look stupid. It's weak. It's pointless and dismisses you as someone serious about the topic. Try refuting the actual points people make instead of ignoring them and coming back later with this weak sauce. It would be far more interesting. IMO.
Interesting, you talk about reading all the other comments yet manage to miss where I point out, I understand why Sky are thought to be doping and do debate points regularly.

But it's nice to know you are the one who decides what arguments are allowed and which aren't, especially when I see many people here miss more than half of a post just so they can try and make their argument seem more legit.

I don't doubt there are threads about other teams, it's just generally in sport, success breeds content. Look at the likes of Schumacher in F1 and Manchester United under Ferguson. Even in cycling there are examples over the years, the fan who punched Merckx, the French preferred Pulidor to the man who beat him constantly Anquetil.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
red_flanders said:
.........snipped for brevity........

Anyway, you're characterizing the arguments of others with absurd, simplistic and completely incorrect strawman arguments to make the arguments look stupid. It's weak. It's pointless and dismisses you as someone serious about the topic. Try refuting the actual points people make instead of ignoring them and coming back later with this weak sauce. It would be far more interesting. IMO.
There are a number of posters in sky related threads who others posters have taken the time to carefully explain the arguments towards why sky are being called out, but these 'new' posters continue to ignore these 'reasoned arguments' and continue to post the same sky bulletin points.

The next step is Froome and Sky never tested positive.
New posters, coming out of the woodwork in July, or some existing members coming back every month of July to preach the gospel of Sir Dave. BS. Some are zealots, some are being paid. Tactics used by government agencies everywhere to combat comments/posts on YouTube for example. Trolling. Re-ashing the party line. Alas, Nothing new here.
 
Re: Re:

gazr99 said:
But it's nice to know you are the one who decides what arguments are allowed and which aren't, especially when I see many people here miss more than half of a post just so they can try and make their argument seem more legit.
Come on, stop with the strawmen. Argue whatever you want, just don't expect it to go unchallenged.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
gazr99 said:
red_flanders said:
gazr99 said:
dwyatt said:
Could someone summarize this thread for me, thanks?
Sky is the most disliked team in the peloton (they sort have brought that on themselves) and people believe they are doping because they win the TDF regularly
It does your arguments little credit for you to come back with a comment like this after reading (we assume) dozens if not scores of well thought-out posts which go into detail into why people think Sky is doping.

I've literally never heard anyone claim they think Sky are doping because they win. This race or any other. It's weak for you to make that assertion.
Well technically they do without saying it, because they believe the riders can't improve and start performing so well.
No, people know riders can improve. What they also know is that you don't improve 15% in the span of a few years such that you're now beating the best riders ever on full programs. Big difference.


If the riders didn't perform so well, they wouldn't be winning would they and then probably wouldn't have a thread dedicated to them because people think they're doping
There are threads dedicated to every top GT rider and several teams. What does that have to do with anything anyway? Does it really make sense to come to the doping section and complain that there are threads about doping? Strikes me as railing at windmills.

Anyway, you're characterizing the arguments of others with absurd, simplistic and completely incorrect strawman arguments to make the arguments look stupid. It's weak. It's pointless and dismisses you as someone serious about the topic. Try refuting the actual points people make instead of ignoring them and coming back later with this weak sauce. It would be far more interesting. IMO.
You're wasting your breath here. He's been proven to be either incorrect, or at least totally erroneous so many times the last few days it's laughable, yet it still hasn't registered. You can't debate with the wilfully ignorant.
 
Jul 20, 2015
653
0
0
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
gazr99 said:
But it's nice to know you are the one who decides what arguments are allowed and which aren't, especially when I see many people here miss more than half of a post just so they can try and make their argument seem more legit.
Come on, stop with the strawmen. Argue whatever you want, just don't expect it to go unchallenged.
I don't mind stuff I put being challenged wouldn't expect anything less
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY