Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Irondan]

Don't let this turn into bickering, or calling names. (troll, sockpuppet, ect...)

I'll delete anything that is off topic.

Cheers!

 

[Tonton]

Re: Re:

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 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.

Response :

Not because they win the TdF on a regular basis. But how they do it. One Rocky Balboa, Maybe. Two? Three? Wiggo and Dawg were grupetto guys, come on. LRP. Now Thomas is turning into a GT guy. Man...

The second part: Schumi came across as an arrogant AHole, calculating (like Prost): people want(ed) more Villeneuve, Senna... Anquetil was a Schumi. Some wanted a winner and adored him. Some wanted a warrior and loved Poulidor-Vino. Merckx was so dominant that people turned against him. The closer he got to his 5th and (never to happen) 6th TdF win, the bigger the hatred. Everybody (outside of Spain) rooted for Riis in '96 for the same reason. And after '02 against Wonderboy for the same reason. Different discussion though.

 

[skippythepinhead]

Re:

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

You've lost the plot a little. Once one "finds" their "world class performance" level, there is no going back. Going back to the earlier profile will set off all the alarms. Why does anyone think Sky hired docs with doping experience--to bandage the boo-boos or run internal testing controls so they could get out front and demand testers travel to Tenerife with them?

 

[Avoriaz]

Re: Re:

Black Pudding shortage ?

Say it ain't so

The economy problems have hit Bury market hard...

The Yates brothers seem to be coping

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Black Pudding shortage ?

Say it ain't so

The economy problems have hit Bury market hard...

The Yates brothers seem to be coping

Locals get first dibs.

 

[del1962]

Re: Re:

Prove these gains aren’t possible. Please.

What would make you guys believe Froome is clean?

Going offline now to avoid spoils.

The case that the "gains" you speak of are nonsense has been made over and over. You're claiming they're possible. It's an extraordinary claim given the evidence. Back it up.

We've been watching Froome ride for long enough to form an informed opinion on whether he's doping. It's outside the realm of possibility, IMO, that he's doing it clean.

Since you're the one claiming the miracle of the clean rider, make the case. But no, you don't answer the questions, you just throw out challenges and back them up with jack squat.

That sums it up, both sides throwing out challenges with jack squat to back them up. I can't prove he is clean, obviously. You can't prove he is dirty so we can just bicker and wait for some evidence.

Every day without evidence makes it more likely he is clean.

I didn't ask you to prove anything. I asked you to make the case that he's clean (since you appear to believe he is), to tell me where he gained the tremendous amount of power he's gained over his early career, since you brought up the progression of training and athletic performance. Since the bilharzia nonsense has been thoroughly debunked, I am curious to hear the explanation.

There has been a mountain of evidence provided which shows he's doped. There is a large and well documented case against him being clean. It's not proof, but it's more than enough to draw a conclusion. Make the case that he's clean.

Again, let's be clear about the distinction between proof and evidence. You're correct, there is no irrefutable proof he's doped. But there is substantial, incontrovertible evidence of it. Let's hear the evidence to the contrary.

It makes me smile when someone comes out with a statement like the bolded with such certainty.

The problem is build your case against Froome on shaky assumptions and presenting it as incontrevertible evidence.

 

[Põhja Konn]

Re: Re:

Prove these gains aren’t possible. Please.

What would make you guys believe Froome is clean?

Going offline now to avoid spoils.

The case that the "gains" you speak of are nonsense has been made over and over. You're claiming they're possible. It's an extraordinary claim given the evidence. Back it up.

We've been watching Froome ride for long enough to form an informed opinion on whether he's doping. It's outside the realm of possibility, IMO, that he's doing it clean.

Since you're the one claiming the miracle of the clean rider, make the case. But no, you don't answer the questions, you just throw out challenges and back them up with jack squat.

That sums it up, both sides throwing out challenges with jack squat to back them up. I can't prove he is clean, obviously. You can't prove he is dirty so we can just bicker and wait for some evidence.

Every day without evidence makes it more likely he is clean.

I didn't ask you to prove anything. I asked you to make the case that he's clean (since you appear to believe he is), to tell me where he gained the tremendous amount of power he's gained over his early career, since you brought up the progression of training and athletic performance. Since the bilharzia nonsense has been thoroughly debunked, I am curious to hear the explanation.

There has been a mountain of evidence provided which shows he's doped. There is a large and well documented case against him being clean. It's not proof, but it's more than enough to draw a conclusion. Make the case that he's clean.

Again, let's be clear about the distinction between proof and evidence. You're correct, there is no irrefutable proof he's doped. But there is substantial, incontrovertible evidence of it. Let's hear the evidence to the contrary.

It makes me smile when someone comes out with a statement like the bolded with such certainty.

The problem is build your case against Froome on shaky assumptions and presenting it as incontrevertible evidence.

Nice try at nitpicking. There are lots of over the top conspiracy theories flying around over the internet, and also in this thread, but it doesn't change the fact that the Bilharzia story is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictory statements. At the very least, it makes every thinking and unbiased person even more sceptical about Froomes transformation.

If Froome is really clean, Sky should release all his data, starting with his Barloworld days. If they are not prepared to do this, they have no right to complain about all the doping innuendo flying around.

 

[tomjones]

I am convinced Sky are doping. The level of inconsistencies in their defence are mountainous. It does seem ridiculous for those involved.

Sky, as lead sponsors would take a reputation and financial hammering if doping was proved, their parent company, News International is already in the dog house after the phone hacking scandal in the UK and the general distrust of its owner Rupert Murdoch.

British Cycling, which has been such a success over a decade would have their achievements destroyed and anyone involved with it would become toxic. Goodbye fame, money and glory for Chris Hoy and Pendleton.

David Brailsford and Bradley Wiggins, would no doubt be stripped of their knighthoods and other awards and would be hounded by a vicious press. The hate directed at them would be unbearable.

David Walsh would lose any credit he rightly gained for exposing Armstrong.

UCI would obviously be implicated with Cookson at its head and perhaps colusion with Sky would be proved as well.

Froome, Thomas, etc careers over.

They are taking a huge risk, I hope they get caught along with the other obvious dopers Valverde etc. Sky must have something special in their medical cabinet.

 

[del1962]

Re: Re:

Nice try at nitpicking. There are lots of over the top conspiracy theories flying around over the internet, and also in this thread, but it doesn't change the fact that the Bilharzia story is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictory statements. At the very least, it makes every thinking and unbiased person even more sceptical about Froomes transformation.

If Froome is really clean, Sky should release all his data, starting with his Barloworld days. If they are not prepared to do this, they have no right to complain about all the doping innuendo flying around.

Not nitpicking but pointing out a logical fallacy that's all

Inconsistencies tend not to prove anything. if you have three different people describing an event you often get inconsistencies between their stories. That is how the world works not in 1's and 0's like a software program.

Now if you had three experts on tropical diseases describing it you are less likely to get inconsistencies in their accounts, but even then you could still have differences.

To say that the Bilhazaria story makes every thinking and unbiased person more skeptical is in my opinion flawed logic.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Nice try at nitpicking. There are lots of over the top conspiracy theories flying around over the internet, and also in this thread, but it doesn't change the fact that the Bilharzia story is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictory statements. At the very least, it makes every thinking and unbiased person even more sceptical about Froomes transformation.

If Froome is really clean, Sky should release all his data, starting with his Barloworld days. If they are not prepared to do this, they have no right to complain about all the doping innuendo flying around.

Not nitpicking but pointing out a logical fallacy that's all

Inconsistencies tend not to prove anything. if you have three different people describing an event you often get inconsistencies between their stories. That is how the world works not in 1's and 0's like a software program.

Now if you had three experts on tropical diseases describing it you are less likely to get inconsistencies in their accounts, but even then you could still have differences.

To say that the Bilhazaria story makes every thinking and unbiased person more skeptical is in my opinion flawed logic.

Except they debunked
* when he got it
* when it was diagnosed
* who diagnosed it

based on at least 3 (from memory) versions of stories that differed significantly.

We have not even got to the bit about how many treatments you can reliably expect, or what impact it had on his performance.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Nice try at nitpicking. There are lots of over the top conspiracy theories flying around over the internet, and also in this thread, but it doesn't change the fact that the Bilharzia story is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictory statements. At the very least, it makes every thinking and unbiased person even more sceptical about Froomes transformation.

If Froome is really clean, Sky should release all his data, starting with his Barloworld days. If they are not prepared to do this, they have no right to complain about all the doping innuendo flying around.

Not nitpicking but pointing out a logical fallacy that's all

Inconsistencies tend not to prove anything. if you have three different people describing an event you often get inconsistencies between their stories. That is how the world works not in 1's and 0's like a software program.

Now if you had three experts on tropical diseases describing it you are less likely to get inconsistencies in their accounts, but even then you could still have differences.

To say that the Bilhazaria story makes every thinking and unbiased person more skeptical is in my opinion flawed logic.

oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive....
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/09/05/12932.aspx

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive....
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/09/05/12932.aspx

Awesome.

 

[Tommy79]

Re: Re:

oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive....
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/09/05/12932.aspx

Awesome.

Interesting stuff.

Obviously irrelevant to Froome as it says early on about Children exposed to the disease....

 

[armchairclimber]

"But when the worms were eradicated by drugs the children then developed increased allergic responses."
Just sayin.

 

[Tommy79]

And of course exercise induced asthma is a different game all together.

But great to see the clinic clutching at straws in action.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

And of course exercise induced asthma is a different game all together.

But great to see the clinic clutching at straws in action.

you don't need to clutch at straws with Froome...its just funny

you know...like not knowing his weight and then giving a weight that shows he's 'bulked-up' since the Dauphine...that sort of funny
or Brailsford claiming on the radio this morning that in his 15 years there has been "nothing"...no Hayles, no Lienders, no JTL, no Henao, no TUEs, no Tramadol, no missed tests...you know "nothing"...that sort of funny

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

"But when the worms were eradicated by drugs the children then developed increased allergic responses."
Just sayin.

which is fine...only Froome's weren't...or were they? we just don't know.... anyway...sufficient for a rye chuckle..

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

And of course exercise induced asthma is a different game all together.

But great to see the clinic clutching at straws in action.

you don't need to clutch at straws with Froome...its just funny

you know...like not knowing his weight and then giving a weight that shows he's 'bulked-up' since the Dauphine...that sort of funny
or Brailsford claiming on the radio this morning that in his 15 years there has been "nothing"...no Hayles, no Lienders, no JTL, no Henao, no TUEs, no Tramadol, no missed tests...you know "nothing"...that sort of funny

actually...or in fact that he is possibly the only current DS that has been questioned under caution in a police cell on doping related matters...you know...

 

[wendybnt]

Re: Re:

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.

Actually, it isn't a bad argument at all. Does any body really think there has been a clean winner in the past quarter of a century?

 

[Tommy79]

Re: Re:

And of course exercise induced asthma is a different game all together.

But great to see the clinic clutching at straws in action.

you don't need to clutch at straws with Froome...its just funny

you know...like not knowing his weight and then giving a weight that shows he's 'bulked-up' since the Dauphine...that sort of funny
or Brailsford claiming on the radio this morning that in his 15 years there has been "nothing"...no Hayles, no Lienders, no JTL, no Henao, no TUEs, no Tramadol, no missed tests...you know "nothing"...that sort of funny

actually...or in fact that he is possibly the only current DS that has been questioned under caution in a police cell on doping related matters...you know...

Great headlines, but none of those things actually mean anything under closer inspection. You're always missing the next few steps that would make them damning. Why do you think that is?

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

And of course exercise induced asthma is a different game all together.

But great to see the clinic clutching at straws in action.

you don't need to clutch at straws with Froome...its just funny

you know...like not knowing his weight and then giving a weight that shows he's 'bulked-up' since the Dauphine...that sort of funny
or Brailsford claiming on the radio this morning that in his 15 years there has been "nothing"...no Hayles, no Lienders, no JTL, no Henao, no TUEs, no Tramadol, no missed tests...you know "nothing"...that sort of funny

actually...or in fact that he is possibly the only current DS that has been questioned under caution in a police cell on doping related matters...you know...

Great headlines, but none of those things actually mean anything under closer inspection. You're always missing the next few steps that would make them damning. Why do you think that is?

Jan put it better than I could..."if you still can't put two and two together, then you are beyond my help"

 

[Catwhoorg]

The only non-sanctioned winners in the EPO era
Sastre (2008)
Evans
Wiggo
Froome
Nibali


80% are the most recent winners, so haven't stood the test of time as of yet.
There is reasonable doubt as to Sastre (but thats discussion for another thread).

 

[Tommy79]

Re: Re:

And of course exercise induced asthma is a different game all together.

But great to see the clinic clutching at straws in action.

you don't need to clutch at straws with Froome...its just funny

you know...like not knowing his weight and then giving a weight that shows he's 'bulked-up' since the Dauphine...that sort of funny
or Brailsford claiming on the radio this morning that in his 15 years there has been "nothing"...no Hayles, no Lienders, no JTL, no Henao, no TUEs, no Tramadol, no missed tests...you know "nothing"...that sort of funny

actually...or in fact that he is possibly the only current DS that has been questioned under caution in a police cell on doping related matters...you know...

Great headlines, but none of those things actually mean anything under closer inspection. You're always missing the next few steps that would make them damning. Why do you think that is?

Jan put it better than I could..."if you still can't put two and two together, then you are beyond my help"

But.... you've put 2 and 2 together and come up with 74?

 

[jalep]

Re: Re:

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.

Actually, it isn't a bad argument at all. Does any body really think there has been a clean winner in the past quarter of a century?

to the bolded points:

1. Sky no, they don't win 'regularly' they started transforming riders at the creation of the team - then in 2011 something clicked - they flipped a switch. There is nothing incremental or marginal about it. They won 2012 okay, Wiggins at least has the good sense to not flaunt himself and win multiple TdF's. Froome, the complete donkey to racehorse wins 2013 but has set his mind on being the next Froomestrong, if he and Sky can get away with it. Or Thomas will take the next shift as phenomenal transformation. If not Thomas, some other rider from Sky and preferably BC. Landa riding for Sky will be quite laughable and ironic because his performance with Astana is particularly ridiculous. What? you think he goes to Sky and is clean? hahahahahha

2. As red_flanders points out there have been dozens of well-thought out posts - very bright and knowledgeable posters here like Libertine Seguros and others. That a person can't grasp the picture is their denial and magical thinking blinding them - but it is impossible to reason with magical thinking. Magical thinking - something very creative and adorable in a 5 yr old - not at all useful as an adult.

3. to Wendy's question. Nope - none of them, sadly. And oh yes would love to think Evans and Nibali are clean but it's very highly unlikely any of them win clean. It's not a new era of clean cycling that we are watching and no amount of media spin is enough to make this titanic lie sail. That boat sunk.

 

[Franklin]

Re:

The only non-sanctioned winners in the EPO era
Sastre (2008)
Evans
Wiggo
Froome
Nibali

80% are the most recent winners, so haven't stood the test of time as of yet.
There is reasonable doubt as to Sastre (but thats discussion for another thread).

The only one who posted signficantly reduced numbers (while beating Contador and Schleckette) is Evans.

And considering the teams Evans rode for this is a leap of imagination I don't think a sane person can make.