Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1370 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 27, 2015
4
0
0
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
red_flanders said:
samhocking said:
red_flanders said:
In much the same way that far too many people confuse the definitions of "evidence" and "proof", the last few posts seem to confuse the definition of "knowing" and "proving". Many people know Chris Froome and other top GT contenders are doping. Doesn't mean we can prove it.

Some people just don't want to know, and will concoct any reason they can't to avoid knowing. That's OK, it's just a discussion board, not a court of law.
That's fine to think that here, but when the same logic spills out into broadcast journalism sparked by social media and the web to the point that you're asking Froome to disprove what you believe to be known without any evidence and do it with the very same evidence you admit not to have it seems crazy and pointless. It's almost like the game of nothing being possible to prove is actually what is driving the arguments which clearly isn't helping the sport it it?
Please stop saying "without any evidence". There is a mountain of "evidence". What you seem to mean is without any "proof". Not the same thing.

The tiny escapes of truth in the broadcast journalist world could hardly be called a problem. In fact the problem, historically and now, is that journalists who very well knew and now know exactly what is going on say nothing, as not to spit in the soup. And so it all goes on, and they feed the lies to those who want the cleans party line.

We're having a discussion here and in social media. That's how it goes. This narrative that everything would be OK if only people stopped discussing the facts is truly mind-boggling, but I'm well used to it at this point.
So because you can't prove with your mountain of evidence someone is doping, they should have to prove that they are clean? You think a rider proving their innocence is an effective anti-doping system and what is missing in the sport do you?
Yep, it's completely farcical. And I wonder how redflanders knows certain journalists are currently withholding the truth about doping in the peloton in order to protect the status quo? What evidence does he/she have? Please tell. It's quite a punchy allegation.
 
Re:

Catwhoorg said:
Tour of California ? Is that ASO ?

Won in 2014, 3rd 2015.


To be fair how many non-ASO events do they (not just Sky but WT teams) race ?
Tour of California is not an ASO event. At one point ASO was providing all the media production capabilities in-race but I don't know if that is true any more.

Tour of California was notable for being an event that had at least one year of no testing. Not that the UCI would ever sanction some rider they liked. My understanding is the UCI is the anti-doping authority at the race. Good thing they have such a consistent, spotless record of integrity. We can be sure those riders, at that race, are cleans.

More on this point, reading the last interviews with Verbruggen, it is clear the UCI is trying to consolidate media rights and anti-doping at the first and second tier so almost every media rights Euro flows through them and riders are all clean in the new cleans era.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
It's fair enough to say you think Froome is doping and do so with a coherent backbone to it based on the info at the hand. It's another thing to say you know it and then present it in the form of a gospel truth. Especially when you're not connected in anyway to the inner circle of it all.

Between people knowing and winning internet wars, it only adds to the belief that some are mainly interested in personal vindication and getting one over on the other with their opinions.

There can be such a thing as having differing opinions to each other but still having the same desired wish of wanting the truth to something.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
UCI have numbers from way back, Froome can release his Barloworld data and Sky can release all the information that have.
Waaay, waaay back. Froome visited the UCI as an amateur as part of the UCI's Africa development project. If he was a grand tour top-10, it would have shown up in those tests and his amateur results.

Funny how neither happened....
 
I was wondering, if the mountain of evidence is all here in the Clinic now, then there's only a tiny little bit missing I assume?

Anyone know where we can find this little bit of evidence to complete our mountain and take these suckers down?

We're not looking for a big doping positive or anything like that, the mountain of evidence is already overwhelming enough to know were right, we just need a little bit more and the mountain is complete and someone else can take over Sky's licence for 2016 from Pro Continental, which would be a lovely thing. I would love to see Androni-Sidermec in Pro Tour for 2016. They only test positive once a year, they seem pretty harmless to me.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Re: Re:

DirtyWorks said:
Benotti69 said:
UCI have numbers from way back, Froome can release his Barloworld data and Sky can release all the information that have.
Waaay, waaay back. Froome visited the UCI as an amateur as part of the UCI's Africa development project. If he was a grand tour top-10, it would have shown up in those tests and his amateur results.

Funny how neither happened....
I watched that Sky documentary last year about Froome and Michel Theze said his numbers were some of the highest he ever came across.

If it's indeed the case, I can't understand why Froome wouldn't disclose it.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
Re: Re:

hrotha said:
Ventoux Boar said:
15. Thomas +0:31:39
35. Roche +1:54:08

Second and third Sky finishers. For context.
15. Heras +0:30:44
38. Rubiera +1:21:48

Second and third US Postal finishers. For context.
:) Nice one. What does this comparison tell us about the 2015 race?

Whether serendipitous or not, the rotating domestique seemed to work this year.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
Re: Re:

gooner said:
DirtyWorks said:
Benotti69 said:
UCI have numbers from way back, Froome can release his Barloworld data and Sky can release all the information that have.
Waaay, waaay back. Froome visited the UCI as an amateur as part of the UCI's Africa development project. If he was a grand tour top-10, it would have shown up in those tests and his amateur results.

Funny how neither happened....
I watched that Sky documentary last year about Froome and Michel Theze said his numbers were some of the highest he ever came across.

If it's indeed the case, I can't understand why Froome wouldn't disclose it.
Movistar thread and it's Froome's numbers we need. What is this madness?
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Re: Re:

Ventoux Boar said:
gooner said:
DirtyWorks said:
Benotti69 said:
UCI have numbers from way back, Froome can release his Barloworld data and Sky can release all the information that have.
Waaay, waaay back. Froome visited the UCI as an amateur as part of the UCI's Africa development project. If he was a grand tour top-10, it would have shown up in those tests and his amateur results.

Funny how neither happened....
I watched that Sky documentary last year about Froome and Michel Theze said his numbers were some of the highest he ever came across.

If it's indeed the case, I can't understand why Froome wouldn't disclose it.
Movistar thread and it's Froome's numbers we need. What is this madness?
Mods, move these posts to the Sky thread then.

FWIW, I agree with your point on the lack of posts in this thread.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Re:

samhocking said:
I was wondering, if the mountain of evidence is all here in the Clinic now, then there's only a tiny little bit missing I assume?

Anyone know where we can find this little bit of evidence to complete our mountain and take these suckers down?

We're not looking for a big doping positive or anything like that, the mountain of evidence is already overwhelming enough to know were right, we just need a little bit more and the mountain is complete and someone else can take over Sky's licence for 2016 from Pro Continental, which would be a lovely thing. I would love to see Androni-Sidermec in Pro Tour for 2016. They only test positive once a year, they seem pretty harmless to me.
Great point. Because the clinic failed to take down Armstrong, there must have been little evidence prior to his startling and completely unexpected confession live on Oprah.
 
Re: Re:

SeriousSam said:
samhocking said:
I was wondering, if the mountain of evidence is all here in the Clinic now, then there's only a tiny little bit missing I assume?

Anyone know where we can find this little bit of evidence to complete our mountain and take these suckers down?

We're not looking for a big doping positive or anything like that, the mountain of evidence is already overwhelming enough to know were right, we just need a little bit more and the mountain is complete and someone else can take over Sky's licence for 2016 from Pro Continental, which would be a lovely thing. I would love to see Androni-Sidermec in Pro Tour for 2016. They only test positive once a year, they seem pretty harmless to me.
Great point. Because the clinic failed to take down Armstrong, there must have been little evidence prior to his startling and completely unexpected confession live on Oprah.
I swear, I didn't know Androni-Sidermec just got suspended for 2nd violation this year lol.
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
Where does this belief come from that a rider can only progress steadily year by year and not be suspicous?
50+ years of elite cycling competition, pre EPO. Pre-EPO, a cyclist was either born with the factors that made them great cyclists, or not. Athletically, cycling is a very simple sport. Power.

samhocking said:
Contador, Valverde, Ullrich? It seems an impossible method to determine when a rider or team should release data, or shouldn't release all data on a rider? They certainly shouldn't release it to us or the UCI that's for sure. Even WADA is doubtful.
FYI, UCI can see all results of any cyclist tested anywhere in the world under a UCI federation. All of it.
FYI #2, WADA has no authority to do anything beyond act at the direction of sports federations and other anti-doping authorities.

If an athlete was actually clean, posting their test data for the world to analyze would only validate their cleanliness. Chris Horner's actions have made this abundantly clear. Seems like the UCI didn't like him doing that because he went from a top-20 result in the sport's largest event after an extremely trying year to regional pro team.

The problem is the UCI, not the athletes.
 
Re: Re:

DirtyWorks said:
samhocking said:
Where does this belief come from that a rider can only progress steadily year by year and not be suspicous?
50+ years of elite cycling competition, pre EPO. Pre-EPO, a cyclist was either born with the factors that made them great cyclists, or not. Athletically, cycling is a very simple sport. Power.

samhocking said:
Contador, Valverde, Ullrich? It seems an impossible method to determine when a rider or team should release data, or shouldn't release all data on a rider? They certainly shouldn't release it to us or the UCI that's for sure. Even WADA is doubtful.
FYI, UCI can see all results of any cyclist tested anywhere in the world under a UCI federation. All of it.
FYI #2, WADA has no authority to do anything beyond act at the direction of sports federations and other anti-doping authorities.

If an athlete was actually clean, posting their test data for the world to analyze would only validate their cleanliness. Chris Horner's actions have made this abundantly clear. Seems like the UCI didn't like him doing that because he went from a top-20 result in the sport's largest event after an extremely trying year to regional pro team.

The problem is the UCI, not the athletes.
50+ years of cycling said you didn't need to warm down, now every team does it! Just because something is said for 50 years in pro cycling doesn't mean it's true, especially because time and time again the myths hidden in tradition are proved incorrect or based on doping anyway. I understand potential can be seen at a young age and therefore in a western culture it would naturally be nurtured fro ma young age though. In the case of cycling's recent past, this is alongside doping. In Froomes case you simply don't know because he's been largely outside the system and he clearly wasn't trying to win the Tour until he went to Sky anyway. It's not like every rider starts at maximum fitness and the results just come if you keep trying long enough is it?
I agree with LeMond on this, and that's your potential to win is fixed at birth. It doesn't go up or down or change the more you practice it. You have it or your don't and there's no evidence anywhere that suggests it takes half your entire career to realise this potential. It far to simple and random to use results or lack of it to raise suspicion of doping in my opinion.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
50+ years of cycling said you didn't need to warm down, now every team does it! Just because something is said for 50 years in pro cycling doesn't mean it's true, especially because time and time again the myths hidden in tradition are proved incorrect or based on doping anyway. I understand potential can be seen at a young age and therefore in a western culture it would naturally be nurtured fro ma young age though. In the case of cycling's recent past, this is alongside doping. In Froomes case you simply don't know because he's been largely outside the system and he clearly wasn't trying to win the Tour until he went to Sky anyway. It's not like every rider starts at maximum fitness and the results just come if you keep trying long enough is it?
I agree with LeMond on this, and that's your potential to win is fixed at birth. It doesn't go up or down or change the more you practice it. You have it or your don't and there's no evidence anywhere that suggests it takes half your entire career to realise this potential. It far to simple and random to use results or lack of it to raise suspicion of doping in my opinion.
just because Sky does it now, does not mean it works. It is the marginal gains figleaf PR.

this it what the swannies do for the lactic buildup.
 
Apr 3, 2011
2,301
0
0
Re: Re:

SeriousSam said:
samhocking said:
I was wondering, if the mountain of evidence is all here in the Clinic now, then there's only a tiny little bit missing I assume?

Anyone know where we can find this little bit of evidence to complete our mountain and take these suckers down?

We're not looking for a big doping positive or anything like that, the mountain of evidence is already overwhelming enough to know were right, we just need a little bit more and the mountain is complete and someone else can take over Sky's licence for 2016 from Pro Continental, which would be a lovely thing. I would love to see Androni-Sidermec in Pro Tour for 2016. They only test positive once a year, they seem pretty harmless to me.
Great point. Because the clinic failed to take down Armstrong, there must have been little evidence prior to his startling and completely unexpected confession live on Oprah.
The game changer was and can only be... the lawsuit! Preferably with real jailtime threat.

Soooo, any public funds (mis)used in Sky?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
Tommy79 said:
So these days they can get enough calories into a rider during the day.... or.... you have a doping based explanation?
It's never been about straight-up ingestion of calories. People have known how to eat for a very long time. There's the problem of stress without rest and recovery. Simply, without it your body starts to break down and you lose a bit of weight.

Example: your hematocrit normally drops after three weeks as well.

John Swanson
BV expansion, I thought? Although hormonal suppression also makes sense.
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
Benotti69 said:
samhocking said:
red_flanders said:
In much the same way that far too many people confuse the definitions of "evidence" and "proof", the last few posts seem to confuse the definition of "knowing" and "proving". Many people know Chris Froome and other top GT contenders are doping. Doesn't mean we can prove it.

Some people just don't want to know, and will concoct any reason they can't to avoid knowing. That's OK, it's just a discussion board, not a court of law.
That's fine to think that here, but when the same logic spills out into broadcast journalism sparked by social media and the web to the point that you're asking Froome to disprove what you believe to be known without any evidence and do it with the very same evidence you admit not to have it seems crazy and pointless. It's almost like the game of nothing being possible to prove is actually what is driving the arguments which clearly isn't helping the sport it it?
Sam, Sam, Sam, you have been posting here long enough to not keep repeating this sad old mantra.

Sky & Froome can easily solve Froome's 'proof'.

UCI have numbers from way back, Froome can release his Barloworld data and Sky can release all the information that have. It will then show Froome's oh so natural progression from hanging off motorbikes to 2 time tour de france winner was a nice gradual, natural rise from super talent young rider to mature talented, best in the world.

Then we can get on with lambasting the Spanish, Italians, Belgians, Russains etc as dirty cheating dopers.

Capish? :)
Where does this belief come from that a rider can only progress steadily year by year and not be suspicous? Contador, Valverde, Ullrich? It seems an impossible method to determine when a rider or team should release data, or shouldn't release all data on a rider? They certainly shouldn't release it to us or the UCI that's for sure. Even WADA is doubtful.

Who does it apply to anyway - Is it simply going to be for a GT winner without a stage race win first? If Bardet had hit the podium, should all his data be released because he's a young rider, is it based on how many minutes you're behind the winner - where do you stop or start this guilty until proven innocent way of providing your belief it would be an effective anti-doping method?

Incidentally, isn't this exactly what Braislford has asked the UCI & WADA to do across the board for all riders anyway just this month, just release all rider data and start collecting all power files with the passport?
Because in history, what Froome did, has never happened. The last time it happened it did not end up well. ;)

Note: ****, now I notice I am in the Movistar thread. Somebody need to move all these posts! :eek:
 
It has never happened to a clean rider.

Rumsas, Berzin, Riis and Chiappucci all went from donkey to race horse. All on EPO. Lots of EPO.

I would say Froome eclipses all these transformations, both in how short of a time span it happened in and how dramatic the change was.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY