Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1371 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
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 that is how it works.

You are not along time cycling fan, or are trolling. Let us give you benefit of the doubt for a few more pages. :D

Time and time again riders that have shown huge steps up in performance have been caught doping.

Cycling is an endurance sport and those with talent show themselves early.

Now if Froomey had done these tests in Aigle and his numbers were high in terms of ability, then he would probably have gone to a bigger team than Barloworld. Teams are constantly looking for new talent. And no doubt big teams have contacts in Aigle for these youngsters who test very high. So Froome went to Team Konica Minolta, then to Barloword where he did nothing special. Then Sky were setting up and predominantly looking for British riders, so Froome got the gig due to parentage. For one year and half he did zilch and according the famous Brailsford scoring chart, where Froomey was almost bottom and Edvald Boasson Hagen was top, he showed zero potentail, till Vuelta'11 where he was the best rider in the race and only got second due to Wiggins ego getting in the way, same for 2012 TdF, Wiggins ego.

So is sky, brailsford, Froomey and english media want to the Froome suspicion to end all they ahve to do is be transparent with his data all the way back to Aigle.

Should we start a thread on Sky 'evidence', that would be fun, it would also be a great bottrap......

Ps, other riders are all known dopers. So bringing them up in a sky thread defeats the argument that sky are somehow clean.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
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.
I can understand why UCI/Froome wont disclose it, becuase his numbers were average to low-good. If he had GT winning numbers back then he would have got a bigger squad then TeamKonicaMinolta taking him on ;)
 
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?
Here's a tip. If I don't actually say what you're suggesting, then you can be almost sure I don't think what you're suggesting. If you actually want to know what I think, just ask and open-ended question. Don't ask, "So you think this [insert inane suggestion or idea which no rational person would actually think here]?

Doing that is called creating a strawman argument, and is a logical fallacy. So let's break it down into smaller nuggets.

I'm pretty sure Froome has his TdF title, yes? So it's very clear that he doesn't have to prove anything yes? He simply has to pass whatever doping tests are being administered, yes? So can we dispense with the question of what he needs to prove?

The question you seem to be asking is what it will take for everyone to simply accept the performances as clean and stop accusing him doping? Correct?

If that's the question, it has been answered dozens of times, in different ways by different people. Some of the more simple answers here are:

• Release all pre Vuelta 2011 data and physiological testing so we can see how he became suddenly able to beat the best climbers in the world after completely mediocre results to that point.
• Weigh him before and/or after every stage and release raw power data in all races
• Release same for all riders (goes to wider organization, not just Froome or Sky)

I don't think any of that is going to happen and I won't bother asking. But I would say to cycling in general, that's what it would take to even begin to establish that the sport is clean. But it's not, so it's not going to happen. Of course. For many, in the case of Froome, there isn't any data or set of facts that's going to retroactively explain all the suspicious performances and lies which have been put out by his team and his entourage. Folks are going to have to deal with that fact.
 
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.
Another logical fallacy which assumes those in power have it in their interests to take Sky and Froome down, and there isn't in fact an overwhelming incentive for the system to hide and cover up what's happening.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders 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.
Another logical fallacy which assumes those in power have it in their interests to take Sky and Froome down, and there isn't in fact an overwhelming incentive for the system to hide and cover up what's happening.
You're the one trying to use logic though, not the 'system'? You're saying there is a 'mountain of evidence'. That does suggest you have most of what is required to prove they are doping does it not? It's a pretty big statement. I mean a lawyer presented with a mountain of evidence would probably take you up on a no-win-no-fee basis given this mountain.

What i'm saying, is what other piece of evidence do you need to complete the puzzle to make me believe the mountain of evidence you claim to have can be used as as proof? As far as I can tell it's not a mountain because if Sky tested positive tomorrow, it would prove nothing of the validity of the evidence in that mountain would it? Even that positive wouldn't be the missing piece of your mountain, because testing positive is not simply another piece of evidence that you claim to not have because that would be proof-enough all by itself.
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
red_flanders 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.
Another logical fallacy which assumes those in power have it in their interests to take Sky and Froome down, and there isn't in fact an overwhelming incentive for the system to hide and cover up what's happening.
You're the one trying to use logic though? You're sayying there is a 'mountain of evidence'. That does suggest you have most of what is required to prove they are doping does it not? It's a pretty big statement. I mean a lawyer presented with a mountain of evidence would probably take you up on a no-win-no-fee basis given this mountain.

What i'm saying, is what other piece of evidence do you need to complete the puzzle to make me believe the mountain of evidence you claim to have can be used as as proof? As far as I can tell it's not a mountain because if Sky tested positive tomorrow, it would prove nothing of the evidence in that mountain would it? Even that positive wouldn't be the missing piece of your mountain, because testing positive is not simply another piece of evidence that you claim to not have.
So once again, "proof" is not "required" here. This is a cycling forum, not a court, and not where the UCI determines guilt. At what point will this concept register?

You seem to be using this inaccurate and misleading language to suggest there isn't a mountain of evidence. Well "mountain" is my term and is certainly wholly subjective. I don't expect you to agree with it or use it. Beyond that, there is certainly, in my view and in plenty of other people's view, more than enough evidence to convince us beyond a doubt what has happened with Froome and Wiggins and Sky in general.

Since it's been discussed over and over and over and you still have your view, I'm not sure what the point is of listing it all out for you, though I agree a single resource which succinctly makes the arguments is a much needed resource. I'm not aware of it and don't have time right now to reconstruct it or distill it for someone who seems to need to believe in Sky. Sometime soon maybe. But you can certainly see all my posts on the Sky/Froome topics, or simply read those threads. They contain all of it.

I will admit to general confusion about your statements. You say there is evidence I "claim not to have". No idea what that means in the context of this discussion...or otherwise. I have no idea what you would need to be convinced. I assume the metric for you is a positive test. Great. Enjoy. I'm interested in what is, not what the organization has already proven. The UCI has been proven to be corrupt, has been proven to suppress positive tests, and is closely aligned with the current financial interests of the team winning the biggest race. So you'll forgive me if I don't put any stock in "no positive test" as some kind of useful litmus test as to whether I know if someone is doping or not.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
For the "Sky riders are doping" believers, In your opinion, is Froome on the same stuff as Wiggins was?

Is it something new? If so, did he learn about it from Brad?
Or is it something known, and for whatever reason he just didn't use it or as much of it before?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
For the "Sky riders are doping" believers, In your opinion, is Froome on the same stuff as Wiggins was?

Is it something new? If so, did he learn about it from Brad?
Or is it something known, and for whatever reason he just didn't use it or as much of it before?
no need to be on anything new. just a peptide to render the excess tissue, drop ~ 5-6kgs or more, then maintain your power. just transfusions and miscrodosing works
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
samhocking said:
red_flanders 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.
Another logical fallacy which assumes those in power have it in their interests to take Sky and Froome down, and there isn't in fact an overwhelming incentive for the system to hide and cover up what's happening.
You're the one trying to use logic though? You're sayying there is a 'mountain of evidence'. That does suggest you have most of what is required to prove they are doping does it not? It's a pretty big statement. I mean a lawyer presented with a mountain of evidence would probably take you up on a no-win-no-fee basis given this mountain.

What i'm saying, is what other piece of evidence do you need to complete the puzzle to make me believe the mountain of evidence you claim to have can be used as as proof? As far as I can tell it's not a mountain because if Sky tested positive tomorrow, it would prove nothing of the evidence in that mountain would it? Even that positive wouldn't be the missing piece of your mountain, because testing positive is not simply another piece of evidence that you claim to not have.
So once again, "proof" is not "required" here. This is a cycling forum, not a court, and not where the UCI determines guilt. At what point will this concept register?

You seem to be using this inaccurate and misleading language to suggest there isn't a mountain of evidence. Well "mountain" is my term and is certainly wholly subjective. I don't expect you to agree with it or use it. Beyond that, there is certainly, in my view and in plenty of other people's view, more than enough evidence to convince us beyond a doubt what has happened with Froome and Wiggins and Sky in general.

Since it's been discussed over and over and over and you still have your view, I'm not sure what the point is of listing it all out for you, though I agree a single resource which succinctly makes the arguments is a much needed resource. I'm not aware of it and don't have time right now to reconstruct it or distill it for someone who seems to need to believe in Sky. Sometime soon maybe. But you can certainly see all my posts on the Sky/Froome topics, or simply read those threads. They contain all of it.

I will admit to general confusion about your statements. You say there is evidence I "claim not to have". No idea what that means in the context of this discussion...or otherwise. I have no idea what you would need to be convinced. I assume the metric for you is a positive test. Great. Enjoy. I'm interested in what is, not what the organization has already proven. The UCI has been proven to be corrupt, has been proven to suppress positive tests, and is closely aligned with the current financial interests of the team winning the biggest race. So you'll forgive me if I don't put any stock in "no positive test" as some kind of useful litmus test as to whether I know if someone is doping or not.
I'm saying you don't have a mountain of evidence. Like everyone else, you seem to confuse having a list of individual fragments of evidence scraped from the internet where one fragment doesn't even support the one above it as meaningful to support a belief. You believe you have a mountain of evidence only because you are supporting it. Let your belief go and the list falls into a meaningless flat pile - that is what I mean by you must be missing a piece of your mountain of evidence against sky or any rider for that matter.

You are the second to end up using the UCI being corrupt as an escape clause, so I wish you goodnight, I thought the discussion would end with blaming the corruption of the UCI as previous discussions about Sky usually do.
 
Apr 7, 2015
656
0
0
Re: Re:

blackcat said:
Dear Wiggo said:
For the "Sky riders are doping" believers, In your opinion, is Froome on the same stuff as Wiggins was?

Is it something new? If so, did he learn about it from Brad?
Or is it something known, and for whatever reason he just didn't use it or as much of it before?
no need to be on anything new. just a peptide to render the excess tissue, drop ~ 5-6kgs or more, then maintain your power. just transfusions and miscrodosing works
Agreed - it is all in the way things are organized. Logistics rules but cost money. That is the real marginal gain.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
red_flanders said:
samhocking said:
red_flanders 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.
Another logical fallacy which assumes those in power have it in their interests to take Sky and Froome down, and there isn't in fact an overwhelming incentive for the system to hide and cover up what's happening.
You're the one trying to use logic though? You're sayying there is a 'mountain of evidence'. That does suggest you have most of what is required to prove they are doping does it not? It's a pretty big statement. I mean a lawyer presented with a mountain of evidence would probably take you up on a no-win-no-fee basis given this mountain.

What i'm saying, is what other piece of evidence do you need to complete the puzzle to make me believe the mountain of evidence you claim to have can be used as as proof? As far as I can tell it's not a mountain because if Sky tested positive tomorrow, it would prove nothing of the evidence in that mountain would it? Even that positive wouldn't be the missing piece of your mountain, because testing positive is not simply another piece of evidence that you claim to not have.
So once again, "proof" is not "required" here. This is a cycling forum, not a court, and not where the UCI determines guilt. At what point will this concept register?

You seem to be using this inaccurate and misleading language to suggest there isn't a mountain of evidence. Well "mountain" is my term and is certainly wholly subjective. I don't expect you to agree with it or use it. Beyond that, there is certainly, in my view and in plenty of other people's view, more than enough evidence to convince us beyond a doubt what has happened with Froome and Wiggins and Sky in general.

Since it's been discussed over and over and over and you still have your view, I'm not sure what the point is of listing it all out for you, though I agree a single resource which succinctly makes the arguments is a much needed resource. I'm not aware of it and don't have time right now to reconstruct it or distill it for someone who seems to need to believe in Sky. Sometime soon maybe. But you can certainly see all my posts on the Sky/Froome topics, or simply read those threads. They contain all of it.

I will admit to general confusion about your statements. You say there is evidence I "claim not to have". No idea what that means in the context of this discussion...or otherwise. I have no idea what you would need to be convinced. I assume the metric for you is a positive test. Great. Enjoy. I'm interested in what is, not what the organization has already proven. The UCI has been proven to be corrupt, has been proven to suppress positive tests, and is closely aligned with the current financial interests of the team winning the biggest race. So you'll forgive me if I don't put any stock in "no positive test" as some kind of useful litmus test as to whether I know if someone is doping or not.
I'm saying you don't have a mountain of evidence. Like everyone else, you seem to confuse having a list of individual fragments of evidence scraped from the internet where one fragment doesn't even support the one above it as meaningful to support a belief. You believe you have a mountain of evidence only because you are supporting it. Let your belief go and the list falls into a meaningless flat pile - that is what I mean by you must be missing a piece of your mountain of evidence against sky or any rider for that matter.

You are the second to end up using the UCI being corrupt as an escape clause, so I wish you goodnight, I thought the discussion would end with blaming the UCI as previous discussions about Sky usually do.
UCI corrupt, how dare you! Sporting federations are the most moralistic, upstanding and rule abiding organisations in the world today!!!!!
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
I'm saying you don't have a mountain of evidence. Like everyone else, you seem to confuse having a list of individual fragments of evidence scraped from the internet where one fragment doesn't even support the one above it as meaningful to support a belief. You believe you have a mountain of evidence only because you are supporting it. Let your belief go and the list falls into a meaningless flat pile - that is what I mean by you must be missing a piece of your mountain of evidence against sky or any rider for that matter.

You are the second to end up using the UCI being corrupt as an escape clause, so I wish you goodnight, I thought the discussion would end with blaming the UCI as previous discussions about Sky usually do.
When Sky started I had no belief in them either way. I was frankly rather hopeful and pre-disposed to root for them. I had some great hopes that cycling was finally, after dozens of mis-steps, maybe going to turn a corner.

What happened in the time after that was a series of unbelievable performances and transformations, along with a litany of lies, inconsistencies, and PR to explain the unexplainable. I had no prejudice, in the most literal sense of the word, rather if anything I was prejudiced in favor of Sky and Garmin and their claims of clean sport.

What they did and how they attempted to cover it up formed my opinion. There is no house of cards here, there are simply facts which anyone who understands the sport can see, all point in the same direction.

I'm surprised I'm only the second person to tell you about the UCI and their proven corruption and attempts to cover up positives from multiple big stars, including Froome and his TUE. It's common knowledge. I don't blame the UCI, but they are simply proven to be corrupt. This is not in dispute. So in that climate, who they decide is dirty has nothing to do with who I can clearly see is dirty. It hasn't for well over a decade.

So you can rail on all you want about belief, but it simply doesn't hold up to examination. Just like all the protestations of the believers in Sky.
 
May 6, 2011
452
0
0
I fundamentally disagree that there is large volume of empirical evidence against Frome (in strong contrast to other riders in the past). All arguments that I have seen are grounded in an extrapolation of what has happened in the past to provide an explanation of the present. While I agree there are solid grounds for those doubts, the reasoning appears largely analytical in nature. Anyone that claims they 'know' Froome is doping should probably tone down the hyperbole, as it is clearly a claim that can't be made.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Re:

richtea said:
I fundamentally disagree that there is large volume of empirical evidence against Frome (in strong contrast to other riders in the past). All arguments that I have seen are grounded in an extrapolation of what has happened in the past to provide an explanation of the present. While I agree there are solid grounds for those doubts, the reasoning appears largely analytical in nature. Anyone that claims they 'know' Froome is doping should probably tone down the hyperbole, as it is clearly a claim that can't be made.
Yeah, it's fair enough if someone thinks he dopes and they coherently put a bit of backbone to it, but no one can say they know for 100% certainty when they are not connected in any way to the inner circle of it all.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
That's fine, but don't list a mountain of evidence against Sky if you believe they are winning because the UCI is corrupt. Your issue clearly isn't about Sky's transparency if the discussion ends with that statement about UCI.
I have trouble following our discourse. I don't have evidence of why they are winning, rather (as I've stated repeatedly) that they are doping. As such, your comment makes no sense to me.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re:

richtea said:
I fundamentally disagree that there is large volume of empirical evidence against Frome (in strong contrast to other riders in the past). All arguments that I have seen are grounded in an extrapolation of what has happened in the past to provide an explanation of the present. While I agree there are solid grounds for those doubts, the reasoning appears largely analytical in nature. Anyone that claims they 'know' Froome is doping should probably tone down the hyperbole, as it is clearly a claim that can't be made.
I fundamentally disagree with you.

Sky were asked to provide data that would show that Froome has the ntural ability to do waht he does. They didn't.

That alone should be enough to convince people that they are hiding something. Why hide? Ans: Doping.

There is plenty of stuff written about Froome's transformation.

Plenty of it points to Dr Leinders, Yates, Julich, De Jong, Mick Barry, Bilharizia stories have many versions.....

The biggest grounds for doubt lie with UCI, known to be as corrupt as any dirty sporting federation. Cookson hs not changed that. Nor has he made anti doping independent or properly funded. so SSDD in cycling.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
just look at his body compared to his barloworld body. #NOTNORMAL. but he deserved to win, he was the best of a doping lot. And I know doping is not a level playing field, but alls fair in love and war.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
riddle me this Skysters, how does vroom lose ~6kg from this physique? he is already no bodyfat, no nonfunctional tissue, 30thousand miles a year professional. All functional muscle. Your control sample, is everyone who has been a pro in the last 50 years, even Rasmussen.

How does vroom become the thinnest ever pro when he was not that naturally, and he was doing 30k mile a year as a pro.

calorie deficit doesnt cut it Skysters

Its drugs
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS