Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[King Boonen]

Re:

Landa.

Oh, seems like I really need to pay attention to signings!

Not sure he's the dodgiest rider though is he? And I guess dodgiest team is a toss up between Tinkov, Sky, Movistar and Astana at the moment.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Landa.

Oh, seems like I really need to pay attention to signings!

Not sure he's the dodgiest rider though is he? And I guess dodgiest team is a toss up between Tinkov, Sky, Movistar and Astana at the moment.

Many Sky fans were complaining about Astana during the Giro, insinuating they were doping etc. Not specifically on here but just on the "interwebs" generally. I have not seen them complain as much about Movistar, Tinko Saxoff and - *shocker* - Sky.
Arguably Landa was the most dodgy rider on Astana during the Giro (I did not mean to suggest Landa is the most dodgy rider period, that title is reserved for the Dawg )

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Didn't Walsh have a dig at Astana during the GIro, saying he wasn't sure he could believe what he was seeing?

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Landa.

Oh, seems like I really need to pay attention to signings!

Not sure he's the dodgiest rider though is he? And I guess dodgiest team is a toss up between Tinkov, Sky, Movistar and Astana at the moment.

Many Sky fans were complaining about Astana during the Giro, insinuating they were doping etc. Not specifically on here but just on the "interwebs" generally. I have not seen them complain as much about Movistar, Tinko Saxoff and - *shocker* - Sky.
Arguably Landa was the most dodgy rider on Astana during the Giro (I did not mean to suggest Landa is the most dodgy rider period, that title is reserved for the Dawg )

The Sky Sheeple are no-doubt lead by the British media. After Vino won the 2012 Olympic RR it seems there is a law that you have to mention doping if you talk about Astana, it's ridiculous.

I'm just talking in terms of my ranking, they would probably be the top 4, however I forgot Etiix so make that a top 5. Dawg probably beats out Berto, but mainly because Berto has already been caught.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Didn't Walsh have a dig at Astana during the GIro, saying he wasn't sure he could believe what he was seeing?

Not just during the Giro:

https://twitter.com/DavidWalshST/status/625228464090648576


Edit:

I've just looked through David Walsh's tweets. There is literally nothing about the Giro in his "tweets" timeline, I didn't check replies. I find that really, really odd. Did I miss any?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Astana are 7th on CQ -- didn't stop Walsh from denigrating them.

 

[Bronstein]

Re:

Didn't Walsh have a dig at Astana during the GIro, saying he wasn't sure he could believe what he was seeing?

Mark Elders ‏@MarkElders62 May 18
@DavidWalshST David what do you think about Astana's performance so far at #Giro2015 ? Can they all really be this good??

@MarkElders62 Mark, a number of people have asked, I try to say nothing because I don't truly know but I don't believe and I can't enjoy.

https://twitter.com/DavidWalshST/status/600262601541582848?lang=en

 

[JimmyFingers]

Re: Re:

I wonder whether any of the bots who claimed that Sky are interested in providing actual evidence Froome is clean, as opposed to appeasing the Daily Mail readers with some bollocks during the Tour, will now change their mind.

You can't prove a negative. Nothing Sky could release would prove he's clean, especially to most of the posters here.

I said "providing actual evidence that", not proving a negative. I'll explain the difference if required but hopefully it isn't.

Independent experts like Tucker specified what convincing evidence would look like. Unsurprisingly, it involved the release of more data than a likely doctored w/kg number for one climb.

Clearly, Sky only wanted to placate the idiots mid-Tour.

So if they released this data, and it matched the numbers Tucker et al agree indicates a clean rider, you'd be happy that Froome is clean?

Because you saying the data they have released is 'likely doctored' makes me think you'd respond with further scepticism.

Let's face it, any evidence that Sky produced would be dismissed as lies. Damned if they do, damned if they don't, and yet people here still scream and shout about transparency.

Oh and just to be clear before the 'bot mocking' commences, I'm not saying Sky or Froome are clean, frankly I have no idea about ANY of them, just pointing out the ironies of what is posted here.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Didn't Walsh have a dig at Astana during the GIro, saying he wasn't sure he could believe what he was seeing?

Mark Elders ‏@MarkElders62 May 18
@DavidWalshST David what do you think about Astana's performance so far at #Giro2015 ? Can they all really be this good??

@MarkElders62 Mark, a number of people have asked, I try to say nothing because I don't truly know but I don't believe and I can't enjoy.

https://twitter.com/DavidWalshST/status/600262601541582848?lang=en

Legend, thank you.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

1.

2.

3.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Astana are 7th on CQ -- didn't stop Walsh from denigrating them.

I mean I find it very odd he wasn't tweeting anything himself about the Giro. As if tweets might have been deleted?

It's a law now in the UK that if you mention doping in cycling you have to mention Vino/Astana...

 

[JimmyFingers]

Re:

1.

2.

3.

Good point well made.

Landa has got a solid, climbing palmares though. And lost 5 minutes in the both the Vuelta and Giro ITT, although he could have been soft-pedalling to save himself for the mountains in both.;

 

[SeriousSam]

Re: Re:

So if they released this data, and it matched the numbers Tucker et al agree indicates a clean rider, you'd be happy that Froome is clean?

If they released actual real evidence Froome is clean, those capable of recognizing actual evidence would of course modify their beliefs about Froome's doping status. But that's not the point. The point is that Sky haven't released any actual evidence which is what many of us predicted would happen.

Because you saying the data they have released is 'likely doctored' makes me think you'd respond with further scepticism.

The strength of evidence any released data has obviously depends on the veracity of the data. Here's an example of the same thing going on with everyone's favourite evidence pertaining to doping: When they supervise athletes as they piss in a cup, it's because if they didn't, the data from the urine test wouldn't be good evidence that no banned substance could be found in the athlete's urine.

If the only data released were of the sort Sky could easily doctor, it could obviously not be strong evidence that Froome is clean due to the conflict of interest. They might as well just issue a press release with he content "Trust us, he's clen". The data Ross et al specified would be persuasive isn't of the easily doctored by Sky kind.

Let's face it, any evidence that Sky produced would be dismissed as lies. Damned if they do, damned if they don't, and yet people here still scream and shout about transparency.

Anything Sky do would be dismissed as lies by some and as proof of Froome's cleanliness by others, sure. That has nothing to do with the point I made, namely that Sky have refused to release actual evidence that Froome is clean because it has not been necessary to do so. Those fans their business relies on convincing were (irrationally) satisfied with no evidence and narratives about how the Frenchies are just jealous haters so that's all Sky did.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Fair enough and good points, although I maintain anything Sky release would be dismissed as lies, so a fruitless exercise, and that the Frenchies are jealous haters

 

[Handy Bendy Ghandi]

Re: Re:

I wonder whether any of the bots who claimed that Sky are interested in providing actual evidence Froome is clean, as opposed to appeasing the Daily Mail readers with some bollocks during the Tour, will now change their mind.

You can't prove a negative. Nothing Sky could release would prove he's clean, especially to most of the posters here.

I said "providing actual evidence that", not proving a negative. I'll explain the difference if required but hopefully it isn't.

Independent experts like Tucker specified what convincing evidence would look like. Unsurprisingly, it involved the release of more data than a likely doctored w/kg number for one climb.

Clearly, Sky only wanted to placate the idiots mid-Tour.

So if they released this data, and it matched the numbers Tucker et al agree indicates a clean rider, you'd be happy that Froome is clean?

Because you saying the data they have released is 'likely doctored' makes me think you'd respond with further scepticism.

Let's face it, any evidence that Sky produced would be dismissed as lies. Damned if they do, damned if they don't, and yet people here still scream and shout about transparency.

Oh and just to be clear before the 'bot mocking' commences, I'm not saying Sky or Froome are clean, frankly I have no idea about ANY of them, just pointing out the ironies of what is posted here.

I think the only solution is if Froome is monitored 24 hours a day with access for everyone to observe all his activities..............a bit like a non-stop Truman Show.............but astonishingly boring !

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Fair enough and good points, although I maintain anything Sky release would be dismissed as lies, so a fruitless exercise, and that the Frenchies are jealous haters

any new tests are a red herring....they could release the test results from the UCI...they could not be called a lie...but they won't...I wonder why

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

I wonder whether any of the bots who claimed that Sky are interested in providing actual evidence Froome is clean, as opposed to appeasing the Daily Mail readers with some bollocks during the Tour, will now change their mind.

You can't prove a negative. Nothing Sky could release would prove he's clean, especially to most of the posters here.

I said "providing actual evidence that", not proving a negative. I'll explain the difference if required but hopefully it isn't.

Independent experts like Tucker specified what convincing evidence would look like. Unsurprisingly, it involved the release of more data than a likely doctored w/kg number for one climb.

Clearly, Sky only wanted to placate the idiots mid-Tour.

So if they released this data, and it matched the numbers Tucker et al agree indicates a clean rider, you'd be happy that Froome is clean?

Maybe.

Of course in this imaginary situation Froome isn't a TDF champion so no one probably cares very much.

You can't divorce Team Sky's success from their dishonesty.

You can't take one variable out of the equation and pretend the equation remains the same.

Dishonesty is a major part of what Froome and Sky are. If we pretend Froome were honest than we have to follow through on that point and see how it effects the rest of the equation. If DB was honest and open with the media, then that's probably because he has nothing to hide, which he clearly does now. And if he has nothing to hide, that's because he isn't cheating. And if he isn't cheating he doesn't turn 2 bottle carriers into GT supermen (+ G now along the way). So they are't winning the Tour to begin with.

What you are doing is sort of like saying "sepp blatter would be a good Fifa Pres if he wasn't corrupt".

Err but if he wasn't corrupt he wouldn't be Fifa pres to begin with.

You can't ignore the bits of the package you don't like.

 

[JimmyFingers]

So if Sky release data that indicates he is clean, there is no way he could be winning the TdF? So essentially you're saying he 100% is dirty, and there's nothing that Sky or the rider can say or do to prove he is clean?

So again, it's a fruitless exercise as demonstrated by your post, with added hyperbole and character assassination.

 

[thehog]

Re:

So if Sky release data that indicates he is clean, there is no way he could be winning the TdF? So essentially you're saying he 100% is dirty, and there's nothing that Sky or the rider can say or do to prove he is clean?

So again, it's a fruitless exercise as demonstrated by your post, with added hyperbole and character assassination.

I believe the case to be is that if Froome’s current testing data matches that of a human being that can produce the types of performances he has shown in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015 it will go some way to demonstrating he really is an amazing athlete.

The part that is missing is if his data from pre-2011 Vuelta shows that he had amazing potential to produce the types of performances we have seen then it might explain he results now.

To this point; Sky have released some data but the simply refuse to release anything until he became Super Dawg at the 2011 Vuelta. Additionally they fudged the data at this year’s Tour to bring down his numbers.

With those actions it really leads you to one type of conclusion and it’s the same one Lance used. Froome can’t possibly produce the numbers he does unaided.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Heck how about World Cycling Centre releasing the Hinault like potential test results they have from the tests they ran when he spent a year there?

 

[Irondan]

Re:

Heck how about World Cycling Centre releasing the Hinault like potential test results they have from the tests they ran when he spent a year there?

But that's a UCI facility.

The UCI don't want to release any of Froomes information either because the don't want people to start asking questions.

Questions are scary to the UCI.

Scary....

 

[JimmyFingers]

Re: Re:

So if Sky release data that indicates he is clean, there is no way he could be winning the TdF? So essentially you're saying he 100% is dirty, and there's nothing that Sky or the rider can say or do to prove he is clean?

So again, it's a fruitless exercise as demonstrated by your post, with added hyperbole and character assassination.

I believe the case to be is that if Froome’s current testing data matches that of a human being that can produce the types of performances he has shown in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015 it will go some way to demonstrating he really is an amazing athlete.

The part that is missing is if his data from pre-2011 Vuelta shows that he had amazing potential to produce the types of performances we have seen then it might explain he results now.

To this point; Sky have released some data but the simply refuse to release anything until he became Super Dawg at the 2011 Vuelta. Additionally they fudged the data at this year’s Tour to bring down his numbers.

With those actions it really leads you to one type of conclusion and it’s the same one Lance used. Froome can’t possibly produce the numbers he does unaided.

The it begs the question when enough is enough then, it strikes me that only a total release of testing, training, racing and medical data would satisfy, and then only maybe.

As for your conclusion, I wouldn't like to commit either way.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

So if Sky release data that indicates he is clean, there is no way he could be winning the TdF? So essentially you're saying he 100% is dirty, and there's nothing that Sky or the rider can say or do to prove he is clean?

So again, it's a fruitless exercise as demonstrated by your post, with added hyperbole and character assassination.

I believe the case to be is that if Froome’s current testing data matches that of a human being that can produce the types of performances he has shown in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015 it will go some way to demonstrating he really is an amazing athlete.

The part that is missing is if his data from pre-2011 Vuelta shows that he had amazing potential to produce the types of performances we have seen then it might explain he results now.

To this point; Sky have released some data but the simply refuse to release anything until he became Super Dawg at the 2011 Vuelta. Additionally they fudged the data at this year’s Tour to bring down his numbers.

With those actions it really leads you to one type of conclusion and it’s the same one Lance used. Froome can’t possibly produce the numbers he does unaided.

The it begs the question when enough is enough then, it strikes me that only a total release of testing, training, racing and medical data would satisfy, and then only maybe.

As for your conclusion, I wouldn't like to commit either way.

There is never enough, data continues to evolve, it becomes more accurate, detailed and comes in new forms. Think of it like temperature over the years. In the 70s it took sending a balloon into the atmosphere to gain temperature for 1 day ahead. Now they can obtain weather 14 days ahead from several ground based weather satiation. Weather is also more accurate for the exact locality of the person rather than a generic number for one large city.

In cycling, soon there will be gear selection, ratios and wind direction recorded from the bike, the number will be a lot more relevant. It’s also an excellent opportunity for cycling to become a lot more interesting by the use of statistics and power numbers. There are several start-ups pushing the boundaries in these areas. It’s a shame the UCI doesn’t want to move much further than cameras on bikes.

It terms of Froome and doping. If he were truly clean and he really did have “crazy adaptive physiology” then there would be no harm in releasing some of his older numbers to demonstrate that his lack of bike handling skills, badzhilla etc. was holding him back. Bikepure has his numbers, the UCI has his numbers, all he has to do is release it then all of this would be over. Froome/Sky only have themselves to blame for the constant questions.

 

[The Carrot]

Edvald Boasson Hagen's getting good again now he's left SKY. I guess the marginal gains aggregated more for others than they did for him.

 

[wendybnt]

Maybe he's not beholden to Sky's ZTP anymore and he can go back to doping like he did pre-Sky