Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[JimmyFingers]

I really wish that there was some kind of filter to prevent nationalist fanboys from turning up in July.

I have absolutely no idea where you got the idea that I think it's impossible for someone to be both a good track rider and a good road rider. I never said or implied anything of the sort. What I did say was that many, many riders have "switched their focus to the road" from a track or other discipline background and none of them - not one, not ever - has had a career trajectory like that of Wiggins.

Those who could ride track but also contend for GC could do so from a relatively young age, just like everybody else who could contend for GC. There are many, many riders who started out in other disciplines. But none of them had a road career where they went from years in the grupetto to late career Tour winner. None of them. Not pursuit specialists. Not other trackies. Not mountain bikers. Not speed skaters. Not six day racers. Not crossers. Not anybody.

In the pre-EPO era nobody had a career trajectory even remotely, slightly, a tiny bit, resembling that of Wiggins. In the post-EPO era there are a number of riders who were nowhere in GC terms in the early years of their road career and then ended up winning the Tour. Indurain, Riis, Armstrong, Wiggins.

Haha I was waiting for the accusation of 'July poster' or 'nationalistic fanboy', easy to try to dismiss opinions by mocking them.

The road race scene in the UK has been miles behind its continental counterparts for years. It has always been about the track. I believe there was a law years back about road races that made it difficult for UK cycling to develop good road racers. So talented riders inevitably ended up oin the track. To make it on the road you had to decamp to to the continent, but essentially most British riders have started on the track, spent their early career racing almost exclusively there before moving to the road later in their career. That means there were probably a lot of talented riders that may have become great road racers that never had the same choices their continental cousins had.

And while it hasn't happened before doesn't preclude the possibility it can happen, that's just stupid. It's like saying a black man can never be president.

And **** off with the fanboy crap

 

[BroDeal]

Well, there is one thing I have learned from this thread. Sky fanboys are even funnier than Armstrong fanboys. At least the Armstrong flat earthers did not have to ignore the 90% of GT winners who were shown to be doping in the last decade. They only had to maintain their faith as the evidence piled up. The Sky true believers have hopped in the fail boat and set sail despite knowing that every other ship in the last twenty years has foundered on the rocks.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Well, there is one thing I have learned from this thread. Sky fanboys are even funnier than Armstrong fanboys. At least the Armstrong flat earthers did not have to ignore the 90% of GT winners who were shown to be doping in the last decade. They only had to maintain their faith as the evidence piled up. The Sky true believers have hopped in the fail boat and set sail despite knowing that every other ship in the last twenty years has foundered on the rocks.

Mocking people isn't engaging in debate, FYI

 

[BroDeal]

Mocking people isn't engaging in debate, FYI

You cannot debate with true believers. They will grasp at any cockamamie theory to maintain their beliefs. This thread contains evidence of that in great abundance.

My favorite is weight loss! None of the climbers ever thought to lose weight before joining Sky. LOL.

 

[lemoogle]

Mocking people isn't engaging in debate, FYI

and this was?

None of that is remotely relevant, intelligent, or funny. I can't see myself bothering to read any of your posts in the future.

 

[thehog]

Mocking people isn't engaging in debate, FYI

Alas the point was made perfectly. You have to admit. FYI.

 

[JimmyFingers]

You cannot debate with true believers. They will grasp at any cockamamie theory to maintain their beliefs. This thread contains evidence of that in great abundance.

My favorite is weight loss! None of the climbers ever thought to lose weight before joining Sky. LOL.

Ever considered exactly the same accusation can be levelled at you? Your argument seems to consist of 'it has happened before so it must be happening again' and utterly refuse to consider any of what is happening might be legitimate. You are as closed minded as those you wish to mock.

 

[Ripper]

Me finks your mind is made up here Straydog. As far as your concerned there's clearly nothing questionable, all is above board , Sky are clean and therefore by implication so must be the rest of the peloton ( or at least most of it) and all is sweetness and light and every one has seen the error of there ways. Cus if they aint they,d better go asking for there money back.
As this section is called "The Clinic" for a reason and us doubters are just embittered and twisted cynics .. "wasters " I think Brad would call us, why are you posting here?
I've tried to be honest and frank with you but its clear your nothing but a rabid fanboy who has put his capacity for deductive reasoning away for now in order to bathe in jingoistic flag waiving because after 99 years of waiting Britain is about to have a Brit winner of the TDF....and therefore unlike perhaps as many as 98 previous ones MUST be clean.
Yeh, a powerful argument you put up. Now go put you Sky top on, waive you union jack and enjoy yourself.
Denial..much more than a river in Egypt,

Great post Darryl, thanks

 

[Ripper]

Well, there is one thing I have learned from this thread. Sky fanboys are even funnier than Armstrong fanboys. At least the Armstrong flat earthers did not have to ignore the 90% of GT winners who were shown to be doping in the last decade. They only had to maintain their faith as the evidence piled up. The Sky true believers have hopped in the fail boat and set sail despite knowing that every other ship in the last twenty years has foundered on the rocks.

Bingo bango!

 

[JimmyFingers]

and this was?

A perfectly reasonable way to respond to someone simply mocking rather than addressing an argument I had raised

 

[JimmyFingers]

Alas the point was made perfectly. You have to admit. FYI.

Or not, or maybe, or I don't know. Which suits you?

 

[Ripper]

+1 Well said. Seriously. Though this will fall on deaf ears I fear. There are some who just want a doping story no matter what.

There are some who believe in miracles no matter what.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Well, there is one thing I have learned from this thread. Sky fanboys are even funnier than Armstrong fanboys. At least the Armstrong flat earthers did not have to ignore the 90% of GT winners who were shown to be doping in the last decade. They only had to maintain their faith as the evidence piled up. The Sky true believers have hopped in the fail boat and set sail despite knowing that every other ship in the last twenty years has foundered on the rocks.

Since 1991 the only 2 winners that one could even have a glimmer of starry eyed hope that they were clean were Evans (formerly of Telecom) and Sastre (CSC). And yet people have faith that Wigans alone in the last 22 years is gonna win clean, because he rides a trainer after the race ends to cool down, and also apparently because he's a nice British lad.
Just close your eyes spin around and repeat "I wish I wish I wish".

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well, there is one thing I have learned from this thread. Sky fanboys are even funnier than Armstrong fanboys. At least the Armstrong flat earthers did not have to ignore the 90% of GT winners who were shown to be doping in the last decade. They only had to maintain their faith as the evidence piled up. The Sky true believers have hopped in the fail boat and set sail despite knowing that every other ship in the last twenty years has foundered on the rocks.

Of course, sometimes they not only share the same points, but the same posting style

 

[131313]

I've seen someone say this before and regardless of what you think of Wiggins or Bobridge it has no relevance. No one is claiming all pursuit riders can become stage racers so the answer to this question is not even tangentially related to the discussion.

That's nonsense. It goes right to the hard of the issue: can a pursuit specialist with limited results on the road transform into a grand tour rider. Personally, I think the answer is "possibly". To say that it's not tangentially related to the discussion? Sorry, you're wrong. It's totally relevant.

The real question then becomes "why not those other guys". That's a discussion worth having, and personally I can see some legitimate reasons. But to make the claim "he was a great pursuiter so of course he's winning the tour" is a claim which needs a bit of investigation, because most guys don't make that jump.

Personally, I'm agnostic on the whole Sky thing. I'm not trying to be equivocal, but I can see legitimate points on both sides. I certainly won't be surprised if it all comes tumbling down. OTOH, they've had a lot of things go their way (the course, certain guys not being there, some guys like Menchov who are riding like they're scared straight). And all of the "marginal gains" stuff which gets dismissed does actually add up. Even if many of these things are used as smoke screens in the past, actually doing them makes a difference. Lastly, Wiggins put a small amount of time into an elite group containing Horner, Tibo, Vangarderen and Rolland...he wasn't crashing, hopping back on his bike and then winning the stage by 2 minutes. So, I think some people are overstating his actual performance just a bit.

Regarding Froome, I don't know enough about him to even form an opinion. What I will say is that his story is eerily reminiscent of another guy in his mid 20's, from a country without a long cycling tradition, who was relatively unknown. He raced for a couple of years anonymously, lost a little bit of weight, and suddenly fulfilled the promise that many at the time said he had all along, standing on the Tour podium. Yes, I'm talking about Berhard Kohl. But who knows? Froome may well not be Berhard Kohl.

The other thing that cycling history has told us is that time will probably tell, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[BYOP88]

You cannot debate with true believers. They will grasp at any cockamamie theory to maintain their beliefs. This thread contains evidence of that in great abundance.

My favorite is weight loss! None of the climbers ever thought to lose weight before joining Sky. LOL.

Just think what Jan could've done if he'd been around now. I bet he's kicking himself thinking 'if only i cut down on the bratwurst'.

 

[JimmyFingers]

That's nonsense. It goes right to the hard of the issue: can a pursuit specialist with limited results on the road transform into a grand tour rider. Personally, I think the answer is "possibly". To say that it's not tangentially related to the discussion? Sorry, you're wrong. It's totally relevant.

The real question then becomes "why not those other guys". That's a discussion worth having, and personally I can see some legitimate reasons. But to make the claim "he was a great pursuiter so of course he's winning the tour" is a claim which needs a bit of investigation, because most guys don't make that jump.

Personally, I'm agnostic on the whole Sky thing. I'm not trying to be equivocal, but I can see legitimate points on both sides. I certainly won't be surprised if it all comes tumbling down. OTOH, they've had a lot of things go their way (the course, certain guys not being there, some guys like Menchov who are riding like they're scared straight). And all of the "marginal gains" stuff which gets dismissed does actually add up. Even if many of these things are used as smoke screens in the past, actually doing them makes a difference. Lastly, Wiggins put a small amount of time into an elite group containing Horner, Tibo, Vangarderen and Rolland...he wasn't crashing, hopping back on his bike and then winning the stage by 2 minutes. So, I think some people are overstating his actual performance just a bit.

Regarding Froome, I don't know enough about him to even form an opinion. What I will say is that his story is eerily reminiscent of another guy in his mid 20's, from a country without a long cycling tradition, who was relatively unknown. He raced for a couple of years anonymously, lost a little bit of weight, and suddenly fulfilled the promise that many at the time said he had all along, standing on the Tour podium. Yes, I'm talking about Berhard Kohl. But who knows? Froome may well not be Berhard Kohl.

The other thing that cycling history has told us is that time will probably tell, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

+10000000 great post. As I said I know why the suspicions are there, I I have shared them. I guess what I am saying is nothing that is happening is beyond being explained without doping, where as the majority opinion seems to be that is has to be. That is what I rail at, that is what I fundamentally disagree with. Spin is a beautiful thing, it can transform one fact into a myriad of them, each tailored to suit whoever is espousing them.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

That's nonsense. It goes right to the hard of the issue: can a pursuit specialist with limited results on the road transform into a grand tour rider. Personally, I think the answer is "possibly". To say that it's not tangentially related to the discussion? Sorry, you're wrong. It's totally relevant.

The real question then becomes "why not those other guys". That's a discussion worth having, and personally I can see some legitimate reasons. But to make the claim "he was a great pursuiter so of course he's winning the tour" is a claim which needs a bit of investigation, because most guys don't make that jump.

Personally, I'm agnostic on the whole Sky thing. I'm not trying to be equivocal, but I can see legitimate points on both sides. I certainly won't be surprised if it all comes tumbling down. OTOH, they've had a lot of things go their way (the course, certain guys not being there, some guys like Menchov who are riding like they're scared straight). And all of the "marginal gains" stuff which gets dismissed does actually add up. Even if many of these things are used as smoke screens in the past, actually doing them makes a difference. Lastly, Wiggins put a small amount of time into an elite group containing Horner, Tibo, Vangarderen and Rolland...he wasn't crashing, hopping back on his bike and then winning the stage by 2 minutes. So, I think some people are overstating his actual performance just a bit.

Regarding Froome, I don't know enough about him to even form an opinion. What I will say is that his story is eerily reminiscent of another guy in his mid 20's, from a country without a long cycling tradition, who was relatively unknown. He raced for a couple of years anonymously, lost a little bit of weight, and suddenly fulfilled the promise that many at the time said he had all along, standing on the Tour podium. Yes, I'm talking about Berhard Kohl. But who knows? Froome may well not be Berhard Kohl.

The other thing that cycling history has told us is that time will probably tell, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

A shame Sky are one team up the hierarchy last year, or Froome would have had Kohl's race number (115 - also shared by Pellizotti at the 2009 Giro!) too.

Kohl had finished on the podium of the Dauphiné back in 2006, though, as well as 5th in the Österreichrundfahrt (a better GC race than anything Froome managed at any race bigger than the Giro del Capo?) and a top 10 in a mountain stage of two GTs (to Bejar, 2006 Vuelta, and to Loudenvielle, 2007 Tour) so even he wasn't quite as much of a rags to riches story as Froome.

 

[BroDeal]

Of course, sometimes they not only share the same points, but the same posting style

With three days to kill, it is easy creating another account while sitting in an armchair.

 

[Cavalier]

Ok sorry to pick on Cavalier's post and not one of the other myriad of "joined in july" posters but hey....

I was going to respond, but seeing as anything remotely approaching a factual basis was lacking in your post, I decided it wasn't worth the effort.

Get your eyesight checked.

 

[Telmisartan new]

Of course, sometimes they not only share the same points, but the same posting style

What gives me the hump about the Sky fanboys on here is the notion that merely to question Sky is completely wrong. This flagrantly ignores at least 50 years of professional cycling and what we have discovered about teams/riders during that period.

Is it okay for Rendell/Boulting to ridicule Quickstep's entire spring campaign on their podcast saying Boonen's and Terpstra's performances were simply not believable?

Is it okay for Kimmage and others to ridicule Gilbert's performances from whole of last season for the same reason?

Of course it is, free speech and all that, the very existence of this thread is based on a reasoned mature adult debate on whether Sky might be fishy. If certain posters cant handle an opinion that differs from their own then they're in the wrong place frankly. We are allowed to question.

Antoine Vayer, ex-Festina coach on Gilbert : " He beat the record on the Mur de Huy raising his arms well before the finish line. He climbed the Mur in two minutes 44 seconds. Was Jupiter Belgian? Maybe Gilbert popped out his thigh. No seriously,its not credible. I'm sure he's a nice kid but he's taking us for a ride "

 

[JimmyFingers]

What gives me the hump about the Sky fanboys on here is the notion that merely to question Sky is completely wrong. This flagrantly ignores at least 50 years of professional cycling and what we have discovered about teams/riders during that period.

But what I'm saying is that does not equate to guilt. The world is full of possibilities, I am open to the possibility that Sky dope. What I am not open to is the possibility that their success is solely down to doping. Good performance, particularly when within acceptable realms of human ability, does not make these sportsmen guilty by default, or guilty because of the lessons of history. Tell me the Sky team is fast as US Postal, that Froome is as fast as Pantani going up a hill.

Surely there is a simple truth there. Tell me that you don't have to spin a more complicated truth to counter-act it.

 

[thehog]

What gives me the hump about the Sky fanboys on here is the notion that merely to question Sky is completely wrong. This flagrantly ignores at least 50 years of professional cycling and what we have discovered about teams/riders during that period.

Is it okay for Rendell/Boulting to ridicule Quickstep's entire spring campaign on their podcast saying Boonen's and Terpstra's performances were simply not believable?

Is it okay for Kimmage and others to ridicule Gilbert's performances from whole of last season for the same reason?

Of course it is, free speech and all that, the very existence of this thread is based on a reasoned mature adult debate on whether Sky might be fishy. If certain posters cant handle an opinion that differs from their own then they're in the wrong place frankly. We are allowed to question.

Antoine Vayer, ex-Festina coach on Gilbert : " He beat the record on the Mur de Huy raising his arms well before the finish line. He climbed the Mur in two minutes 44 seconds. Was Jupiter Belgian? Maybe Gilbert popped out his thigh. No seriously,its not credible. I'm sure he's a nice kid but he's taking us for a ride "

I also think the July posters think then Clinic was created just for Sky. We've been debating doping well before Armstrong's comeback & will continue to do so. It's not a Sky thing here. It's a doping forum. They've just stumbled upon something and can't believe that in the day and age of clean cycling that a British team with Dutch doctors would cheat.

Watch next year how many teams suddenly have super doms. They'll come from nowhere I'll tell you.

 

[thehog]

But what I'm saying is that does not equate to guilt. The world is full of possibilities, I am open to the possibility that Sky dope. What I am not open to is the possibility that their doping is solely down to doping. Good performance, particularly when within acceptable realms of human ability, does not make these sportsmen guilty by default, or guilty because of the lessons of history. Tell me the Sky team is fast as US Postal, that Froome is as fast as Pantani going up a hill.

Surely there is a simple truth there. Tell me that you don't have to spin a more complicated truth to counter-act it.

That's stupid. Pantani rode in the era when EPO wasnt detectable. You could use at races. Now you microdose & transfuse. You can't get to 60% hemocrits and saline them down by morning.

You know this. I like the comparisons to the EPO era. Why not compare 2008? Or 2010?

 

[straydog]

Cavalier: I was going to respond, but seeing as anything remotely approaching a factual basis was lacking in your post, I decided it wasn't worth the effort.

Get your eyesight checked.

Ok sorry to pick on Cavalier's post and not one of the other myriad of "joined in july" posters but hey....

So to point 1

BW's "mediocre" road palmares 5 years ago in 2007 included:
4 days of dunkirk ITT 1st
Poitou Charentes ITT 1st
Dauphine prologue 1st
TDF prologue 4th
TDF ITT 4th

ok so lets ignore the 4 track world champions jerseys he had won by that stage, and the olympic gold, in what was at that stage his main focus, and let's ignore the tour de l'avenir results in 2003 and 2005 (ITT win, ITT 3rd place and not to mention Aurillac stage victory over the seven climbs)

Wow...did you really only start watching cycling this july?

Point 2

Cancellara winning the prologue is not an indicator in the slightest as to his "fitness" over 40 kms. If you actually had been watching cycling prior to july you might have noticed that riders as diverse as Sagan, Hushovd and even dear sweet Mark Cavendish are capable of winning prologues. And let's also ignore the profile suiting lighter riders more than Cancellara, hence Nibali's good showing, and let's also forget Martin's injuries. Actually, my dear, we can have our cake and eat it, if you know, we actually know what we are talking about.

Point 3

I fear I may lose you here, and you might have to resort to google, but I will give it a go....

If you think there is something extraordinary about riders of the quality of Porte, Mick Rogers and even EBH being able to briefly set a tempo so "blistering" as to drop, er, well, no one really, then I fear this is the wrong sport for you. It seems many here, including possibly you, want to say that Froome is stronger than Wiggins, cos of that little treacherous attack, and yet don't spot any irony in then saying that a man who has been "dropped" by his own team mate, and has had to fight merely to suck Nibali's wheel at times, VDB's and even, irony of ironies, Evan's earlier on, must be the one doping. More cake anyone? As to Evan's little implosion yesterday. If you can't see that his form has sucked all year, then I can't help you. Don't worry though, you'll be fine, the premiership starts up again next month.

Finally, seeing as you seem to like questioning Kreb's qualifications so much, I am interested as to what yours are exactly? Have you ever competed in cycling? To an Elite level maybe? Any sport? Are you a sports scientist? A Haematologist?

Where does your expertise stem from? Genuinely interested.

Peace

I see plenty of "facts" Cavalier, for you to answer. But then you like "facts" like "lost weight, went to tenerife, won stuff, must be doping"

Ah those facts...got you...as you were...back to the armchair and hand cream.

Pretty poor dodge Cav. Would love to hear you answers and especially your expertise.