Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1553 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Sky

pastronef said:
talking about Diney buying 21st Century Fox (and SKY)
if Disney does not want to have any links to pro cycling, could they create a High-Road situation? the financial backing is guaranteed, but without SKY on the jersey?
The timing is interesting, even though the Sky/Disney story broke the day after the Froome one. I wonder how much the UCI's patience has run out with Sky, and the penny is starting to drop that the team is really just James Murdoch's hobby project. Looking rationally at the sport's current structure we don't want no Team Sky, we should want 17 more 'Team Sky' s: the UCI must have been hoping for a race to the top, that Sky really were getting a commercial 3-to-400% roi and that the sport would by now be full of blue chip companies making big long-term investments, paying their riders well, outwardly promoting the sport and raising the quality of the sport. Hardly a surprise on that basis that Sky would get away with things other teams don't and could achieve some unlikely victories without +ve tests - they're an exemplar sponsor model in a symbiotic relationship with the governing body.

Except that they're not. Eight years on from Sky's launch and the sport is otherwise made up of the same types of sponsors as before, bike companies and medium-size firms where the owner happens to be a cycling fan. Plus a few more suspect dictatorships trying to sportswash their reputations. And has a load of deathly boring races because one team has more money and protection than the others. And now the guy who's been sinking the €€€ into his hobby won't even be in charge any more. There are now only negatives to Sky's involvement, even the idea of them as a start of something bigger and better is dead. The sport is cutting its losses and hopefully at least we have a few more entertaining races in 2018.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re: Sky

VO2 Max said:
pastronef said:
talking about Diney buying 21st Century Fox (and SKY)
if Disney does not want to have any links to pro cycling, could they create a High-Road situation? the financial backing is guaranteed, but without SKY on the jersey?
The timing is interesting, even though the Sky/Disney story broke the day after the Froome one. I wonder how much the UCI's patience has run out with Sky, and the penny is starting to drop that the team is really just James Murdoch's hobby project. Looking rationally at the sport's current structure we don't want no Team Sky, we should want 17 more 'Team Sky' s: the UCI must have been hoping for a race to the top, that Sky really were getting a commercial 3-to-400% roi and that the sport would by now be full of blue chip companies making big long-term investments, paying their riders well, outwardly promoting the sport and raising the quality of the sport. Hardly a surprise on that basis that Sky would get away with things other teams don't and could achieve some unlikely victories without +ve tests - they're an exemplar sponsor model in a symbiotic relationship with the governing body.

Except that they're not. Eight years on from Sky's launch and the sport is otherwise made up of the same types of sponsors as before, bike companies and medium-size firms where the owner happens to be a cycling fan. Plus a few more suspect dictatorships trying to sportswash their reputations. And has a load of deathly boring races because one team has more money and protection than the others. And now the guy who's been sinking the €€€ into his hobby won't even be in charge any more. There are now only negatives to Sky's involvement, even the idea of them as a start of something bigger and better is dead. The sport is cutting its losses and hopefully at least we have a few more entertaining races in 2018.
The sport is FUBAR'd. Motors have killed it. It is now Disneyesque since Wiggins and Froome started transforming and winning races so easily. They were like superheroes with superpowers that mere mortals would not understand.

As i said the sport is FUBAR'd.
 
Re: Sky

Benotti69 said:
VO2 Max said:
boring stuff what I said
The sport is FUBAR'd. Motors have killed it. It is now Disneyesque since Wiggins and Froome started transforming and winning races so easily. They were like superheroes with superpowers that mere mortals would not understand.

As i said the sport is FUBAR'd.
Nah, the sport would be awesome again if there were 18 teams with loads of money battering each other on a level playing field. What's f'ed up is one team outspending (and out-job-security'ing which is also important) all the others to get the best riders, then getting the best protection from the governing body, just to kill the entertainment with their reductionist strategies.
 
Drugs have not killed the sport but can't say the same about the political and motor doping.

Political doping is damaging the NFL too. Fans generally want the battle to be decided on the road, not by a bunch of corrupt powerful rich guys in suits.

As for motors, well that goes without saying. It's funny the first time but the shtick gets old quick.
 
Re: Sky

VO2 Max said:
pastronef said:
talking about Diney buying 21st Century Fox (and SKY)
if Disney does not want to have any links to pro cycling, could they create a High-Road situation? the financial backing is guaranteed, but without SKY on the jersey?
The timing is interesting, even though the Sky/Disney story broke the day after the Froome one. I wonder how much the UCI's patience has run out with Sky, and the penny is starting to drop that the team is really just James Murdoch's hobby project. Looking rationally at the sport's current structure we don't want no Team Sky, we should want 17 more 'Team Sky' s: the UCI must have been hoping for a race to the top, that Sky really were getting a commercial 3-to-400% roi and that the sport would by now be full of blue chip companies making big long-term investments, paying their riders well, outwardly promoting the sport and raising the quality of the sport. Hardly a surprise on that basis that Sky would get away with things other teams don't and could achieve some unlikely victories without +ve tests - they're an exemplar sponsor model in a symbiotic relationship with the governing body.

Except that they're not. Eight years on from Sky's launch and the sport is otherwise made up of the same types of sponsors as before, bike companies and medium-size firms where the owner happens to be a cycling fan. Plus a few more suspect dictatorships trying to sportswash their reputations. And has a load of deathly boring races because one team has more money and protection than the others. And now the guy who's been sinking the €€€ into his hobby won't even be in charge any more. There are now only negatives to Sky's involvement, even the idea of them as a start of something bigger and better is dead. The sport is cutting its losses and hopefully at least we have a few more entertaining races in 2018.
Cycling sponsorship was viable in the boom age of industrialization and post-belicose recovery through a nostalgic Americana for something authentic, with riders who came from the downtrodden working class in picturesque countrysides. Now it's aspired to a 'global' dimension, in a world that could care less about the aforementioned. And today's transnational business is unconcerned for the cultural aspects of European civilization, which is the craddle of the sport. British Sky is paradoxically the end of European cycling, or perhaps its fitting conclusion.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Nice post rhub.

Funnily enough, the British/Sky approach always seemed to me, even though appealing to modern way of doing things
- more like imposing their empire on the sport. In all it's glory.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Exactly.

I am not sure they (to quote Michelle) "fully" understand the irony.

Brailsford seems to be on a really long leash. Wonder how much longer. As they say, he IS team sky. So its hold or fold i guess.
 
I'm taking a nice little drink of schadenfreude on this.

If only for this reason: Sky have been PR'ing their backsides off for a good year around Wiggins, UKAD, jiffy bag etc. Anyone who examines those discourses closely can see how dodgy it all looks, and how much it destroys their credibility.

But: good expensive PR can override careful analysis of the discourse. And by the end of the year, they had a tdf, a vuelta and the Wiggins stink kind of blowing away.

And then: boom Froome. 12 months of painstaking PR utterly destroyed - no matter which way the cookie crumbles from here, the cost to the 'brand' is massive, and even the most brilliant spin doctors probably have to concede that the game is up.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Re:

The Hegelian said:
I'm taking a nice little drink of schadenfreude on this.

If only for this reason: Sky have been PR'ing their backsides off for a good year around Wiggins, UKAD, jiffy bag etc. Anyone who examines those discourses closely can see how dodgy it all looks, and how much it destroys their credibility.

But: good expensive PR can override careful analysis of the discourse. And by the end of the year, they had a tdf, a vuelta and the Wiggins stink kind of blowing away.

And then: boom Froome. 12 months of painstaking PR utterly destroyed - no matter which way the cookie crumbles from here, the cost to the 'brand' is massive, and even the most brilliant spin doctors probably have to concede that the game is up.
I tend to agree.

But is the game really up?

DB survived thus far. And most agree without him there is no TeamSky.

They got a huge squad, even without Froome. And we all know it will only take a few months for them to have the next big rider of the decade lined up.

That is presuming they will stick with the program, but perhaps the great manager has gone tired and no longer can control all the details (marginal gains). Hence the casual mistake as with froome?

Now its all-in or fold.

My judgement is they are better off going all in, as folding now would kinda cancel all their achievements.

The pride is strong with this one.

Another factor is the UCI and WADA. They have been looking (as usual) a bit toothless as of late.
And my hunch is that the Kreuziger case was a massive blow for Cookson.
He invested himself in it (probably was told it was done and dusted). Only to see him walk.

Money and rss is a deciding factor here. And everytime they open pandoras box, it just backfires on so many levels.

Everyone is more happer with less scandals. And less loosing!

So the incentive to pursue a team like Sky even more, is close to zero.

I reckon it's mostly up to what DB wants and is willing to put up with until the storm is on recant.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
And i do know Cookson is no longer head of UCI. But I dont belive in magic tricks from Lappartient just yet.
 
Re: Re:

mrhender said:
The Hegelian said:
I'm taking a nice little drink of schadenfreude on this.

If only for this reason: Sky have been PR'ing their backsides off for a good year around Wiggins, UKAD, jiffy bag etc. Anyone who examines those discourses closely can see how dodgy it all looks, and how much it destroys their credibility.

But: good expensive PR can override careful analysis of the discourse. And by the end of the year, they had a tdf, a vuelta and the Wiggins stink kind of blowing away.

And then: boom Froome. 12 months of painstaking PR utterly destroyed - no matter which way the cookie crumbles from here, the cost to the 'brand' is massive, and even the most brilliant spin doctors probably have to concede that the game is up.
I tend to agree.

But is the game really up?

DB survived thus far. And most agree without him there is no TeamSky.

They got a huge squad, even without Froome. And we all know it will only take a few months for them to have the next big rider of the decade lined up.

That is presuming they will stick with the program, but perhaps the great manager has gone tired and no longer can control all the details (marginal gains). Hence the casual mistake as with froome?

Now its all-in or fold.

My judgement is they are better off going all in, as folding now would kinda cancel all their achievements.

The pride is strong with this one.

Another factor is the UCI and WADA. They have been looking (as usual) a bit toothless as of late.
And my hunch is that the Kreuziger case was a massive blow for Cookson.
He invested himself in it (probably was told it was done and dusted). Only to see him walk.

Money and rss is a deciding factor here. And everytime they open pandoras box, it just backfires on so many levels.

Everyone is more happer with less scandals. And less loosing!

So the incentive to pursue a team like Sky even more, is close to zero.

I reckon it's mostly up to what DB wants and is willing to put up with until the storm is on recant.
I suppose when I say 'the game is up' I really mean the PR game - of controlling public perceptions.

I'm sure Sky will just roll on. But this mud is sticking; no matter what happens officially, the two big GB-Sky winners will forever have an asterix on them, and the association for the punters is always going to be 'Sky = dodgy.'
 
Re:

mrhender said:
And i do know Cookson is no longer head of UCI. But I dont belive in magic tricks from Lappartient just yet.
Who do you think authorised the “leak”? With Cookson gone, then Gibbs and Barfield it was a simple one for Lappartient to leak and let the press do the rest on Froome.
 
Re:

The Hegelian said:
I'm taking a nice little drink of schadenfreude on this.

If only for this reason: Sky have been PR'ing their backsides off for a good year around Wiggins, UKAD, jiffy bag etc. Anyone who examines those discourses closely can see how dodgy it all looks, and how much it destroys their credibility.

But: good expensive PR can override careful analysis of the discourse. And by the end of the year, they had a tdf, a vuelta and the Wiggins stink kind of blowing away.

And then: boom Froome. 12 months of painstaking PR utterly destroyed - no matter which way the cookie crumbles from here, the cost to the 'brand' is massive, and even the most brilliant spin doctors probably have to concede that the game is up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH01FhqMdc8
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
mrhender said:
And i do know Cookson is no longer head of UCI. But I dont belive in magic tricks from Lappartient just yet.
Who do you think authorised the “leak”? With Cookson gone, then Gibbs and Barfield it was a simple one for Lappartient to leak and let the press do the rest on Froome.
I dont think Lappartient at this early point in his tenure would risk nodding to a leak. He cant be sure it wont bite him in the rear later on.
Cant be sure though. The timeline is suspicous.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

Excellent article from Richard Williams who as sports journos go is deffo in the sane and rational camp:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2017/dec/15/team-sky-chris-froome-public-salbutamol-inhalation-cycling

"Despite all Team Sky’s achievements in a tumultuous few years, the sport would now be a better place without them: without their “marginal gains”, without their pretentious corporate culture, without the outsize budget that inflates riders’ salaries and distorts competition, without their race-suffocating tactics, and without the miasma of doubt and innuendo that has settled over them and which no fresh breeze seems able to dispel"
 
Re: Re:

mrhender said:
thehog said:
mrhender said:
And i do know Cookson is no longer head of UCI. But I dont belive in magic tricks from Lappartient just yet.
Who do you think authorised the “leak”? With Cookson gone, then Gibbs and Barfield it was a simple one for Lappartient to leak and let the press do the rest on Froome.
I dont think Lappartient at this early point in his tenure would risk nodding to a leak. He cant be sure it wont bite him in the rear later on.
Cant be sure though. The timeline is suspicous.
Not sure he could have a Froome double with G taking the Vuelta. That would be too much.
 
Aug 26, 2014
2,148
0
0
Re: Re:

mrhender said:
The Hegelian said:
I'm taking a nice little drink of schadenfreude on this.

If only for this reason: Sky have been PR'ing their backsides off for a good year around Wiggins, UKAD, jiffy bag etc. Anyone who examines those discourses closely can see how dodgy it all looks, and how much it destroys their credibility.

But: good expensive PR can override careful analysis of the discourse. And by the end of the year, they had a tdf, a vuelta and the Wiggins stink kind of blowing away.

And then: boom Froome. 12 months of painstaking PR utterly destroyed - no matter which way the cookie crumbles from here, the cost to the 'brand' is massive, and even the most brilliant spin doctors probably have to concede that the game is up.
I tend to agree.

But is the game really up?

DB survived thus far. And most agree without him there is no TeamSky.

They got a huge squad, even without Froome. And we all know it will only take a few months for them to have the next big rider of the decade lined up.

That is presuming they will stick with the program, but perhaps the great manager has gone tired and no longer can control all the details (marginal gains). Hence the casual mistake as with froome?

Now its all-in or fold.

My judgement is they are better off going all in, as folding now would kinda cancel all their achievements.

The pride is strong with this one.

Another factor is the UCI and WADA. They have been looking (as usual) a bit toothless as of late.
And my hunch is that the Kreuziger case was a massive blow for Cookson.
He invested himself in it (probably was told it was done and dusted). Only to see him walk.

Money and rss is a deciding factor here. And everytime they open pandoras box, it just backfires on so many levels.

Everyone is more happer with less scandals. And less loosing!

So the incentive to pursue a team like Sky even more, is close to zero.

I reckon it's mostly up to what DB wants and is willing to put up with until the storm is on recant.
I think the game is up insofar as Sky's reputation is toast. But I don't think that'll make any difference to Brailsfraud. It was clear to me when none of the jiffygate stuff caused him to quit that he would bull it all out, largely uncaring about mere reputation when winning was the desired outcome. Indeed, maybe having a tarnished reputation made it easier - no need to worry how dodgy it all looked and sounded any more, since only something that would prevent your winning was going to be something to worry about.

The big question is not whether Froome will go down - I have no doubt SDB would sell his own grandmother down the river if it meant he (and he is Sky) kept on going. But if this stops Sky winning, whether through removing his alien performer or preventing quite the 'marginalgains' they got away with before, his position will be much more vulnerable.
 
With Pharmstrong, Bruyneel/US Postal as a precedent, this can't bode well for Froome, Brailsford/Sky. Of course, there isn't (as yet) a Landis to drop a bomb, but Froome may have cooked his own goose, so it wouldn't matter. But with the former US affair, it will be rather difficult for British cycling to come clean from this if established paradigms play their roles, as will likely be the case for public opinion in the cycling world. When the mob smells blood, the kill is sure. The UCI can't afford to just sweep this under the rug as it has done time and time again in the past to preserve even a modicum of credibility. And then there were years of contributions made from anonymous, though highly informed, sources right in this forum, which the media can't ignore. Give it time.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re:

So it seems likely that Sky's marginal gains strategy has since the hiring of Leinders included identifying as many grey area substances as possible which are potentially performance enhancing and finding ways to take as much as possible of each without tripping the wire

Of course this max out the grey areas approach makes a mockery of Sky's claims to win ethically like true Brits. And it's not hard to envisage that an approach that involves pushing as many envelopes as possible as far as possible will fail at some stage whether due to human error or unusual physiological reactions

Cry me a river :rolleyes:
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

Fotheringham:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2017/dec/16/chris-froome-buried--under-team-sky-baggage-credicility-cycling

"[Froome] may be cleared, because it may be ruled that the high reading was because of natural causes outside his control. The damage is not about this particular issue but rather its added weight within the cumulative baggage of what has happened at Team Sky in the past eight years. Since the Festina scandal of 1998, the biggest enemy professional cycling teams have faced is not scandal per se. It is not a matter of positive drugs tests, rather the erosion of their credibility to a point where followers of the sport feel that indifference is the only rational human response, because any emotional investment seems doomed to disappointment. There are teams run by survivors of cycling’s wild west era who became fully aware of that danger when the sport glimpsed the abyss in 1998 and have fought accordingly since then to retain the faith of the public. At Team Sky, they have never truly seemed to figure that out, to the great detriment of British cycling’s flagship and all who sail in her. Including Froome."
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
So it seems likely that Sky's marginal gains strategy has since the hiring of Leinders included identifying as many grey area substances as possible which are potentially performance enhancing and finding ways to take as much as possible of each without tripping the wire

Of course this max out the grey areas approach makes a mockery of Sky's claims to win ethically like true Brits. And it's not hard to envisage that an approach that involves pushing as many envelopes as possible as far as possible will fail at some stage whether due to human error or unusual physiological reactions

Cry me a river :rolleyes:
It has long been established that Dawg us an alien, his unique physiological characteristics were used to explain all the mystical abilities since the 2011 napkin. The cycling shoes is now on the other foot ;) so to speak, now allowing for this drug bust.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts