Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Franklin]

Re: Re:

3. Not really. Unless you have your own definition of what a very good climber from the start is.

Yes really, unless you are someone who just follows the TdF? In his third year he was among the better climber in Suisse and almost won the Vuelta.

Is he Pantani? No. But has he shown to be a good climber when a young pro? Most definitely. Tom came fast, as was the norm for GT contenders before Lance broke that.

There's no magical transformation that changed Tom from a non-climber into Pantani. That he reached this level by dope I have no doubt, but he's not someone who almost rolled backwards of a mountain and then magically became Pantani reborn.

 

[macbindle]

Re: Re:

You are shilling for Sky by downplaying it. We have seen it before, you know it, I know uit, so why do it?

Irony has nothing in it as you are coming up with faulty logic Now why do you come up with clearly nonsense? Can you explain why you do that?

From what am I defending Team Sky?

As expected.....You can't answer this can you, Franklin.

Despite making an accusation.

 

[samhocking]

Thing is, we now assume we know in retrospect Armstromg was doing the same as everyone else, so that only leaves the fact he did it better. The same is probably true of Sky, regardless of a clean peloton or doping peloton in terms of GC. What miracles are out there only Sky have access to. Even paying off UCI is available to anyone, we assume you just need to pay a bit more, that's how it works in Football and Olympics anyway

 

[Franklin]

Re: Re:

You are shilling for Sky by downplaying it. We have seen it before, you know it, I know uit, so why do it?

Irony has nothing in it as you are coming up with faulty logic Now why do you come up with clearly nonsense? Can you explain why you do that?

From what am I defending Team Sky?

As expected.....You can't answer this can you, Franklin.

Despite making an accusation.

Awwww... he's in hurry now?

You are defending by deflection and by ramming up strawmen fast (and you know you are straw manning which is a sign you are not discussing in good faith.

1. Downplaying: It's not so bad as everyone is doping. Nobody denies that, but we are also looking at rules being rewritten for this team. Just as how USPS was not just doping, but influencing governing bodies. It's not just being Messi... it's also bribing the ref to let Messi score by using his hands.

2. Strawmanning: Nobody sees Nibali is a cheater. Except literally nobody here says Nibali, Quintana or TD are clean. It's a clear strawman and yet you put it down and pitch up ypur tent by it. When asked for examples of where people say this you have zero to go to, as you know as well as we do that nobody in his right mind here says that.

So yes, you are defending sports fraud by downplaying it and trying continuously to erect strawmen. Perhaps you honestly believe it's just doping, but all indicators are full on blinking here: it's systematic fraud and muscling through rules with money. That's indefensible.

So again, why are you erecting strawmen? Do you enjoy arguing with flawed reasons of which you fully are aware that you are sprouting nonsense?

 

[thehog]

Re:

Thing is, we now assume we know in retrospect Armstromg was doing the same as everyone else, so that only leaves the fact he did it better. The same is probably true of Sky, regardless of a clean peloton or doping peloton in terms of GC. What miracles are out there only Sky have access to. Even paying off UCI is available to anyone, we assume you just need to pay a bit more, that's how it works in Football and Olympics anyway

I don’t think we ever got the full story on Armstrong. There were all sorts of rumors on hemassit and other drugs not generally available to the common pro cyclist. In his case money appeared to assist along with connections into the UCI.

Sky much the same although they have WADA on their side.

 

[macbindle]

Re: Re:

You are shilling for Sky by downplaying it. We have seen it before, you know it, I know uit, so why do it?

Irony has nothing in it as you are coming up with faulty logic Now why do you come up with clearly nonsense? Can you explain why you do that?

From what am I defending Team Sky?

As expected.....You can't answer this can you, Franklin.

Despite making an accusation.

Awwww... he's in hurry now?

You are defending by deflection and by ramming up strawmen fast (and you know you are straw manning which is a sign you are not discussing in good faith.

1. Downplaying: It's not so bad as everyone is doping. Nobody denies that, but we are also looking at rules being rewritten for this team. Just as how USPS was not just doping, but influencing governing bodies. It's not just being Messi... it's also bribing the ref to let Messi score by using his hands.

2. Strawmanning: Nobody sees Nibali is a cheater. Except literally nobody here says Nibali, Quintana or TD are clean. It's a clear strawman and yet you put it down and pitch up ypur tent by it. When asked for examples of where people say this you have zero to go to, as you know as well as we do that nobody in his right mind here says that.

So yes, you are defending sports fraud by downplaying it and trying continuously to erect strawmen. Perhaps you honestly believe it's just doping, but all indicators are full on blinking here: it's systematic fraud and muscling through rules with money. That's indefensible.

Nice try.

Now answer my question. From what am I defending Team Sky?

You are saying I am defending sports fraud by saying they all dope? And you yourself ackniwledge thst they all dope. How can an accusation of doping be a defence?

Weird.

You haven't thought this through, have you

 

[Saint Unix]

I don't get what your motivation behind all this pointless 'whataboutism' is, macbindle. When asked about it you say you think everyone dopes, which is pretty much in line with what most other Clinic posters think, yet you come flying in with your condescending smileys, arrogance and "what about Quintana/Nibali/Dumoulin/other doper?!?!?!?" whenever someone has the nerve to say that the latest Sky performance just might be a little bit suspicious. Shock horror that people think that, by the way, given the positive salbutamol test, the countless scandals, the holier-than-thou attitude and the slightly suspicious fact that Sky (well, basically Froome) have won five of the last six Tours and the last three GTs and look to be on their way to clean up their fourth consecutive one, and that they do it by having their entire team pound the other 20 teams into submission day after day.

Check the title of the threads you post in whining about Sky getting flak. They're about Froome, Thomas and Sky in general. This is the Clinic. We discuss doping here. It's not going to be a surprise that most of the posts are about how Sky are doping. Go to threads about other riders if you want to piss and moan about them not being criticized enough on here. Jumping on people that criticize Sky and then denying you're defending them is really god damn weird.

 

[Franklin]

Re: Re:

Nice try.

Thanks for acknowledging I have you pinned. Still evading to give your motivations, but we both know you won't tell them anyways as it would identify you as reasoning in bad faith.

Now answer my question. From what am I defending Team Sky?

Oh wait, you double down. Yet you certainly understood my post (and Saint Unix says it quite succinctly)

You are saying I am defending sports fraud by saying they all dope? And you yourself ackniwledge thst they all dope. How can an accusation of doping be a defence?

Except you answered this in another thread and know exactly what i'm talking about.

That's the problem man, understanding me in one thread and then acting like it's incomprehensible in another thread won't work.

[quote[You haven't thought this through, have you [/quote]
Yes, yes I did, which is why you have to resort to condescending, evading and yet getting tripped by your won many posts.

 

[Salvarani]

Re:

I don't get what your motivation behind all this pointless 'whataboutism' is, macbindle. When asked about it you say you think everyone dopes, which is pretty much in line with what most other Clinic posters think, yet you come flying in with your condescending smileys, arrogance and "what about Quintana/Nibali/Dumoulin/other doper?!?!?!?" whenever someone has the nerve to say that the latest Sky performance just might be a little bit suspicious. Shock horror that people think that, by the way, given the positive salbutamol test, the countless scandals, the holier-than-thou attitude and the slightly suspicious fact that Sky (well, basically Froome) have won five of the last six Tours and the last three GTs and look to be on their way to clean up their fourth consecutive one, and that they do it by having their entire team pound the other 20 teams into submission day after day.

Check the title of the threads you post in whining about Sky getting flak. They're about Froome, Thomas and Sky in general. This is the Clinic. We discuss doping here. It's not going to be a surprise that most of the posts are about how Sky are doping. Go to threads about other riders if you want to piss and moan about them not being criticized enough on here. Jumping on people that criticize Sky and then denying you're defending them is really god damn weird.

Good post, I agree with everything said here

 

[macbindle]

@Franklin.(and Unix)

You've yet to tell me succinctly from what I am defending Team Sky.

All you've done is post a load of avoidance, coupled with veiled insults, and regurgitate the standard clinic mantra as if it was some sort of holy text.

Go on. Have a go. Tell me from what I am defending Team Sky...cheating? Doping? Go on...spell it out rather than be evasive.

 

[Pantani_lives]

I don't by the argument "The others are doing it too". Team Skybutamol is clearly on a different fuel. They have something that the other teams don't have. We can't know what it is, because the corrupt officials aren't going to investigate them.

 

[macbindle]

So a different fuel. So everybody else is clean? Or do you hate the idea of cheats cheating other cheats?

Is there an acceptable level of cheating then?

 

[Red Rick]

Seems they have carte blanche at this point

 

[Jagartrott]

Re:

I don't get what your motivation behind all this pointless 'whataboutism' is, macbindle. When asked about it you say you think everyone dopes, which is pretty much in line with what most other Clinic posters think, yet you come flying in with your condescending smileys, arrogance and "what about Quintana/Nibali/Dumoulin/other doper?!?!?!?" whenever someone has the nerve to say that the latest Sky performance just might be a little bit suspicious. Shock horror that people think that, by the way, given the positive salbutamol test, the countless scandals, the holier-than-thou attitude and the slightly suspicious fact that Sky (well, basically Froome) have won five of the last six Tours and the last three GTs and look to be on their way to clean up their fourth consecutive one, and that they do it by having their entire team pound the other 20 teams into submission day after day.

Check the title of the threads you post in whining about Sky getting flak. They're about Froome, Thomas and Sky in general. This is the Clinic. We discuss doping here. It's not going to be a surprise that most of the posts are about how Sky are doping. Go to threads about other riders if you want to piss and moan about them not being criticized enough on here. Jumping on people that criticize Sky and then denying you're defending them is really god damn weird.

Have to agree here. This devil's advocate thing and whataboutery is getting old fast.

 

[thehog]

Re:

I don't get what your motivation behind all this pointless 'whataboutism' is, macbindle. When asked about it you say you think everyone dopes, which is pretty much in line with what most other Clinic posters think, yet you come flying in with your condescending smileys, arrogance and "what about Quintana/Nibali/Dumoulin/other doper?!?!?!?" whenever someone has the nerve to say that the latest Sky performance just might be a little bit suspicious. Shock horror that people think that, by the way, given the positive salbutamol test, the countless scandals, the holier-than-thou attitude and the slightly suspicious fact that Sky (well, basically Froome) have won five of the last six Tours and the last three GTs and look to be on their way to clean up their fourth consecutive one, and that they do it by having their entire team pound the other 20 teams into submission day after day.

Check the title of the threads you post in whining about Sky getting flak. They're about Froome, Thomas and Sky in general. This is the Clinic. We discuss doping here. It's not going to be a surprise that most of the posts are about how Sky are doping. Go to threads about other riders if you want to piss and moan about them not being criticized enough on here. Jumping on people that criticize Sky and then denying you're defending them is really god damn weird.

I would agree, good post.

 

[macbindle]

So is there an acceptable level of cheating?

It seems a lot of the usual suspects can't answer straight questions...

 

[Red Rick]

Re:

So is there an acceptable level of cheating?

It seems a lot of the usual suspects can't answer straight questions...

Generally, no

Is all cheating equally bad? Also, no

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

So is there an acceptable level of cheating?

It seems a lot of the usual suspects can't answer straight questions...

Generally, no

Is all cheating equally bad? Also, no

now, wait a minute, ever now and then I see people quoting Dave B about cheating on a monday but not ona tuiesday etc, and people say if you're cheat you're a cheat always.
and now you see some cheating is less bad?
Nibali-Lazarus could be less bad? Dumo less bad? just to free us from Sky?

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

So is there an acceptable level of cheating?

It seems a lot of the usual suspects can't answer straight questions...

Generally, no

Is all cheating equally bad? Also, no

now, wait a minute, ever now and then I see people quoting Dave B about cheating on a monday but not ona tuiesday etc, and people say if you're cheat you're a cheat always.
and now you see some cheating is less bad?
Nibali-Lazarus could be less bad? Dumo less bad? just to free us from Sky?

What's worse, driving 100 km/h or driving 150 km/h with a speed limit of 80km/h

Nothing to me suggests that this is a level playing field. 2 weeks ago Froome got cleared because he couldn't prove his innocence. He got cleared for a drug others have been banned for, and for no clear reason.

So when rules are selectively enforced, I'm not inclined to judge one likely doper as the other.

 

[macbindle]

Perhaps you should have a read...

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/fundamental-flaw-wadas-salbutamol-regulations-revealed-scientist-came-385142

The professor responsible for the test is saying he made a "terrible blunder", and says Petacchi was innocent.

 

[Red Rick]

Re:

Perhaps you should have a read...

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/fundamental-flaw-wadas-salbutamol-regulations-revealed-scientist-came-385142

The professor responsible for the test is saying he made a "terrible blunder", and says Petacchi was innocent.

So now we're going to revise rules because finally a rider with enough financial backing tests positive?

 

[macbindle]

Now you are moving the goalposts.

Are you suggesting the Professor was paid off and was lying?

 

[thehog]

Re:

Now you are moving the goalposts.

Are you suggesting the Professor was paid off and was lying?

You’ve made a large leap there! Who said anything about being paid off and lying?

 

[macbindle]

Nobody. I'm asking if that is what Rick is implying .

After all, there are plenty of posts claiming that Sky have bought off WADA.

If this is not Rick's point then I can't see why it would matter who enabled an unfair and wrong rule to be changed. Surely it's a good thing.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

Funny how nobody noticed TTer Dumoulin dropping all the climbers...

We noticed that he attacks on the decent; gained on the flat and held them on the climb but was caught by Thomas in a matter of meters.

Really wish you’d actually watch the stages.

See bolded.

Big TT rider can match speed of best climbers in world on MTF.

And you didn't notice it. Confirmation bias and selective vision

I think only the dominance of Sky has shielded Dumoulin's performance similar to Giro Finestre stage.

Dumoulin was super strong today, holding off a lot of mountain goats for the entirety of the last mountain despite carrying 10-15kg more than a lot of those behind him.

Had to pick on this one. TomD weights exactly the same as Froome, 2kg less than Thomas and only 4kg more than i.e Nibali and Bardet.