Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[veganrob]

Thank goodness this sham of a race is over

 

[levione]

Edvald Boasson Hagen is a monster

Im not on these forums that often so apologies if this has been gone over before but do people think Cavendish is doping aswell?

Although I've only just started posting, I've been reading the boards for over a year. Here's a quick summary:

Everyone on this sub-forum thinks that everyone is doping, especially riders who dare to achieve something.

Then what happens is someone timidly asks for a bit of evidence to support their claims- you know how you'd have to do in court, rahter than if you were throwing baseless allegations around from the anonymity of their bedroom.

That poster is then accused by others on here of being

Deluded
A Sky 'fanboy'
An apologist for Lance Armstrong

Then a whole bunch of other posters come in with a series of hilarious jokes- Puertobus- I think some of them are still chuckling.

They all lean back in their chairs and presume that the whole world is listening, and that their case is proven.

It isn't. The vast majority of people believe (real people not people on here) that Sky is clean, and that cycling is cleaner than it was a few years ago.

I love cycling and I want to believe in cyclists performance until I see INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE to the contrary.

Oh and by the way I don't think that Cav is doping, but you probably picked that up already.

 

[Cauberg]

Although I've only just started posting, I've been reading the boards for over a year. Here's a quick summary:

Everyone on this sub-forum thinks that everyone is doping, especially riders who dare to achieve something.

Then what happens is someone timidly asks for a bit of evidence to support their claims- you know how you'd have to do in court, rahter than if you were throwing baseless allegations around from the anonymity of their bedroom.

That poster is then accused by others on here of being

Deluded
A Sky 'fanboy'
An apologist for Lance Armstrong

Then a whole bunch of other posters come in with a series of hilarious jokes- Puertobus- I think some of them are still chuckling.

They all lean back in their chairs and presume that the whole world is listening, and that their case is proven.

It isn't. The vast majority of people believe (real people not people on here) that Sky is clean, and that cycling is cleaner than it was a few years ago.

I love cycling and I want to believe in cyclists performance until I see INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE to the contrary.

Oh and by the way I don't think that Cav is doping, but you probably picked that up already.

I agree with (most) of your post.

But you forgot a few accusations.

You've just joined so you're a "July poster" and "know nothing about cycling" and "only watch the TdF".

 

[Knutsen]

Although I've only just started posting, I've been reading the boards for over a year. Here's a quick summary:

Everyone on this sub-forum thinks that everyone is doping, especially riders who dare to achieve something.

Then what happens is someone timidly asks for a bit of evidence to support their claims- you know how you'd have to do in court, rahter than if you were throwing baseless allegations around from the anonymity of their bedroom.

That poster is then accused by others on here of being

Deluded
A Sky 'fanboy'
An apologist for Lance Armstrong

Then a whole bunch of other posters come in with a series of hilarious jokes- Puertobus- I think some of them are still chuckling.

They all lean back in their chairs and presume that the whole world is listening, and that their case is proven.

It isn't. The vast majority of people believe (real people not people on here) that Sky is clean, and that cycling is cleaner than it was a few years ago.

I love cycling and I want to believe in cyclists performance until I see INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE to the contrary.

Oh and by the way I don't think that Cav is doping, but you probably picked that up already.

+1

But you are wasting your time. You will get some very predictable response here.

 

[131313]

I agree with (most) of your post.

But you forgot a few accusations.

You've just joined so you're a "July poster" and "know nothing about cycling" and "only watch the TdF".

and yet....you both have 2 posts and just joined. Imagine that?

It's probably best to start your post with "I really hate Lance Armstrong, but..." That totally makes all future posts more believable.

 

[samerics]

Although I've only just started posting, I've been reading the boards for over a year. Here's a quick summary:

Everyone on this sub-forum thinks that everyone is doping, especially riders who dare to achieve something.

Then what happens is someone timidly asks for a bit of evidence to support their claims- you know how you'd have to do in court, rahter than if you were throwing baseless allegations around from the anonymity of their bedroom.

That poster is then accused by others on here of being

Deluded
A Sky 'fanboy'
An apologist for Lance Armstrong

Then a whole bunch of other posters come in with a series of hilarious jokes- Puertobus- I think some of them are still chuckling.

They all lean back in their chairs and presume that the whole world is listening, and that their case is proven.

It isn't. The vast majority of people believe (real people not people on here) that Sky is clean, and that cycling is cleaner than it was a few years ago.

I love cycling and I want to believe in cyclists performance until I see INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE to the contrary.

Oh and by the way I don't think that Cav is doping, but you probably picked that up already.

Great first post. Await the flam

 

[samerics]

Although I've only just started posting, I've been reading the boards for over a year. Here's a quick summary:

Everyone on this sub-forum thinks that everyone is doping, especially riders who dare to achieve something.

Then what happens is someone timidly asks for a bit of evidence to support their claims- you know how you'd have to do in court, rahter than if you were throwing baseless allegations around from the anonymity of their bedroom.

That poster is then accused by others on here of being

Deluded
A Sky 'fanboy'
An apologist for Lance Armstrong

Then a whole bunch of other posters come in with a series of hilarious jokes- Puertobus- I think some of them are still chuckling.

They all lean back in their chairs and presume that the whole world is listening, and that their case is proven.

It isn't. The vast majority of people believe (real people not people on here) that Sky is clean, and that cycling is cleaner than it was a few years ago.

I love cycling and I want to believe in cyclists performance until I see INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE to the contrary.

Oh and by the way I don't think that Cav is doping, but you probably picked that up already.

Great first post. Await the flaming though!!

 

[BYOP88]

Just find it weird that people who've just joined the forum always seem to head to the clinic first, wouldn't the road chat be the most obvious place to start?

 

[Cauberg]

There is absolutely no need for ad hominems. You've just proved the point I was trying to make.

 

[2008885]

Just find it weird that people who've just joined the forum always seem to head to the clinic first, wouldn't the road chat be the most obvious place to start?

Not if they want to discuss doping, no.

 

[T_S_A_R]

you would read these posts and think that pro cycling had never had a major problem with doping.

what the sky fanboys don't seem to understand is that doping in the tour de france and pro cycling is the norm and assuming otherwise means putting a huge amount of faith in people who have done nothing to earn it.

saying "the clinic assumes this and that" makes you look like a fool because the clinic has been proven right time and time and time again.

 

[Square-pedaller]

Everyone on this sub-forum thinks that everyone is doping, especially riders who dare to achieve something.

Isn't "Everyone on this sub-forum ..." the kind of sweeping claim that you were critisizing?

Then what happens is someone timidly asks for a bit of evidence to support their claims- you know how you'd have to do in court, rahter than if you were throwing baseless allegations around from the anonymity of their bedroom.

But the whole point is that this isn't a court. It's the equivalent of a sitting room or bar, where people discuss the possibilities, listen to other people, try and work out who knows what they are talking about, and make up their own mind - or possibly decide that they don't know for certian, but come to some idea of what they think the possibility is that someone is doping.

That poster is then accused by others on here of being
Deluded
A Sky 'fanboy'
An apologist for Lance Armstrong

I've never done that, and there are other posters on here who think that doping is common in cycling, but don't do that. On the other hand, I have been accused of things like ..

[leaning] back in [my] [chair] and [presuming] that the whole world is listening, and that [my] case is proven.

I love cycling and I want to believe in cyclists performance until I see INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE to the contrary.

So why come in a sub-forum that is specifically meant for discussing doping?

 

[No_Balls]

Was it that hard?

He has such a huge advantage over his fellow sprinters that he doesn't really need to dope.

Where did I ever say doping was not useful for sprinters?

Oh, that was sensitive. No problem about speaking how everybody else (except my favourite rider or compatriot) dopes though.

 

[TheGeneral]

I love cycling and I want to believe in cyclists performance until I see INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE to the contrary.

I shall make this clear : ONE CANNOT PERFORM TO THE DEGREE THAT BRADLEY WIGGINS DID TODAY AFTER THREE WEEKS OF RACING IN THE TOUR DE FRANCE WITHOUT PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS

That is not a biased opinion. It is a fact.

 

[Cauberg]

Maybe people come here because, like me, they're not sure and are looking for some informed opinion (for or against).

I should have added to my last post that not everyone here is the same and it wasn't really my intention to make sweeping statements.

 

[Hugh Januss]

You know you are right. Pro cycling has never given us any reason to doubt the performances. As long as one keeps ones head under a rock or up some orifice it is easy to believe that everyone is clean except for a "couple of bad apples that try to take short cutsTM". Life is just a whole lot easier if you don't think too much, huh?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I shall make this clear : ONE CANNOT PERFORM TO THE DEGREE THAT BRADLEY WIGGINS DID TODAY AFTER THREE WEEKS OF RACING IN THE TOUR DE FRANCE WITHOUT PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS

That is not a biased opinion. It is a fact.

Finally, we have the silver bullet. So can you show us proof of this fact so we can verify it?

 

[BYOP88]

Not if they want to discuss doping, no.

Well it's not really a discussion is it? They turn up for their handful of posts say rider a/team a aren't doping and everyone should stop calling them dopers unless they post their name and address etc etc. They then accuse people of trolling etc, say that's it I'm done and aren't seen from again.

 

[2008885]

That is not a biased opinion. It is a fact.

So presumably you can pass your evidence on to The Authorities, Sky will be exposed, and we can all sleep more easily.

 

[131313]

I shall make this clear : ONE CANNOT PERFORM TO THE DEGREE THAT BRADLEY WIGGINS DID TODAY AFTER THREE WEEKS OF RACING IN THE TOUR DE FRANCE WITHOUT PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS

That is not a biased opinion. It is a fact.

It seems like opinion to me, unless you actually know how much power he put out today and you know his absolute ceiling. That said, do we even know how much power one loses over a 3 week bike race? I don't think so, since there's no pre-bloodboosting data available, just some very loose hand-waving. RBC goes down, but plasma volume expands, sometimes to a level where overall RBC can be maintained fairly closely. At least that's what the limited research suggests.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Maybe people come here because, like me, they're not sure and are looking for some informed opinion (for or against).

I should have added to my last post that not everyone here is the same and it wasn't really my intention to make sweeping statements.

This is the only part of the forum where doping discussion is tolerated.

It means that we can have discussions on race threads without every thread being derailed by doping talk and dope-based tantrums like when Evans was losing to Valverde everywhere in 2009 or when Contador was winning the Giro; it means we can discuss the race itself. But it does mean that any doping talk comes here.

That does mean that a lot of genuine analysis gets buried under an avalanche of emotive posts. When a performance as ridiculously good as Sky's in this TDF happens, you get meltdown. A lot of people watching it can't help "joining the dots"... but they can't join the dots in the PRR forum, because they'll get banned. So they come to the Clinic, where they are allowed to be a bit freer with their accusatory tone. And when it happens at a massive race like the TDF, when forum viewing figures are at their highest, then of course the emotive posts ("this guy won something I bet he is so doped he looks dopey" vs. "I know he just won the time trial by half an hour and rode up Anglirú faster than the ghost of Bahamontes on a motorbike, but I like him so I think he's clean") far outweigh the genuine analysis, and also the sheer number of posts bury a lot of the talking points several pages back so discussions go round in circles, and even the most rational and measured participants in discussion - on both sides of the debate - can grow tired of regurgitating their points over and over and resort to aggression or Cartman-style "screw you guys, I'm going home" outbursts.

If you read some of the topics in here, there are plenty of discussions full of analysis, there are even some articles about clean riders (the Moncoutié one in particular stands out, where much of the Clinic 'mob' actually railed against those suggesting he wasn't clean). But July is not the best time to come here if you want to read reasoned analysis, simply because the traffic to the site and the volume of posting is too great for it to be able to be treated thoroughly.

 

[Square-pedaller]

Mybe someone else has posted this already:
http://www.sporza.be/cm/sporza/videozone/MG_Tour/MG_vive_le_velo/Tour2012_dag_1/1.1374958
(starting from about 48 seconds in)

Apparently the Guardian blog is the last word:
"that's not going to change"
"I can't go through the rest of my career answering those questions"
So does that mean he still sticks with everything he said in 2007?
And if not, how can he say that his current views aren't going to change?

 

[benpounder]

That is not a biased opinion. It is a fact.

For goodness sake newbie...
it is opinion and likely biased.
It is not fact.

It may be true...

...and it may not be true!

Disappointment that your preferred cyclist did not perform better does not mean that those that did doped.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Why would Wigans, after recovering from a nearly life threatening bout of alcoholism risk his health by putting anything illegal in his body?

Oops, that should probably go in the other thread, but I just thought of it and I'm here, so stuff it.

 

[MrRoboto]

There is absolutely no need for ad hominems. You've just proved the point I was trying to make.

Ok. How about this:

In july there are sure to come people here who can tell that every person here is a conspiracy theorist who are sure that every athlete out there is a filthy doper.

They have apparently heard about the lunacy here from earlier july drop-ins -- who came here and was appalled because someone was saying their local sports hero was a doper -- and felt they had to tell The Clinic exactly what they had heard about it.

Most leave quickly, but a few stay because they feel it's their duty to troll the place.

How they know the place? They have of course been reading the forum for at least a year before they signed up.


...Since it's apparently not ok with ad hominems, only huge generalizations.