Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[samhocking]

Re:

Ulissi got a 9 month ban. Froome got no ban. Lance was stripped of his TdF titles. Froome hasn't been (yet). The rules are different for different riders.

There were also numerous Salbutomol AAFs just like Froome that were exonerated like his too, not even by UCI necessarily. Each case is judged on the specifics of the case, that is why Salbutomol isn't simply prohibited with strict liability after-all, because it clearly is ambiguous with urine to inhalation. Anyway, bored of the case, it was talked to death, WADA said it wasn't unique, we either get upset for all the other athletes exonerated too and identify how, or we accept we don't know the specifics of the case, which we obviously don't.

 

[topcat]

Petacchi got a one year ban. Froome had a higher level of salbutomol than either. No ban whatsoever. Froome is more suspicious than Lance was. At least Lance was a talented triathlete in his younger years.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re:

Petacchi got a one year ban. Froome had a higher level of salbutomol than either. No ban whatsoever. Froome is more suspicious than Lance was. At least Lance was a talented triathlete in his younger years.

AleJet also lost some results sob

 

[kingjr]

Re:

Petacchi got a one year ban. Froome had a higher level of salbutomol than either. No ban whatsoever. Froome is more suspicious than Lance was. At least Lance was a talented triathlete in his younger years.

Was he clean in his younger years?

 

[rick james]

Re:

Petacchi got a one year ban. Froome had a higher level of salbutomol than either. No ban whatsoever. Froome is more suspicious than Lance was. At least Lance was a talented triathlete in his younger years.

It’s all about the empire, we look after our own

 

[thehog]

Re:

Ulissi got a 9 month ban. Froome got no ban. Lance was stripped of his TdF titles. Froome hasn't been (yet). The rules are different for different riders.

For the most parts this is true. Armstrong’s ban was excessive and not sure how they managed to pull that off. But has become very convenient to pretend the Armstrong era was dirty and everything after is clean. Ulissi’s error was to play by the rules whereas Froome stacked his case and kept riding to be exonerated in unknown circumstances. Sky have learnt a valuable lesson from the Froome case and applied the same tactics for Freeman. And then you have Henao who also wriggled himself out of passport case with a fake study that never eventuated. I wouldn’t suspect anyone from Sky will have issues again, it’s too costly for the authorities.

 

[macbindle]

Regrettably, given that the sporting authorities would rather not catch anybody, and that even if they did they are not resourced so to do, you are probably right.

 

[Koronin]

IMO, after what's happened with Sky they should just end all the anti-doping rules and go back to the free for all. It's apparent that Sky can buy themselves out of ANYTHING.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

I've understood the thread perfectly, also noted your passive-aggressive sarcastic attitude towards Sam Hocking and myself. If you behave like that, don't complain when held to account.

Also, do not act in a disingenuous manner when trying to account for your own posting. You understand my post very well, you arent stupid.

My previous point stands, you are wilfully exaggerating another person's words into a point that he isn't making and then attacking it. In common parlance, a straw man.

There has been a notable absence of that type of cheap tactic recently, so it stands out somewhat when somebody (you) employs it.

I will continue to call our absurdity when I see it. That you have trouble following is on you.

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

Ulissi got a 9 month ban. Froome got no ban. Lance was stripped of his TdF titles. Froome hasn't been (yet). The rules are different for different riders.

:lol: Man ... it's like the Golden Oldies channel. Far out! :surprised:

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

Petacchi got a one year ban. Froome had a higher level of salbutomol than either. No ban whatsoever. Froome is more suspicious than Lance was. At least Lance was a talented triathlete in his younger years.

It’s all about the empire, we look after our own

You speak the truth. :geek:

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

IMO, after what's happened with Sky they should just end all the anti-doping rules and go back to the free for all. It's apparent that Sky can buy themselves out of ANYTHING.

UCI is on the main line ... tell them what you want.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

I've understood the thread perfectly, also noted your passive-aggressive sarcastic attitude towards Sam Hocking and myself. If you behave like that, don't complain when held to account.

Also, do not act in a disingenuous manner when trying to account for your own posting. You understand my post very well, you arent stupid.

My previous point stands, you are wilfully exaggerating another person's words into a point that he isn't making and then attacking it. In common parlance, a straw man.

There has been a notable absence of that type of cheap tactic recently, so it stands out somewhat when somebody (you) employs it.

I will continue to call our absurdity when I see it. That you have trouble following is on you.

That 's like .... the Ace of Spades … Skulls and Cross Bones, right? :surprised

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Sky

Once again we must applaud in the invaluable insight of Sky's #1 fan:

Italian Sponsor wants their sponsorship to be announced in Italy at Italy's biggest bike race?

 

[macbindle]

Re: Re:

I've understood the thread perfectly, also noted your passive-aggressive sarcastic attitude towards Sam Hocking and myself. If you behave like that, don't complain when held to account.

Also, do not act in a disingenuous manner when trying to account for your own posting. You understand my post very well, you arent stupid.

My previous point stands, you are wilfully exaggerating another person's words into a point that he isn't making and then attacking it. In common parlance, a straw man.

There has been a notable absence of that type of cheap tactic recently, so it stands out somewhat when somebody (you) employs it.

I will continue to call our absurdity when I see it. That you have trouble following is on you.

That 's like .... the Ace of Spades … Skulls and Cross Bones, right? :surprised

Given that RF felt the need to quote my post twice, for two different attacks, I think it is more a case of 'methinks she doth protest too much"

 

[JosephK]

Re:

Some people do seem intent on setting themselves up for a fall. The assumption that the project is ended and the personnel will be dispersed is ... optimistic. Still, six months from now, if a new sponsor is announced, these assumptions will be overlooked and reality spun into a new narrative...

What's really, really hilarious of course is that there's some people more willing to believe a real estare agent with no experience can launch a Sky-level Chinese team than are willing to believe that Brailsford can secure fresh funding.

Just a quick tip-of-the-cap to your prescient post, here. It didn't even take six months for a new billionaire behemoth (Ineos, Jim Ratcliffe) to take over the sponsorship of the team: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-to-become-team-ineos-from-may-1/. With a British owner and what is expected to be the biggest budget in cycling, nothing has changed, except maybe even more money than before.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Sky

INEOS supplies TORAY "It also supplies Acrylonitrile (the core ingredient needed to make carbon fibre) to Japanese synthetic fibre maker Toray Industries, the world’s number one in the manufacture of carbon fibre"

https://www.ineos.com/globalassets/inch-magazine/issue-3/pdfs/q4issue2012english.pdf

https://www.ineos.com/inch-magazine/articles/issue-11/man-and-machine-in-perfect-harmony/

What made this bike so incredibly light, yet strong, was Pinarello’s decision to use Toray’s new T11001K Dream Carbon with Nanoalloy Technology.

INEOS, as the company which supplies Toray with acrylonitrile, the core ingredient needed to make carbon fibre, was also watching with interest.

TORAY carbon, in your bike! supplied by Ineos

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

I've understood the thread perfectly, also noted your passive-aggressive sarcastic attitude towards Sam Hocking and myself. If you behave like that, don't complain when held to account.

Also, do not act in a disingenuous manner when trying to account for your own posting. You understand my post very well, you arent stupid.

My previous point stands, you are wilfully exaggerating another person's words into a point that he isn't making and then attacking it. In common parlance, a straw man.

There has been a notable absence of that type of cheap tactic recently, so it stands out somewhat when somebody (you) employs it.

I will continue to call our absurdity when I see it. That you have trouble following is on you.

That 's like .... the Ace of Spades … Skulls and Cross Bones, right? :surprised

Given that RF felt the need to quote my post twice, for two different attacks, I think it is more a case of 'methinks she doth protest too much"

I only have several thousand posts here and you still haven't figured out I'm a man. No, no trouble following along.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

I've understood the thread perfectly, also noted your passive-aggressive sarcastic attitude towards Sam Hocking and myself. If you behave like that, don't complain when held to account.

Also, do not act in a disingenuous manner when trying to account for your own posting. You understand my post very well, you arent stupid.

My previous point stands, you are wilfully exaggerating another person's words into a point that he isn't making and then attacking it. In common parlance, a straw man.

There has been a notable absence of that type of cheap tactic recently, so it stands out somewhat when somebody (you) employs it.

I will continue to call our absurdity when I see it. That you have trouble following is on you.

That 's like .... the Ace of Spades … Skulls and Cross Bones, right? :surprised

Given that RF felt the need to quote my post twice, for two different attacks, I think it is more a case of 'methinks she doth protest too much"

I only have several thousand posts here and you still haven't figured out I'm a man. No, no trouble following along.

Lucky you ... could have been ‘lady.’

BTW ... we know your feelings on Team Sky. How’s about Team Shakespeare?

 

[Robert5091]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/mar/19/team-sky-ineos-mixed-emotions-peloton-cycling

That brings us to Brailsford’s final challenge; the GMC tribunal that will – may? – eventually rule on the Freeman case, and could also shed some light on disputed claims that Team Sky used triamcinolone and tramadol, the former banned except with medical clearance, the latter now on a close watch list. Both the doctor and Team Sky deny any wrongdoing.

The charges levelled at Freeman are severe, but their potential ramifications for Brailsford under his new backer remain to be seen.

Team Sky was famous for a “zero tolerance” policy but it remains to be seen where Ineos, as the team’s new owner, might position themselves over whatever may emerge from a future hearing.

Finding a new sponsor may leave Brailsford in a safer position if the tribunal were eventually to find against Freeman, simply because a name and ownership change locates whatever the doctor may or may not have done in a past that is more easily dismissed. In that context, the upcoming rapid transition from Team Sky to Team Ineos could be useful in more ways than one.

 

[spalco]

This Ratcliffe guy sounds like an almost James Bond level supervillain, and he personally as well as his company seem rather despicable.

Despite the (much deserved imo) opposition to Sky in this forum (the company, not the team), I suspect they may have been to some small degree a moderating force for Brailsford.
With this new sponsor the restraints could be off completely...

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Let's hope Ratcliffe does the full Tinkov
pink hair and all

 

[macbindle]

Re: Re:

I've understood the thread perfectly, also noted your passive-aggressive sarcastic attitude towards Sam Hocking and myself. If you behave like that, don't complain when held to account.

Also, do not act in a disingenuous manner when trying to account for your own posting. You understand my post very well, you arent stupid.

My previous point stands, you are wilfully exaggerating another person's words into a point that he isn't making and then attacking it. In common parlance, a straw man.

There has been a notable absence of that type of cheap tactic recently, so it stands out somewhat when somebody (you) employs it.

I will continue to call our absurdity when I see it. That you have trouble following is on you.

That 's like .... the Ace of Spades … Skulls and Cross Bones, right? :surprised

Given that RF felt the need to quote my post twice, for two different attacks, I think it is more a case of 'methinks she doth protest too much"

I only have several thousand posts here and you still haven't figured out I'm a man. No, no trouble following along.

I know you are a man.

Think of me as Queen Gertrude

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Mud hits Tour of Yorkshire organiser
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-47672013

 

[macbindle]

What has that got to do with team Sky?