Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1590 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

macbindle said:
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 love that you’re actually serious! I shall endeavor to post here more often.
 
Re:

topcat said:
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.
No. Ulissi got a 2 year ban reduced to 9 months. Petacchi didn't. Is that evidence of different rules for different riders, or merely different mitigating arguments winning in CAS.

Why should Froome be stripped of his Tour titles line Lance when there is no evidence of Froome taking EPO, HGH, Testosterone like Lance did?
 
Re:

topcat said:
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.
 
Re:

topcat said:
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.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
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.
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
topcat said:
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:
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
macbindle said:
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
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
red_flanders said:
macbindle said:
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" ;)
 
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
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.
 
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
 
Re: Re:

macbindle said:
Alpe73 said:
red_flanders said:
macbindle said:
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.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
macbindle said:
Alpe73 said:
red_flanders said:
macbindle said:
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?
 
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.
 
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...
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY