Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1599 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Reactions: BrikoRaiderExtreme
Sorry if this has already been discussed, I try to resist coming here! :)

If this team has the magic sauce, you would would think that guys wouldn't leave because there are no greener pastures, and because they know that they won't be able to compete once they leave.
 
Reactions: Bolder
Sorry if this has already been discussed, I try to resist coming here! :)

If this team has the magic sauce, you would would think that guys wouldn't leave because there are no greener pastures, and because they know that they won't be able to compete once they leave.
Only if they have it exclusively, to the point where it is not available anywhere else, and nobody else knows how to use it.

It wasn't the case with USPS, yet riders who left didn't always fire like they did riding for Lance...
 
Sorry if this has already been discussed, I try to resist coming here! :)

If this team has the magic sauce, you would would think that guys wouldn't leave because there are no greener pastures, and because they know that they won't be able to compete once they leave.
I think that most don't leave voluntarily. Either they are given indications that they won't be resigned when their contract ends or are informed that they will need to take a lesser role at less pay if they want to stay. The team moves on to developing other prospects, leaving some riders with a choice to continue with the team with fewer opportunities for themselves. With Sky it seems that some riders are signed with big expectations and often they don't live up to them. They are given the choice to scale back their personal ambitions or move on.
 
Last edited:
For a Team Sky/Ineos or USPS to continue their respective dominations, they need more than just the best drugs and doctors. They also need allies in key positions who will provide top cover.
This seems far more likely than magic sauce.

People also leave (mostly) due to contract opportunities or limitations. More money is often a bigger incentive than any team benefit, including a program, I would think. At least if cyclists act like any other sportsmen.
 
This seems far more likely than magic sauce.

People also leave (mostly) due to contract opportunities or limitations. More money is often a bigger incentive than any team benefit, including a program, I would think. At least if cyclists act like any other sportsmen.
Poels left so that he could have leadership, but if he knows that Sky has the BETTER special sauce (as many in this thread profess), he knows that his leadership will be for the leftovers behind Ineos.
 
Poels left so that he could have leadership, but if he knows that Sky has the BETTER special sauce (as many in this thread profess), he knows that his leadership will be for the leftovers behind Ineos.
Ah, says he, donning his tinfoil hat, but Poels will be riding for Skineos refugee Rod Ellingworth, alongside the Skineos refugee Mikel Landa, and possibly the Skineos refugee Mark Cavendish. And with access to the secret of Slovenia's sudden cycling success. It's gonna be bleedin' mayhem.
 
Ah, says he, donning his tinfoil hat, but Poels will be riding for Skineos refugee Rod Ellingworth, alongside the Skineos refugee Mikel Landa, and possibly the Skineos refugee Mark Cavendish. And with access to the secret of Slovenia's sudden cycling success. It's gonna be bleedin' mayhem.
o_O That's funny! I question the conspiracy theorist, and you point to MY tin foil hat ...while donning a tin foil suit.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Poels left so that he could have leadership, but if he knows that Sky has the BETTER special sauce (as many in this thread profess), he knows that his leadership will be for the leftovers behind Ineos.
Leadership certainly can be an incentive. Don't know his contract details, but wonder if he's making more now. Often the case when a prominent rider leaves a team for a leadership role.

Seemingly if riders are on a program, they would know a great many details about how that program was applied. Not perfectly, and they're not doctors, but they have to know what "stuff" works. So he doesn't "know" what the results will be–if he was on a program at Sky, he may well believe it can be replicated elsewhere.

And again, if he's leaving for more money, it may not matter that much if he thinks he's going to be more successful or have the same success. Gotta feed the family first. Cycling doesn't last that long, and for a lot of athletes, you get what you can get while you can get it.

Also possible that he doesn't think Ineos are getting the air cover from above which they may certainly have been getting under the previous regime. At which point some potential advantages of staying are gone.

The idea that they have some magic potion isn't one I adhere to. Other explanations seem to comport more with the facts on the ground, IMO.

These supposed allies couldn't even keep Froome's salbutamol test confidential, as it should have been. Do you really think they presided over a ten year conspiracy? :rolleyes:
The idea that because one got out, if follows that none were suppressed isn't logical.

Beyond that, there is the obvious that the timing coincides fairly well with Uncle Cookson heading out the door.
 
Last edited:
The idea that because one got out, if follows that none were suppressed isn't logical.

Beyond that, there is the obvious that the timing coincides fairly well with Uncle Cookson heading out the door.
And since Cookson left they have won three out of six Grand Tours with three different riders. More successful than ever. So who are these allies covering things up. They won the Tour under three different UCI regimes, so it can't be them. Who else? The Illuminati? The Masons? The CIA? Penry, the mild-mannered janitor?
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI and Alpe73
Apr 23, 2016
267
5
2,845
This is the first year Team Skyneos riders didn't have to fake being tired on an HC climb, and their most genetically gifted rider won (not the guys who decided to become the world's greatest climbers later in life). Weird season.
Leadership certainly can be an incentive. Don't know his contract details, but wonder if he's making more now. Often the case when a prominent rider leaves a team for a leadership role.

Seemingly if riders are on a program, they would know a great many details about how that program was applied. Not perfectly, and they're not doctors, but they have to know what "stuff" works. So he doesn't "know" what the results will be–if he was on a program at Sky, he may well believe it can be replicated elsewhere.

And again, if he's leaving for more money, it may not matter that much if he thinks he's going to be more successful or have the same success. Gotta feed the family first. Cycling doesn't last that long, and for a lot of athletes, you get what you can get while you can get it.

Also possible that he doesn't think Ineos are getting the air cover from above which they may certainly have been getting under the previous regime. At which point some potential advantages of staying are gone.

The idea that they have some magic potion isn't one I adhere to. Other explanations seem to comport more with the facts on the ground, IMO.


The idea that because one got out, if follows that none were suppressed isn't logical.

Beyond that, there is the obvious that the timing coincides fairly well with Uncle Cookson heading out the door.
 
And since Cookson left they have won three out of six Grand Tours with three different riders. More successful than ever. So who are these allies covering things up. They won the Tour under three different UCI regimes, so it can't be them. Who else? The Illuminati? The Masons? The CIA? Penry, the mild-mannered janitor?
Would you say it's reasonable to think that since Froome was caught doping that he and Sky might have been a tad more careful? Seems fairly obvious. Is there any doubt about it? Maybe stop and think a bit and relax with the hyperbole.
 
Would you say it's reasonable to think that since Froome was caught doping that he and Sky might have been a tad more careful? Seems fairly obvious. Is there any doubt about it? Maybe stop and think a bit and relax with the hyperbole.
Froome was 'caught' taking a drug that he openly admitted taking. There's hardly much to be more careful about. Maybe you should stop and think a bit about how dumb your conspiracies are.
 
Reactions: Alpe73
This is the first year Team Skyneos riders didn't have to fake being tired on an HC climb, and their most genetically gifted rider won (not the guys who decided to become the world's greatest climbers later in life). Weird season.
don't worry, if you are trying to guess who can be their next Tour winner, how about His Majesty, recently rejuvenated cancer survivor Sir Dave himself?
 
Reactions: Alpe73
Would you say it's reasonable to think that since Froome was caught doping that he and Sky might have been a tad more careful? Seems fairly obvious. Is there any doubt about it? Maybe stop and think a bit and relax with the hyperbole.
Have they dialled it back or has their season been screwed by Bernal's crash pre Giro, Froome's crash and Thomas falling in a vat of beer?

If Bernal had ridden the Giro and Froome ridden the Tour would we still think Sky had a bad year? Whatifs, but I'm not sure we can say they've gone easy on the dope.
 
Reactions: Grrr
Have they dialled it back or has their season been screwed by Bernal's crash pre Giro, Froome's crash and Thomas falling in a vat of beer?

If Bernal had ridden the Giro and Froome ridden the Tour would we still think Sky had a bad year? Whatifs, but I'm not sure we can say they've gone easy on the dope.
No idea, I wasn't suggested anyone scaled back, just that after getting busted (or whatever language the faithful want to use) that they obviously had to be more careful. Definitely their season was massively altered by Froome's crash.

Would love to hear more about the vat of beer.
 
In Yorkshire the Ineos chief Radcliffe threatened the team would be disbanded, you never saw the Murdocks saying anything remotely like that, it was a full on arms race
Just about every team owner has at some point or another made that comment. JV perhaps most foolishly, given the speed with which it came back to bite him on the bum. It's a meaningless commitment. I'm pretty sure Brailsford himself has said doping would be the end of the team. Did James Murdoch/Jeremy Darroch really not say that too?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY