Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Franklin]

The sorry fact that these threads ignore is that the power outputs - the only objective, quantitative, and comparative metric of performance - are the lowest in years.

Clearly you know that this proves nothing.

How about those facts that still haven't been answered? Masterracer, be a man and say you simply can't explain it and that all you have is faith.

Because as long as there is no answer all you can have is faith.

And that shows the whole issue.. facts versus faith. Sorry, that's pinful, but true. Brad and Sky might be clean, but damning the critics is beyond ridiculous and will not help this sport.

As Benotti said, if you want a clean sport, perhaps it's better to rail against those dodgy doctors? Naah, it's better to villify the critics.

 

[Cervelo77]

Putting my cynicism aside for one moment, I did chuckle at the ra tickets comment. Typical humour from us that nobody el would get

No, we get it. We just find it cringe inducing. But clever by Brad. And kudos for the safe home comment; we know there will be a lot of drunk Brits in Paris today.

 

[thehog]

Dr. Coyle said the difference between Mr. Armstrong and many of his competitors may be focus and training techniques. He said there were at least 10 cyclists in this year's tour who were potential challengers.

"If they followed Lance's preparation and rode on his Discovery team with the same great teamwork that Discovery has given him, and if they can muster the right mindset to believe they can really do it when it counts, they could be equally impressive," he said.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

OMFG.. Brads podium speech " some dreams do come true"

Pharmstrong , " I feel sorry for those who don't believe in miracles "

To be fair though, it wasn't quite of the Armstrong fairytale 'believe in miracles' sense. Wiggins, regardless of opinion of whether clean or dirty, as a cyclist surely would have dreamt of winning the Tour de France, therefore his dream has come true. Whether or not you have a chaque that a miracle was needed to get there doesn't really affect that.

The sorry fact that these threads ignore is that the power outputs - the only objective, quantitative, and comparative metric of performance - are the lowest in years. What looks impressive in terms of relative performance is less impressive in terms of absolute performance. Everything you point to is entirely consistent with non-doping. When one begins with the assumption of doping, which seems to be the starting point of this forum, then everything is evidence of doping. Confirmation bias explains this forum. Yawn.

Having less absolute performance is a good sign, however as has been pointed out before, the péloton is cleaner than it was in the 90s, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's clean. The biopassport regulates doping, but finds it difficult to eradicate it entirely. And when doping is heavily regulated so that clean cyclists are more competitive than they would have been 10-15 years ago, it stands to reason that if you were doping, you wouldn't need to put out ludicrous performances like Pantani for it to make a difference. Sky weren't wearing out their brake pads going uphill like Bjarne Riis or anything... but they were clearly a cut above everybody else, with stories conflicting about how they got there (see Servais Knaven and "they're just more talented" vs. the "marginal gains" and "training harder" talking points spewed out elsewhere). It may have been achieved clean, and that's great, but it sure didn't look good.

 

[Dead Star]

No, we get it. We just find it cringe inducing. But clever by Brad. And kudos for the safe home comment; we know there will be a lot of drunk Brits in Paris today.

Yeah, the brief was clear. Don't mention your critics. It may come back to bite one day.

 

[BroDeal]

"Sometimes I think for certain people, whatever you do will never be enough, unless they came and lived with me for 12 months. And I'm not prepared to do that. Certainly not (with) Paul Kimmage," added Wiggins.

Enmity toward people who have fought against doping at personal cost. Not getting the warm fuzzies here.

"The test of time is more important really, and the continuation of the fantastic job the UCI do," said Wiggins.

Not just toeing the UCI party line but praising the UCI. McQuaid must have done Sky a few big favors. This statement alone may indicate doping. Can any honest person respect the UCI?

"I've lost count of the number of times I've been tested this week, blood and urine. It's the more we do that, the better our sport is becoming."

The new legend of the 500 in the making. Treating the public like chumps by touting zillions of tests which are easy to beat. That's it for me. He's a doper.

 

[mastersracer]

Clearly you know that this proves nothing.

How about those facts that still haven't been answered? Masterracer, be a man and say you simply can't explain it and that all you have is faith.

Because as long as there is no answer all you can have is faith.

And that shows the whole issue.. facts versus faith. Sorry, that's pinful, but true. Brad and Sky might be clean, but damning the critics is beyond ridiculous and will not help this sport.

As Benotti said, if you want a clean sport, perhaps it's better to rail against those dodgy doctors? Naah, it's better to villify the critics.

No, the power numbers demonstrate that the performance is CONSISTENT with non-doping performances. The other 'facts' are innuendo and are not evidence of doping. Those claiming doping are the ones extrapolating beyond evidence. The burden of proof is on those making claims of doping - I'm not claiming they are not doping. I am simply stating that there is no evidence of doping. Big difference.

 

[Franklin]

No, the power numbers demonstrate that the performance is CONSISTENT with non-doping performances. The other 'facts' are innuendo and are not evidence of doping. Those claiming doping are the ones extrapolating beyond evidence. The burden of proof is on those making claims of doping - I'm not claiming they are not doping. I am simply stating that there is no evidence of doping. Big difference.

Masterracer. I asked you many times before, you are putting up strawmen. As soon as I point that out you shut up and just repeat the process three pages later. Man up and admit that I never said it was proof.

And the bolded part is lunacy. There have been many people implicated with epo turning in lower numbers than these. It proofs.... exactly nothing.

Back to the facts, do you have a good reason for Leinders? Or are you giving them a pass for this?

 

[Cervelo77]

re: Leinders, Brailsford did say there "is reputational risk" having him on staff. I guess he was right about that.

 

[TheGeneral]

To be fair though, it wasn't quite of the Armstrong fairytale 'believe in miracles' sense. Wiggins, regardless of opinion of whether clean or dirty, as a cyclist surely would have dreamt of winning the Tour de France, therefore his dream has come true. Whether or not you have a chaque that a miracle was needed to get there doesn't really affect that.

Fair point. But Bradley Wiggins "dream coming true" has yet again etched an indelible mark on the face of professional cycling as he is now the torch bearer for doping that has been passed on to him by Armstrong and others. Thus destroying the dreams of those clean riders. Who ever they may be.

 

[sniper]

Back to the facts, do you have a good reason for Leinders? Or are you giving them a pass for this?

The BS Brailsford has uttered to justify the hiring of Leinders situates among the most blatant insults of my intelligence of the past couple of years of pro-cycling.
It's right up there with Contador's steak-tale.

 

[The Hitch]

Was listening back to wiggins 2007 speech on doping - back when he had some balls and credibility, and found this gem

"Hopefully in 2 years i might win the time trial, and be a credible time trial winner because i havent beaten someone by 2 and a half minutes"

http://itv-57.vo.llnwd.net/d1/event1/WIGGINS Podcast 27_7_07_1-2.mp3

He was reffering to Vinos tt and how it was obvious vino was doping because he beat everyone else by so much time.

Lets compare the tts then



Rank Rider Team Time
1 Alexander Vinokourov Astana Team 1h 06'34"
2 Cadel Evans Predictor-Lotto +1'14"
3 Andreas Klöden Astana Team +1'39"
4 Andrey Kashechkin Astana Team +1'44"
5 Bradley Wiggins Cofidis +2'14"
6 Yaroslav Popovych Discovery Channel Pro Cycling Team +2'16"
7 Alberto Contador Discovery Channel Pro Cycling Team +2'18"
8 Sylvain Chavanel Cofidis +2'38"
9 Levi Leipheimer Discovery Channel Pro Cycling Team +2'39"
10 Mikel Astarloza Euskaltel-Euskadi +2'42"


1. WIGGINS Bradley SKY 1h04'13"
2. FROOME Chris SKY 01'16"
3. SANCHEZ GIL Luis Leon RAB 01'50"
4. VELITS Peter OPQ 02'02"
5. PORTE Richie SKY 02'25"
6. GRETSCH Patrick ARG 02'28"
7. VAN GARDEREN Tejay BMC 02'34"
8. KIRYIENKA Vasil MOV 02'46"
9. TAARAMÄE Rein COF 02'50"
10. ROY Jérémy FDJ 03'05"

In a slightly shorter tt no less.

Sorry but for me with such a comment, Wiggins is giving permission for life to everyone who wants to accuse him of being a doper. He has absolutely no right to protest if anyone calls him a doper after pulling some **** like this.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Dr. Coyle said the difference between Mr. Armstrong and many of his competitors may be focus and training techniques. He said there were at least 10 cyclists in this year's tour who were potential challengers.

"If they followed Lance's preparation and rode on his Discovery team with the same great teamwork that Discovery has given him, and if they can muster the right mindset to believe they can really do it when it counts, they could be equally impressive," he said.

Really, you are quoting Ed Coyle? Haha. That is the best you can do?

 

[180mmCrank]

What exactly do people expect him to say on the podium?

I would love to hear what people think the a first time winner should say. It seems what ever is said it is going to get twisted by some who want to make a point or in this case a comparison with those that have gone before.

He's damned if he does and damned if he don't!

T

 

[taiwan]

Was listening back to wiggins 2007 speech on doping - back when he had some balls and credibility, and found this gem


http://itv-57.vo.llnwd.net/d1/event1/WIGGINS Podcast 27_7_07_1-2.mp3

He was reffering to Vinos tt and how it was obvious vino was doping because he beat everyone else by so much time.

Lets compare the tts then



Rank Rider Team Time
1 Alexander Vinokourov Astana Team 1h 06'34"
2 Cadel Evans Predictor-Lotto +1'14"
3 Andreas Klöden Astana Team +1'39"
4 Andrey Kashechkin Astana Team +1'44"
5 Bradley Wiggins Cofidis +2'14"
6 Yaroslav Popovych Discovery Channel Pro Cycling Team +2'16"
7 Alberto Contador Discovery Channel Pro Cycling Team +2'18"
8 Sylvain Chavanel Cofidis +2'38"
9 Levi Leipheimer Discovery Channel Pro Cycling Team +2'39"
10 Mikel Astarloza Euskaltel-Euskadi +2'42"


1. WIGGINS Bradley SKY 1h04'13"
2. FROOME Chris SKY 01'16"
3. SANCHEZ GIL Luis Leon RAB 01'50"
4. VELITS Peter OPQ 02'02"
5. PORTE Richie SKY 02'25"
6. GRETSCH Patrick ARG 02'28"
7. VAN GARDEREN Tejay BMC 02'34"
8. KIRYIENKA Vasil MOV 02'46"
9. TAARAMÄE Rein COF 02'50"
10. ROY Jérémy FDJ 03'05"

In a slightly shorter tt no less.

Sorry but for me with such a comment, Wiggins is giving permission for life to everyone who wants to accuse him of being a doper. He has absolutely no right to protest if anyone calls him a doper after pulling some **** like this.

good spot.

 

[taiwan]

Srsly though

I'd be interested to hear where people think the team's marginal gains are being made, if not the obvious.

1. Warming down after road stages.
2...?

 

[Knutsen]

And the bolded part is lunacy. There have been many people implicated with epo turning in lower numbers than these. It proofs.... exactly nothing.

I remember a time when VAM and watts calculations where the most certain and "best" proofs for someone doping around here. Not anymore it seems. Something is changing... in the clinic.

 

[Franklin]

I remember a time when VAM and watts calculations where the most certain and "best" proofs for someone doping around here. Not anymore it seems. Something is changing... in the clinic.

Oh nonsense and hogwash. There always has been many more issues.

Lance was villified due to his Ferrari connection. Virenque said hiring Ferrari was a sure tell sign. Yet now we just have to give Sky a pass on Leinders. *

Nobody can tell us why, but we sure have to give him a pass or else we are whiners

*And yes, Bradley used to decry any team remotely connected to a doping doctor.

Handwaving and dodging ahoy

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I'd be interested to hear where people think the team's marginal gains are being made, if not the obvious.

1. Warming down after road stages.
2...?

1. Warm down after road stages.
2. ?
3. Profit

 

[taiwan]

I remember a time when VAM and watts calculations where the most certain and "best" proofs for someone doping around here. Not anymore it seems. Something is changing... in the clinic.

Well hold on - if people are producing numbers that are literally superhuman then that proves they're doping because the numbers would be impossible to achieve otherwise. If people produce numbers that are at expected levels, is it impossible to produce those dirty? Although it may indicate cleaner riding, the data aren't valid as proof of non-doping in the same way that high numbers --> doping.

 

[taiwan]

1. Warm down after road stages.
2. ?
3. Profit

Chapeau.

 

[The Hitch]

Oh nonsense and hogwash. There always has been many more issues.

Lance was villified due to his Ferrari connection. Virenque said hiring Ferrari was a sure tell sign. Yet now we just have to give Sky a pass on Leinders. *

Nobody can tell us why, but we sure have to give him a pass or else we are whiners

*And yes, Bradley used to decry any team remotely connected to a doping doctor.

Handwaving and dodging ahoy

In the 07 talk he says any team with a.dodgy doctor should not be invited to the tour nor given a license by the uci .

 

[Cycle Chic]

The Charity Card

And just like Lance he touts the Charity he supports, Joining Jack - he,s got to be clean he is such a great guy !

 

[wannab]

Well hold on - if people are producing numbers that are literally superhuman then that proves they're doping because the numbers would be impossible to achieve otherwise. If people produce numbers that are at expected levels, is it impossible to produce those dirty? Although it may indicate cleaner riding, the data aren't valid as proof of non-doping in the same way that high numbers --> doping.

Isn't that indication a good thing? In favor of Sky, Wiggins and cycling in general .. these numbers aren't being produced by any random pro, just the top

I mean, if the numbers are within whats physiological capable by high end and naturally gifted athletes, in combination of no doping proof what so ever then I give them the benefit of the doubt, otherwise I would just stop watching, but that's just me.

 

[Knutsen]

Lance was villified due to his Ferrari connection. Virenque said hiring Ferrari was a sure tell sign. Yet now we just have to give Sky a pass on Leinders. *

Yes, Leinders is certainly up there in the Ferrari/Fuentes league.