Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[hrotha]

Latest news : Sky Cycling Team To Sue For Libel ?

Sky Cycling are currently unmasking the posters in this thread. And may sue for libel.

http://news.sky.com/story/947933/websites-will-be-forced-to-identify-trolls

If their lawyers are on the same stuff as their riders, then I'll start worrying.

 

[Franklin]

I only came on here to look at this thread. Apoplexy predicted and recieved.... No one looked at climb times, wattages, anything? Still why bother, you guys know it all anyway, armchair cynics. Pathetic. Give me a cheat and I say punish him, but until you have any evidence or smoking gun, pack it in.

Smoking gun...

Okay, why does a squeaky clean team have such an "experienced" medical staff?

As I expected, nobody here has a good answer as yet. And no, saying "I haven't looked into them" isn't a rebuttal. Just do a quick scan of their careers and then tell me why they are on this squeaky clean team. I await your answers

 

[the asian]

This only my second post in the clinic, and I normally avoid this sub forum, but I'm compelled to post so.
There are very suspicious points about Sky's performances.
1. Their medical staff has been implicated in doping scandals before. Geert Leinders is a prime example. It's shocking to see UCI allow him to part of a cycling team.
2.Porte, Wiggins, Rogers & Froome are not real climbers. They are more like Time Triallers who can climb. Normally these sorts of riders would lose time in these short steep and Uneven climbs. Menchov losing time today is a prime example. They are much more suited to longer steady climbs.
3. Rogers hasn't had any sort of climbing form for almost five years until he joined SKY. Froome became a overnight sensation after the Vuelta,
but he was nowhere in the scene before, while Porte hasn't shown he and climb with the best in the past. He was absolutely shocking as a Mt domestique for Contador, and his high placing in the Giro was because of he was part of a breakaway and not because of his climbing abilities.
Setting such a high pace at the front, and after peeling off, recovering to finish within 1.5 minutes of the stage winner and in 13th and 14th place ahead of far more accomplished climbers is unbelievable.
Even the very best Mt domestiques can't turn in such performances.

4. The last time we saw such performances were form US Postal.

Though I wouldn't jump in to conclusions and say SKY are absolutely doping, anybody who doesn't feel Suspicious about their performances and think they are 100% clean must be either new to cycling or be absolutely delusional.

My hope is things will be sorted out soon and won't go the way it has gone with US postal where after 7 or 8 new evidences turn up incrimating riders and even administrators, but with Pat Mcquaid and the UCI and the amount of money SKy has, it's highly unlikely

 

[Zarvinov]

If their lawyers are on the same stuff as their riders, then I'll start worrying.

Hilarious

 

[peloton]

If doped riders can be allowed into peleton like Scarponi, Basso etc and redeem themselves. Why can't the stuff too ?

It's peloton.
By stuff do you mean staff? If so, then your question is very, sorry to say it, stupid, as it's the staff that dope the athletes....

 

[hrotha]

McQuaid casts doubt on Sky's performance

 

[BroDeal]

I am waiting for JV to wander in here and tell us how the sport has changed and the controls have reduced the effectiveness of doping to the point where riders might as well ride clean.

Ricco must be p!ssed as hell watching this at home. He was chucked out of the sport to give free reign to this absurdity?

 

[Parrot23]

This is getting more suspicious by the minute: Richie Porte and Michael Rogers beat Tony Gallopin and Cancellara by 20-30 seconds on a climb. They must be into some serious ***t.

Wow! This has shocked my socks right off.

 

[taiwan]

On Sky's radio frequency earlier today...

 

[Franklin]

If doped riders can be allowed into peleton like Scarponi, Basso etc and redeem themselves. Why can't the stuff too ?

These redeemed staff members have made their reputation on "less than savory" manners. Now, with another quite impressive result we have to assume they are clean. Especially since they never even got a remote slap on the wrist?

 

[c&cfan]

well, i doubt any team sky rider doped as much as evens, or merckx, or lance, or hinault & lemond, so this makes no sense.

if the one that is considered the best (by trolls) because he rode against farmers and was the only one with the means to have a decent program (not only whiskey and anphetamines) & had his own dirty team is considered the best, why can't sky riders do the same and unbalance the field in the same way?

 

[Galic Ho]

The bold parts are exact phrases that were going through my head while I was heading over here. (Yesterday and right after the stage today, the forum was inaccessible for a time. Anyone else experience that?)

I did. I thought the Clinic guys who loath this BS had gotten into a biff with the Sky acolytes who loiter mostly in the Pro forum and crashed the whole forum.

I guess what's most puzzling for me is that they make no effort to be subtle about it. It's Saunier Duval Cycling all over again - as others here have pointed out.

But what does that tell us? I mean, after Saunier Duval's exposure, and especially in this anti-doping, hyper-vigilent atmosphere, what does it tell us, that a leading team would feel at liberty to be so open about their over-the-top performances? Why aren't they afraid of appearing suspect, or drawing unwanted attention?

I'd say it indicates that the fix is in. If the U.S. Postal team and its antics were a projection of U.S. soft power in Europe and the world, and thus were seen as serving certain national interests (in addition to supplying a big payday to lots of people and companies), and if this fact explains how they were able to get away with it; then it would be fair to suggest that in this Olympics year, Team Sky is seen in the same way, and as serving a similar purpose, but to British national interests. If the payoffs have been placed and the protection provided, the team is justified in being arrogant.

Money greases many wheels. Wait it will get worse. Hopefully Federer wins tomorrow. Someone to restore some dignity. Brits have more reign this year than they will have in a very, very long time. Watch over the next two years leading up to 2016. South Americans will get a turn. Brazilians mostly. It was the Chinese a few years back, the Greeks and yes, the Aussies before then. Officials literally look the other way at certain times for certain groups. Doesn't hurt there is serious money behind Sky. It's not a far stretch to imagine this whole Tour was bought. People will make a lot of money out of Brits this year. A lot of money. Think I'm joking? It wasn't a coincidence Mark Renshaw didn't lead out Matt Goss at last years WC or that the course suited Cav. Nor this years Tour parcours.

To the bold, this isn't the first time that question has been asked. In fact, I recall it being asked every year about this time, from 1999 to 2005. Back then, an elaborate but unbeatable template was being followed, and they ran it year after year, with consistent results. What if this is simply the same template? I mean, why reinvent the wheel?

If this is the same template, who better to transfer it from Postal to Sky than its main figure, Armstrong himself? If Armstrong, for whatever reason, saw personal benefit in cluing in Murdoch's team, who can doubt he'd do it? This would mean, in part, an exclusive arrangement for Sky with Ferrari (thus accounting for Wiggin's recent discovery of VAM, not to mention his recent adoration of Armstrong), and probably designer drugs, as well - if your oxygen-vector drug is unique, it can't be detected.

All this would be expensive, but who is better positioned to pay for it than Rupert Murdoch? And if its seen as being in the national interest, Murdoch isn't in any position to say no right now . . . .

Supposition? Of course. Wild speculation? Maybe. But if it looks like the Blue Train, and rides like the Blue Train, well . . . maybe the obvious inference is that the Blue train template was simply transferred over, lock, stock, and payoffs.

Well Wiggins famously jumped into the Lance leg humping PR team many years back, after his own transformation. Sky have been playing the LA PR playbook for years now. It's been called out on these forums for a while.

I know they won't get away with it. It'll come back somewhere, sometime. Be it they crash and get injured. They fall sick. They get popped. Upstarts and blatant cheats like this always reap what they soe. It's one of the few universal rules that won't be broken. Cause and effect. There is always a cost. For a lot of viewers here, it's about respect. They deserve none.

I have a feeling the downhills could be very revealing for Sky.

 

[samerics]

Smoking gun...

Okay, why does a squeaky clean team have such an "experienced" medical staff?

As I expected, nobody here has a good answer as yet. And no, saying "I haven't looked into them" isn't a rebuttal. Just do a quick scan of their careers and then tell me why they are on this squeaky clean team. I await your answers

So, where were the Armstrong or Contador type performances today then? Cancellara wasn't a million miles behind and he is perceived as likely to be clean among the open minded. You have no evidence or even a suggestion that their performances aren't within the realms of what their naturally physiology makes them capable of, just innuendo. They're hardly USPS .

 

[UlleGigo]

7. Richie Porte (AUS) Team Saxo Bank at 7:22
8. Carlos Sastre Candil (ESP) Cervélo TestTeam at 9:39
9. Marco Pinotti (ITA) HTC-Columbia at 14:20
10. Robert Kiserlovski (CRO) Liquigas-Doimo at 14:51
11. Damiano Cunego (ITA) Lampre-Farnese Vini at 17:10
12. Bauke Mollema (NED) Rabobank Cycling Team at 19:41

Sastre was also in the break so would not have beaten him without it.

Pinotti was not in the break so would have.

Kiserlovski was in the break so would not have beaten him.

Cunego was not in the break do would have.

Mollema lost 12:25 due to the break relative to Porte, so would have beaten him by 6 seconds.

Thus Porte would be 10th. Top 10. I'm off out before you waste any more of my time.

The math is great thanks. Not many people could have done that.

However, Top-10 GC contenders seeing there chances disappear a quarter of an hour up the road coupled with Porte losing bags of time up every mountain would make the case for a very different result for Porte without the break.

But its easy to see how races would turn out without the anomalies. Apparently you just take out the obscure results after the fact and you have your 'real' result.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Funny, just the other day someone brought up the famous Contador/Chicken sprint-fest up the alpine cols in 2007 as a classic example of excessive doping.

I will give you that I can't remember him being towed up the mountains by an incredible number of teammates, maybe he just didn't need that kind of help.

Sorry for going off topic, but gives perspective on unbelievable moments in cycling of which todays performance was one.

OK

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Man, these british fanboys are even more numerous and self-deluded than the apostles of Cancer Jesus.

 

[Maxiton]

On Sky's radio frequency earlier today...

You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!


F'n hilarious!

 

[Franklin]

So, where were the Armstrong or Contador type performances today then? Cancellara wasn't a million miles behind and he is perceived as likely to be clean among the open minded. You have no evidence or even a suggestion that their performances aren't within the realms of what their naturally physiology makes them capable of, just innuendo. They're hardly USPS .

1. I find Canc performance quite amusing as well.
2. Canc did even far more impressive idiotic antics in mountain stages before a few years ago (where he was part of the hammer)

So if Cancellara rides well in the mountains it means it's clean? Gosh, there I was just thinking that it was just another fishy thing

But I keep on returning to the question you refuse to answer; if they are so squeaky clean, why have this medical team? What's the logic behind it?

why have a super talented clean heroic team and have a medical staff like this? Isn't that insulting to these angelic riders? Why isn't Froome or Wiggins saying; "BEGONE YEA OLD GHOST OF CYCLING PAST!"

If I were clean these doctors wouldn't be the ones I want to work with me.

 

[Franklin]

Funny, just the other day someone brought up the famous Contador/Chicken sprint-fest up the alpine cols in 2007 as a classic example of excessive doping.

I will give you that I can't remember him being towed up the mountains by an incredible number of teammates, maybe he just didn't need that kind of help.

Sorry for going off topic, but gives perspective on unbelievable moments in cycling of which todays performance was one.

Actually both Astana as Rabobank were just riding their trains over the cols. It was a similar image.

And that's the damning part. We have seen it before, the odds that this is suddenly clean are "small". Especially if we add the "experienced" entourage of the team

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

The math is great thanks. Not many people could have done that.

However, Top-10 GC contenders seeing there chances disappear a quarter of an hour up the road coupled with Porte losing bags of time up every mountain would make the case for a very different result for Porte without the break.

But its easy to see how races would turn out without the anomalies. Apparently you just take out the obscure results after the fact and you have your 'real' result.

So to recap, you say that it is "dead wrong" to say Porte came top 10 in giro.

I demonstrate that he came top 10 both with and without allowing him the break away time.

You accuse me of wanting to construct counterfactuals....


Ignore list.

 

[BroDeal]

All aboard!!! Choo choo choo choo. Choo choo choo choo.

 

[DominicDecoco]

Shouldn't we wait for the stage on thursday to make final conclusions. This was just a steep hill ending a flat stage.

 

[hrotha]

Shouldn't we wait for the stage on thursday to make final conclusions. This was just a steep hill ending a flat stage.

Yeah, this was just the kind of climb that should suit Sky the least.

 

[Galic Ho]

Rogers is the only one you can say is obviously doping. We can easily compare him to 2006.

The others may just be incredibly talented.

Go and rewatch the 2006 Tour. First mountain stage. Where was Wiggins?

Not in the groupetto. Dropped from the groupetto. Now in third 6 years later on a climb that hit 16% at the end. I call BS on that dude. Clearly been taking his doping to another level since 2009. 2010, messed it up, 2011 was the tester and they knew they'd get the window in 2012.

Big story though is Froome. I think he'll mess it up. Mess up the rosy parade the team has for Wiggins. If history is accurate, he'll get better, Wiggins will drop. Rogers should drop. But even then, there is no other explanation for himself and Porte. They just aren't that good. Not even when working for T-Mobile or Bjarne Riis and Alberto Contador. That's how sad and scrary this mess is. They've taken it back to the older days or ridiculous garbage.

I hope they all get banned this race. I hope they mess up the program. It really is blatantly obvious what they are doing.

 

[TubularBills]

Warm up the keyboard Flanders...

http://www.slideshare.net/RedFlanders/doping-history