Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[doolols]

Yawn. If you're going to troll, at least be inventive.

Care to answer the question? So often in here, I see the "evidence" of doping to be the relative performance between now and last year / 2 years ago.

I first came in here, a Lance luvvi, got his books, watched his cycling, loved him. And the more I read, the more evidence I saw of suspicious behaviour, both on and off the bike. Over the course of a couple of weeks, during which time I was ill, I read LA and AC threads from start to finish.

But I honestly don't see anything like the weight of evidence for doping going on at Sky. I really don't. It's all very circumstantial, and based on the fact (it seems) that they're winning races. That's their only crime.

 

[Darryl Webster]

I was watching BBC too, why doesn't a guy like Boardman open his mouth?
/url]

I raced with Chris, same club team. In fact his very first senior pursuit medal was riding of for bronze against me in 87 National champs and shared his first Gold the Team pursuit final in the same year.
Those with long memories might recall that in the 1991 World amateur pursuit champs in Stuttgart he failed to qualify and in 1992 became Olympic champion.
Now imagine if you will a certain gentleman from Chichester approaching, at those same world championships in Stuttgart a former world pursuit professional champ and enquiring if they knew were they might obtain EPO.
That former world champ didn't, as it happened , know.
Did it happen? ..you be the judge.
Bare in mind there was no test for EPO at that time.

Chris, Mr nice guy . was one very smart cookie and I can pretty much guarantee is making more from bike sales than he ever did riding one.
He has nothing whatsoever to gain from ever doing anything but bigging up results.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Care to answer the question? So often in here, I see the "evidence" of doping to be the relative performance between now and last year / 2 years ago.

I first came in here, a Lance luvvi, got his books, watched his cycling, loved him. And the more I read, the more evidence I saw of suspicious behaviour, both on and off the bike. Over the course of a couple of weeks, during which time I was ill, I read LA and AC threads from start to finish.

But I honestly don't see anything like the weight of evidence for doping going on at Sky. I really don't. It's all very circumstantial, and based on the fact (it seems) that they're winning races. That's their only crime.

That may be the kicker. Most of the better posters in The Clinic are basing their professed opinions on decades of watching the sport, from long before LA showed up, and through the historic impact of the "better" drugs on the peloton.

The "Lance luvvi" may have skewed your perspective.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I raced with Chris, same club team. In fact his very first senior pursuit medal was riding of for bronze against me in 87 National champs and shared his first Gold the Team pursuit final in the same year.
Those with long memories might recall that in the 1991 World amateur pursuit champs in Stuttgart he failed to qualify and in 1992 became Olympic champion.
Now imagine if you will a certain gentleman from Chichester approaching, at those same world championships in Stuttgart a former world pursuit professional champ and enquiring if they knew were they might obtain EPO.
That former world champ didn't, as it happened , know.
Did it happen? ..you be the judge.
Bare in mind there was no test for EPO at that time.

Chris, Mr nice guy . was one very smart cookie and I can pretty much guarantee is making more from bike sales than he ever did riding one.
He has nothing whatsoever to gain from ever doing anything but bigging up results.

I assume you're familiar with "Dr. Angus". His jingling bag of tricks was a common sight at the 1990 Worlds...

 

[Darryl Webster]

I assume you're familiar with "Dr. Angus". His jingling bag of tricks was a common sight at the 1990 Worlds...

I am indeed.. Tony Doyle and he were very "close" shall we say. Last I heard had to do a bit of runner ..drugs related, allegedly .

But he didn't come from Chichester,

 

[doolols]

The "Lance luvvi" may have skewed your perspective.

Or maybe it shows that I'm prepared to re-evaluate any pre-conceived notions I might have? The key stages in the Tour this year were ridden in a different style to many previous years. Yes, it was boring. Wiggins created a lead in the first proper time trial, and then used the team to defend it. And the fact is, no rider or team was able to break Sky's hold on the race.

Which explains what happened in the Olympic RR. Several teams expected Sky (oops, Team GB) to do the work for them, drag the peloton back to the breakaway, and put everyone in a position to contest the race. Stand up, Germany, Australia, Ireland.

In short, I don't see that Sky have a head and shoulders lead over any other team. If they are doping it, they're microdoping for the fabled marginal gains, or they've instructed the riders not to go nuts and make it too obvious.

I don't know if they'e doping or not. I don't see the evidence for it. Calling them dopers because they're successful is just lazy.

 

[the sceptic]

Care to answer the question? So often in here, I see the "evidence" of doping to be the relative performance between now and last year / 2 years ago.

I first came in here, a Lance luvvi, got his books, watched his cycling, loved him. And the more I read, the more evidence I saw of suspicious behaviour, both on and off the bike. Over the course of a couple of weeks, during which time I was ill, I read LA and AC threads from start to finish.

But I honestly don't see anything like the weight of evidence for doping going on at Sky. I really don't. It's all very circumstantial, and based on the fact (it seems) that they're winning races. That's their only crime.

Maybe you should read this thread too

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

He has nothing whatsoever to gain from ever doing anything but bigging up results.

I catch the drift, he is no Obree you are saying. In that case I recount my earlier statement on the 1996 Olympics.

It's a small world.

 

[The Hitch]

how old is Wiggins now. 32 isnt it? So when he says he is going to Rio its going to be TP or does he expect to obliterate everyone in the tt aged 36?

 

[titan31]

Or maybe it shows that I'm prepared to re-evaluate any pre-conceived notions I might have? The key stages in the Tour this year were ridden in a different style to many previous years. Yes, it was boring. Wiggins created a lead in the first proper time trial, and then used the team to defend it. And the fact is, no rider or team was able to break Sky's hold on the race.

Which explains what happened in the Olympic RR. Several teams expected Sky (oops, Team GB) to do the work for them, drag the peloton back to the breakaway, and put everyone in a position to contest the race. Stand up, Germany, Australia, Ireland.

In short, I don't see that Sky have a head and shoulders lead over any other team. If they are doping it, they're microdoping for the fabled marginal gains, or they've instructed the riders not to go nuts and make it too obvious.

I don't know if they'e doping or not. I don't see the evidence for it. Calling them dopers because they're successful is just lazy.

Tbh, I'm similar in that I got into the sport cos of Lance (although the Tour coming to Ireland the year before was my start) and loved Lance (still do, despite the doping), but to me it's obvious there's something up with Sky. Wiggins transformation has been crazy, Froome has come from nowhere and Rogers and Porte are performing far better than before.

They were even discussing Wiggins on the BBC there, and even them saying it as praise, that he's dropped 15kg since Beijing, winning everything and first to win the Tour and the Olympic TT in the same year, it doesn't sound right.

Considering the history of cycling, the fact that the elite riders who have doped couldn't do what Wiggins has done this year raises doubts for me. Froome is even dodgier as he was a nobody before last years Vuelta in relation to the best cyclists, and is now showing ability far beyond what he's ever shown before.

 

[doolols]

first to win the Tour and the Olympic TT in the same year, it doesn't sound right.

Maybe not, but this was probably the only year Wiggins could win the Tour. No AC or AS, and a course with two huge fairly flat time trials. Seeing that, there's no wonder Braislford would target this year. He got Froome to protect Wiggins in the hills. He knows Wiggins isn't a climber. Wiggins is a fit time trialler, who had a team around him specifically to protect a lead created by the first TT. These were the tactics, and they worked a dream.

Olympic TT? He was always going to do well. He was lucky Canc was injured, as he could have been a major threat.

Froome is even dodgier as he was a nobody before last years Vuelta in relation to the best cyclists, and is now showing ability far beyond what he's ever shown before.

I do have a bit of a problem with Froome. He does show the 'from nowhere" sort of form, and the frightening ability to ride away from others at the top of climbs.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Leaving aside the time they kept it up, judging their transformations from a synchronic point of view:

LA: from good at ITTs, very good on the hills and semi-decent (top 40 material) on the mountains to best at ITTs and top 3 on the mountains.
Wiggins: from good at ITTs but terrible at everything else to top 3 at ITTs and world-class at climbing.
Riis: from good on the flat and your typical hard, semi-versatile rouleur to world-class on the hills, mountains and ITTs.

It's a close call, I'd say, but that's the podium for me. At least Froome is still the same kind of rider he was before (climber/time-trialist), it's just that now, all of sudden, he's world-class, so it's laughable, but not the same kind of transformation.

Oh my mistake. How could i have forgotten Rijs?
And Rominger comes into mind now (6! GT´s placing 44+ finishes/DNF before being 16th at age 29, then 1-yr-Camp at Ferrari, then boom 1-1-1-1-2-3-8-10 from age 31+ on )!

So my Top-6:
1- Armstrong
2- not given (b/c Armstrong is so far ahead)
3- Rijs
4-Rominger
5-Indurain
6-Wiggins

So Wiggins just makes Top-6 unless someone else comes up w/another transformer i forgot.

First, I am in no way claiming LA was clean, but to say LA classics stuff is PR saga is not true, WC in Oslo at 21 on a very hard parcours is he stuff of good to great classics riders, espescially when you add inn 2nd at LBL and a win at Fleche Wallone

OK, give you that.

 

[richtea]

Care to answer the question?.

Yes, it would be very interesting to see Caruut address some substantive issues precisely and confidently. We must all have had enough of his 6th form standard epistemology.

 

[D-Queued]

Oh my mistake. How could i have forgotten Rijs?
And Rominger comes into mind now (6! GT´s placing 44+ finishes/DNF before being 16th at age 29, then 1-yr-Camp at Ferrari, then boom 1-1-1-1-2-3-8-10 from age 31+ on )!

So my Top-6:
1- Armstrong
2- not given (b/c Armstrong is so far ahead)
3- Rijs
4-Rominger
5-Indurain
6-Wiggins

So Wiggins just makes Top-6 unless someone else comes up w/another transformer i forgot.



OK, give you that.

Bugno and Cappuccino deserve to be ahead of Indurain on this list...

Whatever you think of Mig, he was being held back in favor of Delgado.

Dave.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Bugno and Cappuccino deserve to be ahead of Indurain on this list...

Whatever you think of Mig, he was being held back in favor of Delgado.

Dave.

My problem with BigMig is that he just transformed like Armstrong. No bad days from 91-95 (& no shows/DNF´s before 91). Then, his transformation came at the exact time as EPO. Plus add in Lemond (sitting behind Hinault), Ullrich (behind Rijs), Fignon (behind Hinault too). All of them finished high on GT´s from the beginning (young aged) besides being domestiques.

Sorry, too much smoking guns here for the extra-terrestrial. He seemed to be a as good responder as Rijs & Armstrong.

Yes, Bugno and Cappuccino need to be up there too. So Wiggins is just short from dropping out of the Top-10.

My renewed Top-List:
1- Armstrong
2- not given (b/c Armstrong is so far ahead)
3- Rijs
4- Rominger
5- Indurain
6- Chiappucci
7- Bugno
8- Wiggins

 

[No_Balls]

My problem with BigMig is that he just transformed like Armstrong. No bad days from 91-95 (& no shows/DNF´s before 91). Then, his transformation came at the exact time as EPO. Plus add in Lemond (sitting behind Hinault), Ullrich (behind Rijs), Fignon (behind Hinault too). All of them finished high on GT´s from the beginning (young aged) besides being domestiques.

Try at least get something right. Mig abandoned two Tours (85 and 86) as well as three DNF:s in La Vuelta prior to 1991 (he should have won in 1990 btw).

There was absolutely no "sudden transformation" in Migs career as could be remotely comparable with the others at this list. The difference between his f.ex -89 (won a mountain stage) Tour and the one in 1990 was a slim seven spots.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Try at least get something right. Mig abandoned two Tours (85 and 86) as well as three DNF:s in La Vuelta prior to 1991 (he should have won in 1990 btw).

There was absolutely no "sudden transformation" in Migs career as could be remotely comparable with the others at this list. The difference between his f.ex -89 (won a mountain stage) Tour and the one in 1990 was a slim seven spots.

That´s your opinion.

Mine is this:
Indurain was my first experience with that someone at a high age won/finished at the TdF podium out of nowhere. Funny part: No experts saw it coming too.

"Greg LeMond was favored as defending titlist in the 1991 Tour. Former race winners Pedro Delgado of Spain, Laurent Fignon of France, and Ireland's Stephen Roche were also in the field. The surprising rider was Miguel Indurain of Spain. Indurain had finished 10th in 1990, the highest finish of his first six Tour attempts that included three abandonments.

Indurain was considered a good team rider, but no one predicted his early mountain attacks, strategic defensive riding, and final time trial dominance. A cyclist of little bravado and few words, Indurain won the first of his then-record five straight titles with a 3 1/2-minute victory over Italy's Gianni Bugno. LeMond placed seventh that year in his last Tour finish."

With him all that surprise BS started, EPO started, and ended in cycling sites having "clinic" sub forums.

 

[No_Balls]

Indurain was my first experience with that someone at a high age won/finished at the TdF podium out of nowhere.

While 27 is relatively high it is by no mean unusual. Thus the transformation of Froome (the same age as Indurain) should be higher in this list. I mean. There are transformations and transformations if you know what i´m saying.

Funny part: No experts saw it coming too.

Which "experts" who are not so far up the anglophone *** that they have no idea how daylight looks like do you mean? I remember a certain Paris-Nice 1990, Indurain won - but it was "forgotten", where they didnt talk about the winner but rather talked about how Roche lost. William Fotheringham admitted that in cycle sport in march 1997 when they wrote an article after Migs retirement.

Fair enough. The uptalk (with Phil and Paul) before the prologue in 1991. Indurain was in the line of atleast seven-ten riders considered as the favourites having showed everyone the year before his capabilites in the mountains as well as time-trial skills. The Vuelta in april that year comes in between.

Indurain was considered a good team rider, but no one predicted his early mountain attacks, strategic defensive riding, and final time trial dominance.

Reading this is laughable. Everyone (well apparently not) knew Indurains strenght as showed from the Tour de&#180] With him all that surprise BS started, EPO started, and ended in cycling sites having "clinic" sub forums. [/QUOTE]

Couldnt you just have said before that Indurain probably introduced EPO to the peloton in the first place so we could have shortened this discussion? Whats up with the suddenly need to talk about good ol days by the way? More comfortable during the days when every bad guy could be neglected as an evil southerner? Too uncomfortable with the fact that nowadays it is Auschwitz-prisoners a la Wiggins/Froome who is lightening the road in Indurain-style and all the horrible thoughts that might rise.

 

[hrotha]

Guys, we have threads on Indurain and on the first users of EPO in the peloton. I just wanted to highlight how ridiculous Wiggins is, not to start this debate, which is off-topic.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

True, so back to Wiggins. He is 8th on my list now. Not that high. He needs more No. 1 finishes in Paris to climb the ladder.

@ "No Balls": For you, i drop Indurain to 6th. Otherwise, just search for a Indurain/Epo-Thread, and we can continue to debate.

 

[thehog]

Guys, we have threads on Indurain and on the first users of EPO in the peloton. I just wanted to highlight how ridiculous Wiggins is, not to start this debate, which is off-topic.

I would agree.

You have to say if he really was clean his performance this year January to August is the single greatest sporting run of wins ever. Not at any point did he look like losing. Ever. It's just phenomenal. Unbelievable.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I would agree.

You have to say if he really was clean his performance this year January to August is the single greatest sporting run of wins ever. Not at any point did he look like losing. Ever. It's just phenomenal. Unbelievable.

Ok for cycling, maybe true. But don´t forget Carl Lewis 60 something wins in a row over 10 years in long jump. Or Edwin Moses successive 100+ wins, or Stephen Hendry´s awesome 25 match win streak in major events, or Babe Ruth´s 12 HR titles in 14 years...

 

[No_Balls]

True, so back to Wiggins. He is 8th on my list now. Not that high. He needs more No. 1 finishes in Paris to climb the ladder.

@ "No Balls": For you, i drop Indurain to 6th. Otherwise, just search for a Indurain/Epo-Thread, and we can continue to debate.

Of course. No critics to you but that list should have been included there in the first place since it is containing riders during differences Eras making comparisons like these somewhat unavoidable.

I have a rather bad feeling that if Skys program is half as good as i think it is then it will make cycling in the 90´ies looking good and clean. We have recently hit the "smash everything in sight during a full season"-level.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

But we had that with Merckx, Anquetil, Coppi (49 & 52), Hinault, and yes Indurain & Contador too. Not that i doubt that something is wrong with the Sky dominance.

 

[Caruut]

So I guess what you're saying is that riders aren't allowed to improve? Because if their performance is better than it was 1/2/4 years ago, they must be doping.

You want me to answer the question - here goes.

It's not because they are improving, and I feel that trying to say that people are arguing that they are doping just because they are improving is grossly misrepresenting the positions of people on this thread. Simply put, you'd expect 50% of riders to get better over a given period and 50% to get worse.

It's the manner in which Wiggins, Rogers and Porte have improved - all the same transformation from rouleur to true stage racer. The scale of the improvement also beggars belief - when have when seen such huge improvements without dope being involved. The age at which these riders are suddenly hitting the big time is also weird. It's not like they've been sitting around doing nothing for ages - they've been elite athletes.

Sorry if you genuinely thought that people were saying improvement implies dope. in that case you aren't trolling but you should read the thread. If you knew that's not what people were saying, then you were trolling and I've wasted my time.