Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Lanark]

I'm not coming from a position of hypothesising whether Sky are clean or doping. However, I haven't seen a convincing argument that Sky are worthy of elevated suspicion, although certainly there is some probability that they are doping.

Really? Wiggins and Froome have probably the most remarkable mid to late carreer breakthrough in GC-racing since Lance Armstrong. I haven't seen a single convincing argument by the Sky-defenders how this fact doesn't warrant a lot of scrutiny. Nobody at Garmin though Wiggins would be a good GC rider (let alone Tour-winner), Froome himself was deemed barely employable by his own team. Now they are the premiere stage riders, maybe only bested by one of the all-time greats, who is a confirmed doper....If this alone doesn't make those riders worthy of extra sus****ion, I don't know what. But this point has been argued so extensively here, I don't think anybody who doesn't think they are highly suspicious now will be confinced in the near future.

The power outputs do corroborate this: the performances achieved are at least within the realms of the physiologically possible (and you can contrast that with say, Lance Armstrong), subject of course to the caveats associated with such estimates.

But the power outputs of Landis and Rasmussen were also withing the realms of physiologically possible, and were major dopers. Power outputs have been useless for more than 5 or so years, they are fun to analyze, but can't tell you anything outside of the 'cycling is cleaner in general than 10 years ago' conclusion.

 

[King Boonen]

Nobody at Garmin though Wiggins would be a good GC rider

I don't disagree with the scrutiny, but JV thought he would be.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

However, I haven't seen a convincing argument that Sky are worthy of elevated suspicion.

When would that take place? A photo Gert Leinders putting a needle in Chris F's ar$e with a tube of EPO? Or would you then say 'PHOTOSHOP!'?

The power outputs do corroborate this: the performances achieved are at least within the realms of the physiologically possible (and you can contrast that with say, Lance Armstrong), subject of course to the caveats associated with such estimates.

Humanly possible doesn't explain why formerly known non climbers are hitting those numbers. When Bernard Hinault hitting those numbers it is okay, when Ritchie Porte - Wiggo - the Aussie Ferraristo and Frrrrrooooome Frrrrrroooooooooooome are something smelly is going on.

Let me ask you a few questions:
* is it normal when Michael Rogers is pacing on a mountain Samuel Sanchez is unable to follow that pace?
* is it normal Porte can with a simple tempo run wheel in Nibali?
* is it normal the two best TT'ers at the Tour are also the best climbers?
* two words: Chris Froome? Really man? Chris Froome aka Emmanuele Sella/Riccardo Ricco/Santi Perez etc etc


Just questions of course.

If you really want to compare power outputs compare them to for instance Hinault/Merxc et all.

 

[hrotha]

Hey, be fair. Emmanuele Sella had shown a lot more potential than Froome before his supercharged explosion, and at least he didn't even podium. Froome is on a whole 'nother level of dodginess.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Hey, be fair. Emmanuele Sella had shown a lot more potential than Froome before his supercharged explosion, and at least he didn't even podium. Froome is on a whole 'nother level of dodginess.

Point taken. I say Stefan Schumacher/Bernard Kohl/Rasmussen.

But u gotta agree what Sella did was pretty amazing.

 

[King Boonen]

* is it normal the two best TT'ers at the Tour are also the best climbers?

Only part I can quickly answer:

2009, Contador beats Wiggins in all time trials, but not by much. What does that say though?

 

[Lanark]

I don't disagree with the scrutiny, but JV thought he would be.

David Millar says in his autobiography that JV (and nobody at Garmin) considered Wiggins to be a potential GC-rider when they signed him, and Vaughters making it appear afterwards that he did was just a PR-move.

 

[taiwan]

David Millar says in his autobiography that JV (and nobody at Garmin) considered Wiggins to be a potential GC-rider when they signed him, and Vaughters making it appear afterwards that he did was just a PR-move.

Didn't know that, tx.

 

[King Boonen]

David Millar says in his autobiography that JV (and nobody at Garmin) considered Wiggins to be a potential GC-rider when they signed him, and Vaughters making it appear afterwards that he did was just a PR-move.

I've not read his book yet, little disposable income. I assum you mean no-one at Garmin including JV? Your sentence appears to say no-one at Garmin except JV.

JV has said it recently though, don't know who to believe.

 

[Cerberus]

Only part I can quickly answer:

2009, Contador beats Wiggins in all time trials, but not by much. What does that say though?

I'm not convinced we should be using Contador as a benchmark for what a clean rider can accomplish, call me crazy but I think he might be winning on something more than clear water and clean living.

ETA: I'm reading you post again, and it occurs to me that was likely your point.

 

[King Boonen]

I'm not convinced we should be using Contador as a benchmark for what a clean rider can accomplish, call me crazy but I think he might be winning on something more than clear water and clean living.

Yes, that was what my last sentence referred too.

I still believe Wiggins and Froome could well be clean. Lets face it, the competition in this years tour was poor. Evans attacking on a climb?!

There was a programme called "Wiggins - A Very British Champion" or some such thing that showed his progression on the road. Brit tinted camera lenses obviously but it made a reasonably compelling case for how he has gone from someone who could stick with climbers for a day if he wanted to someone who can basically time trial up mountains.

However, I certainly wouldn't be surprised to find out they weren't clean.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I don't claim to "know they haven't used doping", but I do know that I have as much evidence (if not more so) to support that hypothesis as the opposite...perhaps I will be proved wrong, but strangely enough we still believe in innocent until proven guilty.

Another poster demanding "evidence" despite everything that is known about Pro Cycling in the last 20 years.

What would constitute sufficient evidence that Team Sky's wins are still more doped wins? Be specific. In the spirit of fairness, please explain Chris Froome's performances. Incremental gains?????

And here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=978064&postcount=4610 I see what you did there manufacturing false choices. It's both.

 

[Markyboyzx6r]

Another poster demanding "evidence" despite everything that is known about Pro Cycling in the last 20 years.

What would constitute sufficient evidence that Team Sky's wins are still more doped wins? Be specific.

You copy and pasted this as a reply to a question that I asked ages back on this thread. I was specific yet you ask this same question again of another poster. Amnesia?

 

[the sceptic]

Froome will win the vuelta by 5+ minutes. It will be ridiculous.

 

[2008885]

What would constitute sufficient evidence that Team Sky's wins are still more doped wins? Be specific.

What are they taking, and how do you know?

 

[red_death]

Really? Wiggins and Froome have probably the most remarkable mid to late carreer breakthrough in GC-racing since Lance Armstrong. I haven't seen a single convincing argument by the Sky-defenders how this fact doesn't warrant a lot of scrutiny. Now they are the premiere stage riders, maybe only bested by one of the all-time greats, who is a confirmed doper.

Really? More remarkable than people who have switched from MTB'ing?

As to "maybe only bested by one of the all time greats" - again really? Do you really believe that? I don't see either of them being anywhere near Armstrong/Pantani/Ullrich. I'd be surprised if Wiggins won more than 1 or 2 more GTs (if that!).

Another poster demanding "evidence" despite everything that is known about Pro Cycling in the last 20 years.

What would constitute sufficient evidence that Team Sky's wins are still more doped wins? Be specific. In the spirit of fairness, please explain Chris Froome's performances. Incremental gains?????

Something, anything - just a shred of evidence (note - hyberbole and slur are not evidence).

And here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=978064&postcount=4610 I see what you did there manufacturing false choices. It's both.

No I pointed out that your claims weren't consistent with some of the other claims and that both can not be right....

 

[The Hitch]

And another one who can't read - you don't see the inconsistency in the statements?

As for your comment about "everyone who had succes in the last 20 years in cycling has doped" - so things can never change? Furthermore if you had bothered to read we were actually discussing Gb's track team which means that GB have been doping since 92 (and managed to keep it all quiet).

I don't claim to "know they haven't used doping", but I do know that I have as much evidence (if not more so) to support that hypothesis as the opposite...perhaps I will be proved wrong, but strangely enough we still believe in innocent until proven guilty.

There is more evidence against Wiggins than the average success story, because Wiggins once upon a time was the most outspoken rider in the peloton against doping, whou would attack anyone who defended it, and respond in lenght and with honesty to any question you asked him about it.

Then mysteriously, just as he underwent the greatest metamorphisis in the history of world sport, he turned 180 degrees into someone who refuses to answer any questions about doping, and defends, looks up and does his best to imitate, its best known proponents.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Only part I can quickly answer:

2009, Contador beats Wiggins in all time trials, but not by much. What does that say though?

Seeing sprinting Contador and Rasmussen uphill in 2007 I refuse to even answer to that.

Climbers can climb.
Climbers suck at TT. [Herrera/Andy Schleck]

TT can TT.
TT can learn somehow to climb but basicly suck at it. [Cancellara/Martin/Yates]

That's how cycling works, imho.

Seeing Contador beat Cancellara was unbelievable, breathtaking, from another planet etc etc...

Froome will win the vuelta by 5+ minutes. It will be ridiculous.

It will be fun, a full jacked up peloton, just like the old days.

but strangely enough we still believe in innocent until proven guilty

Just like the bankers in London City.

 

[Cerberus]

Yes, that was what my last sentence referred too.

I still believe Wiggins and Froome could well be clean. Lets face it, the competition in this years tour was poor. Evans attacking on a climb?!

There was a programme called "Wiggins - A Very British Champion" or some such thing that showed his progression on the road. Brit tinted camera lenses obviously but it made a reasonably compelling case for how he has gone from someone who could stick with climbers for a day if he wanted to someone who can basically time trial up mountains.

However, I certainly wouldn't be surprised to find out they weren't clean.

I actually saw the program, but I recall it being very superficial, not really making a case for anything (ETA: not really meant to be a damning criticism BTW, television programs with any kind of scientific depth is a rarity). Also it's not really my impression that he could stick with the climber for five minutes let alone a day pre-2009. Could you give me an example of him sticking with any kind of serious climbers in a major race?

 

[red_death]

There is more evidence against Wiggins than the average success story, because Wiggins once upon a time was the most outspoken rider in the peloton against doping, whou would attack anyone who defended it, and respond in lenght and with honesty to any question you asked him about it.

That isn't evidence, that is merely supposition / or fairly tenuous grounds for suspicion at best. The fact he no longer is so forthright about doping doesn't mean he is doping.

 

[The Hitch]

t

That isn't evidence, that is merely supposition / or fairly tenuous grounds for suspicion at best. The fact he no longer is so forthright about doping doesn't mean he is doping.

The grounds for suspicion against wiggins against wigins are hard as steel as he himself said that tdf winners deserve scepticism.
So we have the warrant based on his own standards. which brings us on to the case and wiggins becoming pro doping at exactly the same.time as his performances skyrocketed is at the very least grounds to request extra funding from upstairs.

The only other explanation for such a bizarre change of heart precisely at the time when someone who would be against doing would see an opportunity to ride the "clean" wave as far as they can, is mental insanity.

 

[DirtyWorks]

What are they taking, and how do you know?

Does 20 years of doping scandals, voided TdF wins, and an obvious epidemic of corruption at the UCI suggests nothing to you? Froome's sudden TT prowess?

I'll ask again, what specific evidence do you require to believe that Team Sky has a program, or at the very minimum, numerous doped riders.

"No they didn't" is not an argument. red_death, "something anything" is not specific. Specifics please.

 

[2008885]

I'll ask again, what specific evidence do you require to believe that Team Sky has a program, or at the very minimum, numerous doped riders.

As I said, if you can tell us what they're taking, and how you know, the issue will be finally resolved, won't it??

 

[the big ring]

So the team Sky website says Wiggins is 69kg.

Surely this is the magic number for winning!?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/awang-needs-to-increase-weight-ahead-of-2016-olympic-games

Beasley believes that the key to improvement lies in an increase to his 67 kilogram weight, up to 69kg.

 

[richtea]

I'll ask again, what specific evidence do you require to believe that Team Sky has a program, or at the very minimum, numerous doped riders.

"No they didn't" is not an argument. red_death, "something anything" is not specific. Specifics please.

This has been answered many times! I don't have anything emotionally invested in this, but if there is one or more of the following I'll happily accept Sky has numerous doped riders:

1. Positive test (or evidence that positive tests have been covered up)
2. Admission
3. Eye-witness accounts
4. Physiologically implausible performances