Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[issoisso]

Unrestricted doping??? Where do you get this stuff?? They will be tested and they will have their biological passports

Funny you should mention that, considering how so many Sky guys are listed as highly suspicious on the leaked bio passport list from the UCI

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Well all I can say is sky's 'new' approaches to 'sports science' is having results never seen before because we know similar teams in the past were frauds, certain riders on close to a 4 month peak. Even Armstrong must be blushing ....

Sky are doping, but this argument is false and ludicrous. Look at Brad's TT's at Algarve, P-N and Romandie. Now compare them to his TT at the Dauphine. He was considerably stronger in the latter.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Funny you should mention that, considering how so many Sky guys are listed as highly suspicious on the leaked bio passport list from the UCI

Yup, several of them were considered dopers by the experts that have all the data.

 

[issoisso]

Great team bought by vast financial resources? Porte was likely signed relatively cheapily (even if they paid a lot more money than a cheapskate like Riis was prepared to offer ), Froome turned good when he was close to being kicked out so they probably got him for peanuts from Barloworld(?) , Rogers was a solid rider, but hardly a superstar so they also probably didn't need to break the bank to sign him.

They probably do have a good eye for talent, but they certainly have not been buying big names BMC classics team style.

They did try though. Gilbert said of all the offers he got Sky's dwarfed all of them. Stapleton said Hagen left because they offered him double what anyone at HTC was earning.

Wiggins left for a huge amount. Cavendish as well.
The depth of talent on the team betrays huge spending money as well

 

[Galic Ho]

I think you have misunderstood what I was asking. You implied that if someone defends team Sky, or does not adhere to your belief that they are doping, that they are either a Sky fanboy, or an idiot. I was asking whether or not that was your stance, if so it is a little ridiculous.

I'm sorry if you misunderstood me.

ok. I understand now. I am currently about four pages behind the latests posts. There have been that many today. Trying to play catch up and reply myself.

Implication is always there. That's dependent mostly upon each individuals thought processes. Hence why I ask questions. I leave the response up to them. Was my line of questioning suggestive? Yes it was. But the answer is up to the poster...I don't know what he thinks specifically, hence I ask a question.

 

[Lanark]

What you have here is the complete opposite of what some of you think is going on. What stands out is not that Sky got ahead, but that people like Schleck couldn't keep up. Hmm...wonder why that is?

Sky's pace wasn't so outrageous that an isolated Evans couldn't hang on and attack. What you are witnessing gentleman, is not a team of dopers ripping it up, but a a bunch of ex-dopers not being able to go quite as fast as they used to.

Last year saw a level playing field, and this year we have the same.

Wow, you're a riot. Last year saw a level playing field, and Fränk Schleck finished 3rd, by far his best GC performance in his live. And this year has a level playing field as well, and your proof of that is the same Fränkie boy being dropped? The Sky-apologists will really use any argument they can think of, internal consistency be damned.

 

[Franklin]

Fair enough, so you come from the school of thought that says it would be easier to get clean doctors than I was suggesting.

Let me phrase that more nuanced: if being clean was your main thrust you could certainly hire clean (outsider) doctors.

Nobody forces Sky to hire tainted people. And it's even more amazing if we look at the combination of "medical "talent they bought. They aren't even trying.

 

[Galic Ho]

I admit, claiming that you can point to ANY rider in the tour and see results that are suspect was stupid of me. I will instead bring it down to GC contenders and those that this forum in particular have a plausible reason to believe can win the yellow jersey.

Also, just because I am from the UK does not make my opinion any less valid, and your lack of any location make your opinion any more valid, using such strawman arguments as that only make your position on this subject look ever more childish.

What it equates to is you have an opinion, but lack any evidence other than your own opinion, and I share an opposing position, or at least a position that does not take either side without evidence being put forth more solid than hearsay. Though I must admit, you focusing on my location rather than the evidence in this discussion makes you look more of a troll than myself.

I never said the opinion of any UK poster was invalid. Someone asked me the other week not to infer to all Sky fanboys as Brits. So I don't. I call them Sky fanboys. Much better label. But all the unapolagetic Sky fanboys and the ones calling the naysayers in the forum, aka the guys calling BS, they ALL have been from the UK. Every single one. Not mutually exclusive, not then again, maybe. Depends on the case.

I'll put it this way. Wiggins has been talked about on MANY threads in the Clinic. His blood figures were up here from 2009. Jonathan Vaughters even once graced these noble digital halls to champion the cause of clean cycling and by that his then man, Bradley Wiggins. True story. Ask the posters from 2009. We've seen the numbers, JV even dropped minor snipets of Wiggins maximal power outputs.

We've also had many threads here dealing with the aftermath of Brad leaving Garmin. It was messy. The drug you want to look up is called AICAR. Testing only came in for it after the 2010 season finished. October that year. Made the banned list around about then if I remember correctly.

You have to remember, all the riders in the pro ranks are talented. But it's when your performances are ABOVE and BEYOND what you have ever done, especially in terms of GC riders, you are highly suspect. It's worse when as a younger man you sucked big time. Before the epo era, you were good young or you weren't good. Sure it's not the 1990's, but it isn't the 1980's time wise on the climbs either.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Wow, you're a riot. Last year saw a level playing field, and Fränk Schleck finished 3rd, by far his best GC performance in his live. And this year has a level playing field as well, and your proof of that is the same Fränkie boy being dropped? The Sky-apologists will really use any argument they can think of, internal consistency be damned.

While there are reasons to question the performance I am not sure this is one of them. First, how do you know either of these Tours were a 'level playing field'? You don't. Frank was also involved in a crash yesterday. Finally, he is coming into it with not only more racing in his legs then he wanted but with also a mind set that also seems to guarantee failure. At one point Cancellara looked like he was going to overtake him.

 

[UlleGigo]

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.

So I go on your ignore list because your little maths lesson doesn't go over as it is essentially irrelevant in a situation with so many variables.

Bravo.

I've never understood people who put people on ignore on a forum. Especially someone quite as contrary as this guy. If he's going to ignore everyone that disagrees with him he'd have no one to talk to.

 

[Mr Pumpy]

Wow, you're a riot

Wow, you're a *** who thinks its ok to throw smart-**** insults.

Why do you think Schleck did so well last year? Who wasn't there?

 

[roundabout]

Edited by mod

 

[goggalor]

Didn't someone on this forum say British journos would never be as fawning and wide-eyed as the Americans and Aussies? Anyway, I guess not.

Best thing about Froome, Wiggins today: after 20 years of dopers and liars, these performances you can totally trust ‪#TdF

 

[cycladianpirate]

Would someone help me out here. What is the allegation exactly? I can only see three possibilities...

1. The rest of the peloton is clean and Sky are juicing - it's disgraceful.

2. OK, the whole peloton is juicing, but Sky is doing it much better than everyone else - it's disgraceful.

3. There are some genuinely clean riders, including some of the GC contenders, but Sky are all juicing - it's disgraceful.

Does anyone here really believe in position 1?

I can understand some wry observations with regard to position 2, but moral outrage???

Does anyone holding position 3 base that on anything other than performance outcomes? Pointing to improvements in form is a circular argument - he improved because he's doping...how do you know he's doping?....because he's improved.

But I'm always open to persuasion - if someone could point me to solid evidence that rider x is a non-doper, I'd be glad to look at it.

 

[hrotha]

Didn't someone on this forum say British journos would never be as fawning and wide-eyed as the Americans and Aussies? Anyway, I guess not.

Absolutely disgusting.

 

[Franklin]

I find a corrupt team (and yes, BMC has incredibly dodgy staff as well)a bigger blight than a doped rider. Because the doped rider might pay a price: he can get caught and he can suffer medical consequences. The staff essentially get's a risk-free ride. And they can and will corrupt riders all over again.

This is why I keep on hammering on that medical team. There is simply no way that that is a coincidence. Someone brought these guys together and by everything we can go on (namely their resume) it's not looking very good.

And note to the Sky defenders, let's not forget the past of Sean Yates... with Discovery Chanel

 

[thehog]

Which begs the question, why did you only come to check this thread?

It appears you looked at today's performance and knew that it would generate discussion - so it seems that even you found their performance remarkable.

This is a very good point mind you.

 

[Zarvinov]

There are currently no evidence that Team Sky are doping. Fact.

But there are also no evidence that they are not doping. Fact.

This thread is full different opinions. Each individual is entitled to his or her personal opinion.

Those that are skeptical of Teams Sky's performance's in recent times may or may not be correct, with their assertion's.

But given that there are no direct evidence. I would expect this thread to continue along the same lines, as it has done, since the initial post. Until, or more to the point, if anything concrete ever surfaces. Which seems rather doubtful at this time. Team Sky are currently innocent of any wrongdoing. But in the end, if any doping is currently being adopted amongst the Team, then more often than not the truth eventually emerges. So time will tell.

 

[oldschoolnik]

This raises a good question:

Would someone help me out here. What is the allegation exactly? I can only see three possibilities...

1. The rest of the peloton is clean and Sky are juicing - it's disgraceful.

2. OK, the whole peloton is juicing, but Sky is doing it much better than everyone else - it's disgraceful.

3. There are some genuinely clean riders, including some of the GC contenders, but Sky are all juicing - it's disgraceful.

Does anyone here really believe in position 1?

I can understand some wry observations with regard to position 2, but moral outrage???

Does anyone holding position 3 base that on anything other than performance outcomes? Pointing to improvements in form is a circular argument - he improved because he's doping...how do you know he's doping?....because he's improved.

But I'm always open to persuasion - if someone could point me to solid evidence that rider x is a non-doper, I'd be glad to look at it.

You raise a good question: Why, is so many other teams have leaders that have the knowledge, means and resources to dope as effectively as Sky (allegedly is doing) why are they sitting idly by and letting it happen? The other team directors are competitive type A guys who, one would imagine, would not just sit back and watch this right? Why the difference in programs?

 

[metaCYCLE]

Sky's performance today might earn them a new nickname: UK Postal...

 

[thehog]

There are currently no evidence that Team Sky are doping. Fact.

But there are also no evidence that they are not doping. Fact.

This thread is full different opinions. Each individual is entitled to his or her personal opinion.

Those that are skeptical of Teams Sky's performance's in recent times may or may not be correct, with their assertion's.

But given that there are no direct evidence. I would expect this thread to continue along the same lines, as it has done, since the initial post. Until, or more to the point, if anything concrete ever surfaces. Which seems rather doubtful at this time. Team Sky are currently innocent of any wrongdoing. But in the end, if any doping is currently being adopted, amongst the Team, then more often than not the truth eventually emerges. So time will tell.

The problem is it always ends in tears. As withn Festina and USPS there is always an event outside of a doping control which bursts the bubble.

Wait to a few rumors start circulating in the peloton. Wiggins will defend himself by saying now he knows how Armstrong felt.

It's just sad really. We don't need to wait for for conformation. We've all seen enough to know better. It's simply not real what we saw today.

I'm sorry but we all know it. Deep down we know today was 2004 all over again.

 

[Franklin]

Until, or more to the point, if anything concrete ever surfaces.

How concrete does it have to get before we can start connecting dots... did they hire those doctors to play bridge?

Yes, I think all the teams with comparable medical (and managerial) staffs should be kicked out. They are a blight on this sport and are hurting riders.

Because there might not be direct evidence against Sky... but there is more than enough reason to ban Yates and Leinders.

 

[thehog]

Tellingly, with the exception of Evans’ brief attack, a Sky rider was leading the stage from the moment they caught the final survivor of the early break, until the finish line.

 

[taiwan]

Would someone help me out here. What is the allegation exactly? I can only see three possibilities...

1. The rest of the peloton is clean and Sky are juicing - it's disgraceful.

2. OK, the whole peloton is juicing, but Sky is doing it much better than everyone else - it's disgraceful.

3. There are some genuinely clean riders, including some of the GC contenders, but Sky are all juicing - it's disgraceful.

Does anyone here really believe in position 1?

I can understand some wry observations with regard to position 2, but moral outrage???

Does anyone holding position 3 base that on anything other than performance outcomes? Pointing to improvements in form is a circular argument - he improved because he's doping...how do you know he's doping?....because he's improved.

But I'm always open to persuasion - if someone could point me to solid evidence that rider x is a non-doper, I'd be glad to look at it.

You could be legitimately p'd off that:

a) Sky are considered clean because they're British or because they said so.
b) They could be protected like US Postal.

 

[FabulousCandelabra]

You know how in this tour we have this new yellow helmet thing going on... well what if we put big red medical symbols on riders helmets or jerseys if their team uses suspicious doctors?? Brilliant I say! If you want to put out that image of cleanliness you have to be willing to brand yourself with the scarlet cross if you turn out to be a liar and employ dirty doctors...