Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Benotti69]

In fact, Ive looked it up: Brailsford says 60-70% of Sky budget goes on rider wages, Unzue says its 80%+ in most teams. GreenEdge DS says other teams might pay their support staff well but that doesn't leave anything for research.

Brailsford said lots of these things, like no doctors who were associated with doping then he hired 2 and he hired Yates, Sutton, Michael Barry etc etc.

Brailsford said they were going to be completely transparent and honest.....hahahahahaha

 

[ferryman]

I believe in this very much! I tried to tell this in some of the threads during the tour de france, but one of the guys that post 1000x/day and think that he is the god of cycling knowledge call me "July cycling fan"!

I am a big fan of Contador.. so, naturally I am not a fan of Wiggles...

But I really believe that the guys are doing the things diff in the team sky, not the old school thing that great part of the riders believe... ride all the day with their friends, motorpace, etc.

Sky can be on some type of very advanced doping.. but we can not be blind.. the guys are very steps ahead of the other teams in training, foods, etc.

The classic response on this or any other forum I'm on of a fan boy in denial or trolling. Froomador takes the gold medal though.

 

[thehog]

The classic response on this or any other forum I'm on of a fan boy in denial or trolling. Froomador takes the gold medal though.

Long time lurker first time poster.

 

[the big ring]

In terms of muddying the message, I was not the person who even mentioned osymetric chain rings in the first place. But

No, you mentioned baldness and erections. Totally irrelevant and muddying. I mentioned Osymmetric chainrings, as they are what Sky use.

Totally relevant.

Perhaps you missed the bit where Brad lost another TT to T Martin in 2011 and then came back in 2012 and claimed Kerrison had "analysed Martin's TT and my TT and crunched the numbers and then lowered my cadence but used a bigger gear and BAM more power"

The chainrings are clearly one of the "marginal gains" Sky will claim make the Tenerife Troupe gain 5-7% more power at FTP, even though their riders have been training and racing professionally for over a decade and are now in their early 30s and are lighter than they have ever been.

3-5 years ahead of the teams may as well be 3-5 years ahead of the testers.

 

[sittingbison]

...However, my point was that no professional cycling team or organisation has previously invested as much effort into scientifically researching mental and physical improvement than Sky / British Cycling has, largely because those other teams have never had the level of financial and/or technical resource as what Sky & BC has available to them. ...In comparison, the level of research and approach taken by Sky as opposed to two-thirds of the WT teams is like comparing F1 to Go-Karting.

Admittedly this graphic is from the 2011 and not 2012. And it has been posted several times but apparently overlooked by certain new posters who cannot be bothered reading threads before leaping in boots and all.

BTW the "marginal gains" idiom has been around in Australian Rules football (footy) for more than 20 years, where it is called "one percenters' ie 1%, the small things that make the difference between winning and losing. Notice they are described as 1%, not necessarily winning every event after a decidedly mediocre road career, or total team domination of the TdF adter sweet FA.

 

[Galic Ho]

At 40kph. Same thing that HTC did, day in, day out, over a couple of TDFs.

I'll ignore your missing the threads in the Clinic about the Olympic RR and team GB. You were moping in the pro thread after your last outing in the Clinic left you battered and bruised.

Really must suck being a Brith now hey? Can't add, can't think straight. All these nasty clinic people picking on team Sky! Good times. Good times.

Firstly, doing something like that, day in, day out, by HTC alone. Never ever happened. They stopped in between. And it was never, ever done by just FOUR men over 200km.

No, the attitude and confidence to race that way is present because of their doping program. Put the distance down to 20-25% of that and you don't have to pull Cavendish up hills, plus add in some of the absent track guys who are favoured and not the obsolete guys at Sky, then the TTT is theirs for the taking. They'd win it comfortably. Just like Astana did with their overpowered team in 2009 at the Tour.

But thanks for the laughs Mellow once again. No wonder you think Sky are clean with that logic. Heck, you probably thought HTC were as white as snow in the purity stakes

 

[the big ring]

Go argue with them. You appear to be pedantic:

http://list.wada-ama.org/list/s8-cannabinoids/#marijuana

Natural (e.g. cannabis, hashish, marijuana) or synthetic delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabimimetics [e.g. “Spice” (containing JWH018, JWH073), HU-210] are prohibited.

Dave.

Dr M is forgetting perhaps that Brad (who trains at 95% "all year") was going to race the Tour of Denmark... until the ciggy pics were released.

Timeline:
August 8th: Wiggins and Cavendish to ride Tour of Denmak - no hint of tiredness. They would have been commanding an appearance fee, no question. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cavendish-wiggins-headline-team-sky-at-tour-of-denmark

World champion Mark Cavendish and Olympic Champion Bradley Wiggins will lead Team Sky at the Tour of Denmark. “It's quite simply cycling's biggest stars who are coming to Denmark,” the race director said.

"That we can present a world champion in the rainbow jersey and a Tour de France winner and Olympic champion speaks for itself. It's quite simple cycling's biggest stars who are coming to Denmark” said race director Jesper Worre. “It is without doubt the strongest field we've ever had, and I can only urge Danes to get out and experience these world stars.”

August 13th, Wiggins still going: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...s-Mark-Cavendish-ride-Post-Danmark-Rundt.html

August 14th: Wiggins lights up a ciggy: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...d-medal-wine-cigarettes-holiday-Mallorca.html

August 16th (15th in England): Cav going, but not Wiggins: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/no-wiggins-in-tour-of-denmark

Wiggins was due to join world champion Mark Cavendish in the Danish tour, set for August 22-26, but has been given additional time off.
...
Cavendish will be returning to Denmark,

It seems WADA are pedantic too - as they have classed cannabinoids in "Substances Prohibited In-competition".

It is not known when he will return to competition.

Probably when the metabolites have cleared from his system... I am surprised Dr M needs this spelt out so plainly for him...

 

[the big ring]

(Reordered for posterity's sake)

One last time - PEDs.
Are you going to argue that smoking (regardless what is in it) is going to somehow enhance his performance?

No.

I am going to argue that Marijuana is banned in competition by WADA.

I am going to argue that if the photo had not been released, he would have raced Tour of Denmark.

I am going to argue that had Brad raced Tour of Denmark and been tested, he could have tested positive for marijuana metabolites. And that he smoked anyway indicates he didn't care about testing positive. Like someone else we know.

I am going to argue that "marginal gains" and "marginal gains" alone are what are claimed to be the reason Sky are dominating so much this year.

I am going to argue that filling your lungs with smoke - regardless of what is in it - makes a mockery of the "marginal gains" theory.

I am going to argue that filling your lungs with smoke makes a mockery of the alleged "focus" and "dedication" Brad has that allows him to win with impunity.

I am going to argue that this adds a very small piece to the very large jigsaw puzzle that is Sky and their performance.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

(Reordered for posterity's sake)


No.

Which is all I wanted to know.

The rest is just you arguing a point I never made.

 

[Galic Ho]

Reading through the past few pages of this thread and I have to shake my head at the level of utter dross being spouted about.

I don't support Sky any more or less than I do other teams/riders, in fact I much prefer the excitement of Contador playing jack-in-the-box in the mountains or Boonen bouncing over cobbles than watching 9 carefully programmed metronomes methodically tap out a race result according to what their powermeter tells them.

That said, I just find the level of groundless garbage thrown towards them quite astounding. I guess it is similar to those who love/hate Manchester United. I personally do not support Man U, but I begrudgingly respect how Ferguson consistently manages them to deliver results. He does things the way he believes works and very often it does, much to the annoyance of others.

So back to Sky - Ask many of the people/riders who really work in professional cycling and they will tell you that pretty much every team are currently 3-5years behind Sky in terms of organisation, level of support and approach... I'm sure even Vaughters will agree on this.

Whilst a lot of this is helped by the considerable financial resource that they have, you still have to spend it wisely, which they apparently do. BMC has comparable financial muscle but has nowhere near the collective level of rider focus and scientific support that Sky provides its riders (I'm sure a number of the "experts" here will read "scientific support" as a reference to doping - I do not).

Everyone has the right to their opinion so continue to merrily throw up your theories, but for me until a member of Sky tests positive or is linked to doping in the same way USP/Festina have been, then the smoking gun for these accusations just does not exist, only a lot of frivolous hypothesis and rather subjective theories.

Whether we like it or not, they are currently the most organised and advanced team out there and have broken the mould for how cycling teams are structured and they get results because of it. In this respect, it is for the other teams to catch up, which they undoubtedly will given time.

Thankfully, despite their 3-5year organisational advantage, Sky remain 30-50 years behind in terms of race tactics!!!

PS Galic Ho - I'll be watching, but not too hard. I think you'll find Thomas and Stannard are being groomed for the Spring Classics so unlikely to focus on the first two GT's of the year.

I don't believe in rearranging someone's words...given it is also against forum rules.

So here is my take. BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH. Then some, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH. Why are you in the Clinic princess? Harden the F$%K up and quit being such a *****. Seriously, how **** hurt can you guys get? Read WHAT THE CLINIC SAYS IT IS FOR ON THE MAIN FORUM PAGE. To talk ABOUT DOPING. Plenty of others teams get ripped on...but no, the Sky fanboys are so upset because they believed it was all clean for the first time since...well a very long time. But I forgot, we're not supposed to tell you that. As I said, harden the F#$K up.

Sky, who haven't operated as a Pro Tour team for four let alone five years are in your words, 3-5 years ahead of the other teams! Bahahaha. So in which year did they jump ahead 3-5 years. Was it 2010? Nope Wiggins was crap there. Maybe it was mid way through 2011-2012...still that's a year maybe 18 months max and they jumped developmentally ahead with a 26 yr old, a 28 yr old a 32 yr old and 33 yr old (all of whom are too old to physically improve, because honestly idiot, it'd already be there by then) all in the such a brief period of time. Yeah, you must be right. Career best form for only a set bunch of guys who run off to remote corners of the globe together and all peak well above whatever they've done before.

Yeah I can see how that level of *** logic works...because that is what one is if they buy that. And a fanboy with a raging hard on. Sky in the space of a year, develop a system that exceeds their rivals on road performances and it is instantly a marginal gains approach that moved them 3-5 years ahead of the bell curve. Trolllolllollololololol!!!! Here I was thinking Germans were renowned for their efficiency...better add Brits in bikes to that. Give whom ever it was who developed this 'system' a knighthood. They deserve it. Also the PR man too...terribly convincing. You've made a believer out of me.

Thus I can conclude, using your masterful insight and unnamed British fanboys on Sky's payroll no doubt, that the British system is years ahead of everyone else. The peloton must quiver with fear at the site of Wiggins and Froome! Yeah right. Not for long, not for long. The power holders don't like someone using 'marginal gains' they were too lazy to use themselves to win across the board. That was already partially rectified at the Vuelta. Ask anyone involved in cycling hey? Give us a name dude. By all means, tell them to explain this next time they give a press update...'all our opponents are years behind us, hence why we win.'

So now they are arrogant w@ankers as well as guys doping to an extra degree than their opposition. Wait, that fits. Every opponent is riding for an inferior team. Your basis for this line of reasoning wouldn't be so you can uphold those lofty and oh so 'noble' intentions of yours you listed? Nah...us bone idle whatever's are just haters. Haters of marginal gains and the pure British way of doing everything. And no, Man Utd are hated because they are c#&nts. End of discussion. Plus they have ZERO class. Just like Sky.

 

[the big ring]

Which is all I wanted to know.

The rest is just you arguing a point I never made.

You are kidding yourself. You have argued that marijuana is not a PED, which is irrelevant. It's on the WADA banned list.

And I have a massive sense of deja vu here. I am concerned that you are not following your own posts.

More on point - you objected to my pointing out that there is a difference in PEDs and recreational drugs.
Someone having a smoke (whatever it contains) has no bearing on cheating - unless Brads Mammy didn't know.

Not according to WADA.

It seems WADA are pedantic too - as they have classed cannabinoids in "Substances Prohibited In-competition".

Marijuana is not tested for by catching people smoking. Athletes urinate in a cup and they test the urine. Cannaboid metabolites linger for some days, and Brad was going to be racing in 8.

I am not arguing that Marijuana is a PED - that's not my decision. I am arguing that Brad smoking it puts him at risk of violating WADA's rules. The ones where WADA say it is a banned substance. Very different.

 

[the big ring]

Which is all I wanted to know.

The rest is just you arguing a point I never made.

Perhaps I am reading you completely wrong. Can you restate the point you are making?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Perhaps I am reading you completely wrong. Can you restate the point you are making?

No.
I could write slower - but really I just couldn't be arsed.

 

[the big ring]

No.
I could write slower - but really I just couldn't be arsed.

Never mind I found it.

To the highlighted - pretty simple, not everyone (or country) has the absurd notions of the US.
You appear to confuse PEDs with recreational drugs.

So you concede it may be marijuana ("recreational drugs" denotes MJ, not tobacco). But then get all pedantic on smoking not being banned.

Can you quote the rule (UCIs/ WADA whoevers) that says smoking is banned?
Thanks.

As noted in my previous post above you reinforce the pedantry that marijuana is only banned in-competition, ignoring the elephant still flowing through any MJ smoker's body that is a marijuana metabolite.

Got it.

Ever admitted you were wrong before?

Thanks for making it personal, btw, I'm endeavouring to not reply in kind.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Never mind I found it.



So you concede it may be marijuana ("recreational drugs" denotes MJ, not tobacco). But then get all pedantic on smoking not being banned.



As noted in my previous post above you reinforce the pedantry that marijuana is only banned in-competition, ignoring the elephant still flowing through any MJ smoker's body that is a marijuana metabolite.

Got it.

Ever admitted you were wrong before?

Thanks for making it personal, btw, I'm endeavouring to not reply in kind.

Your first reply to me (even though I did not address you) was "I am surprised Dr M needs this spelt out so plainly for him.." You can take off your halo.


One last time.
You have NO IDEA what he was smoking.

If he was smoking MJ then he could have been in trouble if tested IN competition.
If (if) he had more than likely he would have received a slap on the wrist as MJ is not a PED in cycling. WADA have it included as it could have a role in other sports.

 

[the big ring]

Your first reply to me (even though I did not address you) was "I am surprised Dr M needs this spelt out so plainly for him.." You can take off your halo.


One last time.
You have NO IDEA what he was smoking.

If he was smoking MJ then he could have been in trouble if tested IN competition.
If (if) he had more than likely he would have received a slap on the wrist as MJ is not a PED in cycling. WADA have it included as it could have a role in other sports.

Ohh right. So he pulled out of Tour of Denmark coz he was tired. Ok. Sure thing.

 

[sittingbison]

...If he was smoking MJ then he could have been in trouble if tested IN competition.
If (if) he had more than likely he would have received a slap on the wrist as MJ is not a PED in cycling. WADA have it included as it could have a role in other sports.

IF wiggo had got busted for pot, ****** the slap on the wrist (which I doubt) it would have been be an absolute public relations calamity.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ohh right. So he pulled out of Tour of Denmark coz he was tired. Ok. Sure thing.

Yes.
Because in the foto its pretty clear he is drinking too. I would assume he went on a right rip after the Olympics.

IF wiggo had got busted for pot, ****** the slap on the wrist (which I doubt) it would have been be an absolute public relations calamity.

Why do you doubt it?
Can you show a cyclist who served a long suspension for pot?

Agree - it would look bad PR wise - which is why recreational drugs that have no enhancing performance should not be sanctioned for.
And that actually is often the case - WADA are not drug police, it is about not having people cheating or gaining an advantage.

 

[sittingbison]

..Agree - it would look bad PR wise - which is why recreational drugs that have no enhancing performance should not be sanctioned for. And that actually is often the case - WADA are not drug police, it is about not having people cheating or gaining an advantage.

Correct, but until they remove them from the list there will be cases of it happening. In Aussie Rules they have a 3 strikes clause because of recreational drugs. Funnily enough the best player was a cocaine and speed addict who never got busted, although he had many escapades with cops, and went into rehab several times. Go figure.

As to doubt, given current circumstances I don't think WADA is going to slap any cyclist on the wrist. Especially the Maillot Jeune.

A rider who spends his vacation smoking doobies probably won't have much of a problem using PEDs. Possible health issues certainly won't be a consideration.

Although its been taken from Kimmage to the Sky thread, a slight correction is that wiggo was not on vacation, he was in the middle of competition, with TdDenmak, TdBrit and Worlds all coming up.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Correct, but until they remove them from the list there will be cases of it happening. In Aussie Rules they have a 3 strikes clause because of recreational drugs. Funnily enough the best player was a cocaine and speed addict who never got busted, although he had many escapades with cops, and went into rehab several times. Go figure.



Although its been taken from Kimmage to the Sky thread, a slight correction is that wiggo was not on vacation, he was in the middle of competition, with TdDenmak, TdBrit and Worlds all coming up.

WADA rules are written to cover all (well most) sports.
They even have alcohol listed as prohibited for certain sports.

The very fact that you mention a 3 strike system shows that recreational drugs are viewed differently. Which as the role of anti-doping is about PEDs is quite correct and consistent with what they do.

I found an example of a cyclist caught by USADA for THC In-Competition in 2010 - he got a 3 month suspension.

 

[the big ring]

The very fact that you mention a 3 strike system shows that recreational drugs are viewed differently.

No. That's Aussie rules. Think UCI and 50% Hct rule - that's all the 3 strikes rule is about. Nothing to do with WADA.

 

[sittingbison]

...I found an example of a cyclist caught by USADA for THC In-Competition in 2010 - he got a 3 month suspension.

a three month suspension for wiggo during the Armstrong debacle would have been cataclysmic for cycling - and the end of his career.

Aussie Rules - I suspect they might not be signatory to WADA. Anyway, they have a privacy policy, not even the club are told about recreational drug use the first three times. The player is counselled. The League want marijuana and certain others removed from the list.

Funnily enough, there has been - wait for it - ONE Aussie Rules player done for steroids lol.

 

[D-Queued]

WADA rules are written to cover all (well most) sports.
They even have alcohol listed as prohibited for certain sports.

The very fact that you mention a 3 strike system shows that recreational drugs are viewed differently. Which as the role of anti-doping is about PEDs is quite correct and consistent with what they do.

I found an example of a cyclist caught by USADA for THC In-Competition in 2010 - he got a 3 month suspension.

There are six other USADA suspensions for THC/Cannabis alone. And one combination offense - for THC and on other banned (according to you 'recreational' substance) that resulted in a one year suspension.

Is it on the list?

Check.

Is it enforced?

Check.

Under the current Code, and current list, it really is black and white.

Dave.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No. That's Aussie rules. Think UCI and 50% Hct rule - that's all the 3 strikes rule is about. Nothing to do with WADA.

I never mentioned WADA in the 3 strike rule.

It was clear from Sittingbissons post that recreational drugs are subject to 3 strikes - unless of course you are saying that all PEDs are subject to 3 strikes, which I would doubt.
That shows that they (AFC( have a different view on recreational drugs.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There are six other USADA suspensions for THC/Cannabis alone. And one combination offense - for THC and on other banned (according to you 'recreational' substance) that resulted in a one year suspension.

Is it on the list?

Check.

Is it enforced?

Check.

Under the current Code, and current list, it really is black and white.

Dave.

Was Wiggins smoking pot?
Ah, you have no idea - check.

Was he tested in competition.
Nope.