Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[sublimit]

Brothers in Arms.

~ Sir SkyStrong

(Slight variance in venue. How the mighty fall.)

Wiggo gets an Olympic gold medal and Lance wins a christmas hamper or some book tokens.

 

[thehog]

...... witchtrials spring to mind

No its called statistical analysis. Cat calling witchtrails is extremism

 

[thehog]

If you read carefully what Brailsford says, you can see that his deep-seated wish is that nobody questions him about doping. This is what the article says to me.

Yes and the world domination plan for the next 10 years doesn't sound so good when all the other stuff comes out about how that is achieved.

 

[ebandit]

ah well?

You're going around in circles.
You said there was no proof, I asked what constitutes proof, you made a list.....
That was your standard. Yours.
Now you are saying that does not constitute proof.

for the last time implication / suggestion is NOT proof

you say there is proof i say there is not proof

if indeed you had proof of sky doping imagine what a news scoop that would be?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

for the last time implication / suggestion is NOT proof

you say there is proof i say there is not proof

if indeed you had proof of sky doping imagine what a news scoop that would be?

Hold on....
That was your proof. Not mine. I specifically asked you what was tangible proof for you, and you listed it. When I put some Sky names to your proof, you appear to have changed position.

 

[ebandit]

great

Hold on....
That was your proof. Not mine. I specifically asked you what was tangible proof for you, and you listed it. When I put some Sky names to your proof, you appear to have changed position.

your reply stated that rogers / barry would be implicated ........no proof
was offered by yourself

i agreed

 

[uphillstruggle]

the way he won that Tour is fairly believable for a clean cyclist

While I like Sastre a great deal and so want him to be clean, his time up Alpe d'Huez that year is up there with times achieved by some of the sports shadier characters. He would have put 2 minutes into Contador and Sanchez in the 2011 tour going at the same speed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez

 

[sniper]

Carlos rode for Riis and alongside some dodgy characters, but the way he won that Tour is fairly believable for a clean cyclist (i.e. he had worse days, he had a strong but not superhuman team around him, he had the benefits of being able to sit quietly in the group when people chased Fränk on Hautacam, he kept his powder dry and didn't waste energy, he made his move that won him the race in a place where you would expect a rider of his style to do so - the steepest MTF - and he put in a good but not astounding TT to defend when faced with a shot at the biggest prize of all). I am not willing to state definitively that I think he's clean, but certainly near the bottom of the scale. Ditto for Ryder in the Giro - that was what I believe a clean GT winning performance COULD look like. He had bad days, but others were too weak or too tentative to punish them. He made time on good days, he maximised those areas where he held the advantage and he clung on where he didn't. Then again, though, I'd say Valverde's '09 Vuelta is one of the most believably clean GT wins of recent years too. After all, he was barred from the Tour so was fresher than most of his competitors, Mosquera and Sánchez were injured in the crash in Liège, and most of the time Valverde gained over them came at Xorret del Catí, the first really tough stage after that. He showed weakness (was dropped at La Pandera), and tame racing by others, a strong domestique corps and little time trial mileage helped him.

So maybe it's still a crapshoot.

i don't see how winning a gt amidst dopers is credible, whichever way you look at it.
unfortunately, no winner of any gt in the past 2 decades has been, or in the coming 1 to 2 decades will be, a credible gt winner. discussing who may or may not have been a credible gt winner is a noble undertaking, but not in line with the sad reality of top sport. too much families depend on the money earned in the space of ca. 10 years and sometimes less.
clean riders, well possible, clean gt winners no way.

 

[thehog]

i don't see how winning a gt amidst dopers is credible, whichever way you look at it.
unfortunately, no winner of any gt in the past 2 decades has been, or in the coming 1 to 2 decades will be, a credible gt winner. discussing who may or may not have been a credible gt winner is a noble undertaking, but not in line with the sad reality of top sport. too much families depend on the money earned in the space of ca. 10 years and sometimes less.
clean riders, well possible, clean gt winners no way.

If you turn it around and say Sky, their winner and the full team were clean then it raises more eyebrows than if you take the position that they probably doped.

Yes it bucks the trend of the past but they appear to be mighty sheepish of the fact they they're probably the first clean winners in almost a quarter of century.

I find it odd that they don't want to make more of the fact that they're clean. I know they've released several stories about the science behind the win but they really don't appear to really want to talk about themselves as "clean".

I know Wiggins wrote his piece during the Tour but he gets so annoyed at any talk of doping but doesn't add much in terms of stating Sky are clean.

I don't expect him to deride other dopers. But I find it strange there's so little talk of themselves being clean. Its almost if they're embarrassed by it all.

If they were clean then its the single most impressive victory by an individual and team ever in the history of the Tour. Regardless the nature of the course or competitors they managed to control the race start to finish without any other competitor seriously challenging them - clean. That's impressive.

Not normal. But impressive.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

While I like Sastre a great deal and so want him to be clean, his time up Alpe d'Huez that year is up there with times achieved by some of the sports shadier characters. He would have put 2 minutes into Contador and Sanchez in the 2011 tour going at the same speed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez

Contador and Sánchez had been involved in earlier moves and were involved in the acceleration and deceleration of making multiple attacks. Sastre had buried himself in the pack and done as little work as possible for two and a half weeks, before making a couple of key moves to get clear at the base; the rest of the time he was riding his own tempo. Never underestimate the race situation in assisting those times. Looking at it another way, he put in a race-winning performance but was still minutes off people in years past. Now, advances in technology, diet and so on outside of doping should help riders get faster over the years, so it's not too horrific to see Sastre appearing at the same speed as Bjarne Riis considering Riis was doing that 13 years earlier, and Riis was a Ben Johnson-esque chemically created monster. I'd argue Sastre is the more naturally gifted climber and therefore would require less assistance to put in comparable times.

This doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't require assistance, but I'd say the amount of assistance required to win Sastre the Tour is pretty low on the scale compared to what was required to win Armstrong, Riis and Pantani theirs.

 

[armchairclimber]

If you turn it around and say Sky, their winner and the full team were clean then it raises more eyebrows than if you take the position that they probably doped.

Yes it bucks the trend of the past but they appear to be mighty sheepish of the fact they they're probably the first clean winners in almost a quarter of century.

I find it odd that they don't want to make more of the fact that they're clean. I know they've released several stories about the science behind the win but they really don't appear to really want to talk about themselves as "clean".

I know Wiggins wrote his piece during the Tour but he gets so annoyed at any talk of doping but doesn't add much in terms of stating Sky are clean.

I don't expect him to deride other dopers. But I find it strange there's so little talk of themselves being clean. Its almost if they're embarrassed by it all.

If they were clean then its the single most impressive victory by an individual and team ever in the history of the Tour. Regardless the nature of the course or competitors they managed to control the race start to finish without any other competitor seriously challenging them - clean. That's impressive.

Not normal. But impressive.

This is the best Hog post I can remember. They are either brilliant or despicable. Wiggins is clean...which was achievement enough but I'm disconcerted by the silence from the camp.

 

[will10]

While I like Sastre a great deal and so want him to be clean, his time up Alpe d'Huez that year is up there with times achieved by some of the sports shadier characters. He would have put 2 minutes into Contador and Sanchez in the 2011 tour going at the same speed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez

The fact that Sastre rode almost the entire climb solo with little regard for tactics (i.e. no-one sitting on, or waiting for anyone to come across etc.) plays into his favour.

 

[The Hitch]

This is the best Hog post I can remember. They are either brilliant or despicable. Wiggins is clean...which was achievement enough but I'm disconcerted by the silence from the camp.

Why do you keep saying that wiggins is clean and the others are not as if it was some sort of fact revealed to you by the virgin mary on easter sunday?

 

[ferryman]

Why do you keep saying that wiggins is clean and the others are not as if it was some sort of fact revealed to you by the virgin mary on easter sunday?

Haven't you lived long enough now in England to understand why?

 

[thehog]

This is the best Hog post I can remember. They are either brilliant or despicable. Wiggins is clean...which was achievement enough but I'm disconcerted by the silence from the camp.

You missed my point. Which doesn't surprise me.

What I was saying is we hypothesised that Sky were actually clean then their behaviour is very odd.

They appear sheepish and uncomfortable in saying that they're clean.

I was also saying that if clean then their performance is all the more amazing. No team has ever dominated a race like that ever in the history of the sport. It was the single strongest performance in the history of the sport and done clean. Shouldn't they be talking about it? You get the feeling they're running as fast as possible away from the it.

 

[pelodee]

Brailsford Time to accept truth about doping

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...er-Roberto-Mancini-how-to-beat-the-world.html

“I’ve been thinking about Armstrong a lot,”.............

Did the Telegraph edit out Mr Brailsford saying "...and this is why we're conducting an investigation into Geert Leinders."

or

"...and this is why we've conducted an investigation into Geert Leinders and we concluded that..."

 

[thehog]

Did the Telegraph edit out Mr Brailsford saying "...and this is why we're conducting an investigation into Geert Leinders."

or

"...and this is why we've conducted an investigation into Geert Leinders and we concluded that..."

or

".....I've been thinking about Armstrong a lot and concluding that I bloody well hope we don't get caught and have to go through of of that! Better make sure Chris and Richie are happy. Don't want them to become bitter ex-teammates and blow this charade".

 

[Digger]

Wiggins is going to be annoyed with Brailsford calling his hero a doper.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Why do you keep saying that wiggins is clean and the others are not as if it was some sort of fact revealed to you by the virgin mary on easter sunday?

He knows where his bread's buttered?

 

[JimmyFingers]

Wiggins is going to be annoyed with Brailsford calling his hero a doper.

Brailsford was laying into Indurain?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Brailsford was laying into Indurain?

Brailsford wouldn't need to. Indurain already implied it himself rather than lie to a radio interviewer.

 

[uphillstruggle]

Contador and Sánchez had been involved in earlier moves and were involved in the acceleration and deceleration of making multiple attacks. Sastre had buried himself in the pack and done as little work as possible for two and a half weeks, before making a couple of key moves to get clear at the base; the rest of the time he was riding his own tempo. Never underestimate the race situation in assisting those times. Looking at it another way, he put in a race-winning performance but was still minutes off people in years past. Now, advances in technology, diet and so on outside of doping should help riders get faster over the years, so it's not too horrific to see Sastre appearing at the same speed as Bjarne Riis considering Riis was doing that 13 years earlier, and Riis was a Ben Johnson-esque chemically created monster. I'd argue Sastre is the more naturally gifted climber and therefore would require less assistance to put in comparable times.

This doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't require assistance, but I'd say the amount of assistance required to win Sastre the Tour is pretty low on the scale compared to what was required to win Armstrong, Riis and Pantani theirs.

I take your point that Contador, Sanchez and the rest of them could have put in faster times if they had done less in the previous stages and the Alp d'Huez stage itself.

If it was a clean performance Sastre should be considered one of the most talented climbers we've seen in the sport in recent years.

 

[Benotti69]

He knows where his bread's buttered?

Have we a Sky employee in our midst? Worse than Armstrong logging in here multiple times and posting as fan.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Have we a Sky employee in our midst? Worse than Armstrong logging in here multiple times and posting as fan.

IMO the cabal incoporating Krebs Cycle (_frost), armchairclimber, davidmam and function all sing the same song. It's all Wiggins centric. I've been tempted to push some buttons but I'll see how things pan out over the following weeks.

Notice how there's lots of physiological "explanation" that ends up being links to 20 year old studies? Very convenient. There's no expiry date on data, but then in Ed Coyle's case, there's no data either. Very convenient.

KC can't explain things because there's nothing to support the rationale that anything Wiggins did from 2009 onwards was believable. Or even physiologically possible - clean. armchairclimber knows even less than KC.

The shock of realising KC came from an AIS background has been the hardest thing for me to comprehend. When you realise how far the rot goes.

 

[Benotti69]

IMO the cabal incoporating Krebs Cycle (_frost), armchairclimber, davidmam and function all sing the same song. It's all Wiggins centric. I've been tempted to push some buttons but I'll see how things pan out over the following weeks.

Notice how there's lots of physiological "explanation" that ends up being links to 20 year old studies? Very convenient. There's no expiry date on data, but then in Ed Coyle's case, there's no data either. Very convenient.

KC can't explain things because there's nothing to support the rationale that anything Wiggins did from 2009 onwards was believable. Or even physiologically possible - clean. armchairclimber knows even less than KC.

The shock of realising KC came from an AIS background has been the hardest thing for me to comprehend. When you realise how far the rot goes.

Not surprising. The Clinic wields much more influence than the fanboys and others would wish, hence the constant infiltration to obfuscate and Vaughter's presence in here, which he expressed as 'having to do this crap'.