Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[ToreBear]

This might be geo-restricted but Richard Moore and Brian Smith chat to Sky Sports News about the last 7 days, both loudly condemning Sky's anti-doping charter because they argue almost no one who cycled over 10 years ago can sign.

http://www1.skysports.com/cycling/news/22854/8175495/The-doping-debate

Thanks! Works in Norway. I don't agree with Richard Moore on the morality of doping in the 90s. It was immoral then, and I think people knew it. It was just a question of how immoral one was willing to become to win.

 

[esafosfina]

Stephen Roche stands up for Yates:

http://www.independent.ie/national-...-who-worked-with-lance-armstrong-3264595.html

Roche seems to have completely overlooked the fact that Yates has a positive next to his palmares... nothing to do with the fact that he's 'associating' with LA et al.

 

[Velo_vicar]

“oh look Sean Yates” – doping.

“oh look Froome riding up HC Mountains with one hand” – doping.

“Oh look Rogers punching 450w for 50km” – doping.

“oh look no other team able to attack” – doping.

Oh and that doctor.

These things certainly don't help sky's image of being clean. But they are certainly not proof of doping. If you want cycling ride of doping then speculation is not going to help. The arguments that contain wild speculation are going to be dismissed as a conspiracy that just sees doping everywhere and that doesn't advance the cause. Yes challenge sky over inconsistancies but to have made up your mind already without eye witness accounts or the other kind of proof that eventually got LA just means the challenge can be easily dismissed.
I believe a more effective challenge comes from the perspective 'i want cycling to be clean but these things don't help what are you going to do about them so we can trust'. There will be another dominant team after Sky and another after that, and if cycling is to be redeemed at some point one of those teams will have to be trusted and beleived and not just dismissed because they win or we don't like them. Unless you don't beleive that will ever happen in which case walk away this is self harm to keep being hurt from a sport.

Also i don't get the Froome one handed thing. Sagan did a wheelie on one MTF does that prove doping?

 

[hrotha]

Roche seems to have completely overlooked the fact that Yates has a positive next to his palmares... nothing to do with the fact that he's 'associating' with LA et al.

Roche doesn't believe in guilty by association, even if you're associated with Conconi and with EPO, or with testosterone.

 

[ToreBear]

Roche seems to have completely overlooked the fact that Yates has a positive next to his palmares... nothing to do with the fact that he's 'associating' with LA et al.

Did'nt go anywhere according to
http://www.dopeology.org/incidents/Yates,-S-adverse-analytical-finding/

Yates initially tested positive for testosterone after winning the 1989 Torhout - Werchter Classic but additional samples showed negative and there were procedural errors in the testing process. Yates was not subject to any sanctions.

 

[esafosfina]

Did'nt go anywhere according to
http://www.dopeology.org/incidents/Yates,-S-adverse-analytical-finding/

Ha! Lance must have paid them off...

(Tongue firmly in cheek...)

 

[thehog]

These things certainly don't help sky's image of being clean. But they are certainly not proof of doping. If you want cycling ride of doping then speculation is not going to help. The arguments that contain wild speculation are going to be dismissed as a conspiracy that just sees doping everywhere and that doesn't advance the cause. Yes challenge sky over inconsistancies but to have made up your mind already without eye witness accounts or the other kind of proof that eventually got LA just means the challenge can be easily dismissed.
I believe a more effective challenge comes from the perspective 'i want cycling to be clean but these things don't help what are you going to do about them so we can trust'. There will be another dominant team after Sky and another after that, and if cycling is to be redeemed at some point one of those teams will have to be trusted and beleived and not just dismissed because they win or we don't like them. Unless you don't beleive that will ever happen in which case walk away this is self harm to keep being hurt from a sport.

Also i don't get the Froome one handed thing. Sagan did a wheelie on one MTF does that prove doping?

I’m with you. Only midranked Italian teams use Ferrari and dope. The top tier are clean. Especially teams that can ride so fast day in day out that no other team can attack.

The day Sagan can do this to the yellow jersey then I’ll eat my hat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTDb0ep_epo

Not normal!

 

[Libertine Seguros]

So how much of the final climb did Rogers work on? 1km, 2km, 3km? Not much. Don't see anything special by Rogers on stage 11.

Depends on your valuation of Mick Rogers. It's Mick Rogers we're talking about. Mick Rogers who had done next to nothing since the 2009 Giro. Mick Rogers who had posted almost 100% of his career's good results whilst riding for T-Mobile and either training with Ferrari (see Leipheimer's affidavit) or being involved in T-Mobile's internal doping procedures (see Sinkewitz's testimonies back when he tested positive). But, Mick Rogers who has suffered with illness and injuries for much of the last two years and has seemingly been prevented accordingly from achieving at the appropriate level.

Putting a valuation on what a reasonable expectation of the capabilities of a clean Mick Rogers is, is kind of just licking your finger and sticking it up in the air to ascertain the wind's direction. Inexact at best, and wholly random at worst. If you rate Rogers as a top talent, you might believe that he could do rides like the clean. If you rate him as having been a chemically-created golem during his days of winning the Worlds TTs, you probably got déjà vu.

 

[ToreBear]

Ha! Lance must have paid them off...

(Tongue firmly in cheek...)

Or his mommy called the UCI beacause Lance was a huge fan and had a hissy fit.

 

[Parker]

Mick Rogers who had done next to nothing since the 2009 Giro.

Rogers in 2010:
1st Overall Tour of California
1st Overall Vuelta a Andalucía
2nd Overall Critérium International
3rd Montepaschi Strade Bianche
3rd Overall Tour de Romandie
5th World TT Championship
6th Overall Tirreno-Adriatico

23rd on CQ Ranking (same as this year)

That's not next to nothing

 

[the sceptic]

Damn.. just realized what the tour is gonna look like next year when sky brings two extra Porte/Rodgers

 

[ToreBear]

Depends on your valuation of Mick Rogers. It's Mick Rogers we're talking about. Mick Rogers who had done next to nothing since the 2009 Giro. Mick Rogers who had posted almost 100% of his career's good results whilst riding for T-Mobile and either training with Ferrari (see Leipheimer's affidavit) or being involved in T-Mobile's internal doping procedures (see Sinkewitz's testimonies back when he tested positive). But, Mick Rogers who has suffered with illness and injuries for much of the last two years and has seemingly been prevented accordingly from achieving at the appropriate level.

Putting a valuation on what a reasonable expectation of the capabilities of a clean Mick Rogers is, is kind of just licking your finger and sticking it up in the air to ascertain the wind's direction. Inexact at best, and wholly random at worst. If you rate Rogers as a top talent, you might believe that he could do rides like the clean. If you rate him as having been a chemically-created golem during his days of winning the Worlds TTs, you probably got déjà vu.

I'm just looking for what stage The hog saw him do his extreeme feats the hog talks about.

I don't know whether he is a doped donkey or a useful domestique that was doped to the gills previously.

 

[skidmark]

Putting a valuation on what a reasonable expectation of the capabilities of a clean Mick Rogers is, is kind of just licking your finger and sticking it up in the air to ascertain the wind's direction. Inexact at best, and wholly random at worst. If you rate Rogers as a top talent, you might believe that he could do rides like the clean. If you rate him as having been a chemically-created golem during his days of winning the Worlds TTs, you probably got déjà vu.

This. I can't pretend to know the inner world of cycling just from innuendo and speculation. IF the peloton is cleaner than it was in 2006, it's believable that a clean Rogers could obtain results. If the peloton is still dirty, it's not, but then it's more of a moot point because it's less likely we're just talking about Rogers and more likely that I'm clueless about a bunch of guys. It's also possible that the peloton is cleaner and Rogers is still doped. I don't think it's possible that Sinkiewitz was lying and that Rogers only went to Ferrari 'for training advice' and 'didn't get much out of it', so I lean more towards one explanation, but in the end I feel like it's a lot of licking of fingers and sticking in wind.

 

[roundabout]

My point is that when he started his attack he felt good. My thinking is that he forgot that when you sense your lactate levels having gone too far, it's too late at altitude compared to the sensation at lower altitudes. Then he keept pushing himself, and the thing with Van Garderen happened, and he had to extend himself even more. This left his lactate levels too high by the final climb and he couldn't keep up with the yellow up the final climb.

Of course had Evans been in last years form, it might have worked. Then again he is not the kind of start stop climber like Contador is AFAIK? But this time he had to try it.

So my theory is more of an added explanation to both your points.

He simply misjudged his own form, in part due to the lack of lactate sensation.

I disagree. He attacked because he had to due to a ****ty *** **** course. Being 2 minutes behind and with a 50km flat TT to come he had to risk it.

Doesn't mean that he felt great, merely felt that he needed to try something on one of the few places for an attack.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Rogers in 2010:
1st Overall Tour of California
1st Overall Vuelta a Andalucía
2nd Overall Critérium International
3rd Montepaschi Strade Bianche
3rd Overall Tour de Romandie
5th World TT Championship
6th Overall Tirreno-Adriatico

23rd on CQ Ranking (same as this year)

That's not next to nothing

California: a race won by doing a decent TT and not cracking like an egg on Bonny Doon Road. Dave Zabriskie was 2nd. That race told us nothing about what he could do in the mountains.
Andalucía: a February race that that year consisted of an uphill sprint (where Rogers lost time), three sprints and an ITT. And almost all the Spanish teams boycotted the race too.
Romandie: actually 4th, mostly thanks to two ITTs in a six-stage race. Valverde's DQ put him onto the podium.
Tirreno-Adriatico: some pretty reasonable riding going on there, but not on anything that prepares you for dropping elites on the mountains of the Tour. You could have been forgiven for not knowing he was there, but given that it's one of only two results there (Eroica being the other) where the result wasn't based on doing a good TT against a mediocre time trialling field I'll give you that one.

 

[MartinGT]

This might be geo-restricted but Richard Moore and Brian Smith chat to Sky Sports News about the last 7 days, both loudly condemning Sky's anti-doping charter because they argue almost no one who cycled over 10 years ago can sign.

http://www1.skysports.com/cycling/news/22854/8175495/The-doping-debate

I liked their part re Armstrong, but when Richard Moore said "There is no doubt they are a clean team" I got coffee on my laptop. Laugh, I nearly wet myself.

Crock of sh!t.

 

[ToreBear]

I disagree. He attacked because he had to due to a ****ty *** **** course. Being 2 minutes behind and with a 50km flat TT to come he had to risk it.

Doesn't mean that he felt great, merely felt that he needed to try something on one of the few places for an attack.

I think we are more disagreeing on minute details and leave it at that.

 

[Parker]

California: a race won by doing a decent TT and not cracking like an egg on Bonny Doon Road. Dave Zabriskie was 2nd. That race told us nothing about what he could do in the mountains.
Andalucía: a February race that that year consisted of an uphill sprint (where Rogers lost time), three sprints and an ITT. And almost all the Spanish teams boycotted the race too.
Romandie: actually 4th, mostly thanks to two ITTs in a six-stage race. Valverde's DQ put him onto the podium.
Tirreno-Adriatico: some pretty reasonable riding going on there, but not on anything that prepares you for dropping elites on the mountains of the Tour. You could have been forgiven for not knowing he was there, but given that it's one of only two results there (Eroica being the other) where the result wasn't based on doing a good TT against a mediocre time trialling field I'll give you that one.

And his results this year are more or less exactly the same in the same type of races, often in the actual same races. There's been no incredible transformation this year.
As for the difference at the Tour, well he has different team leaders. In 2010 there wasn't much call for him to set the pace in the mountains for Cavendish. This year he could drop people in the mountains as, just like Porte, he had no care as to where he finished himself (He finished 54 mintues down on GC). Think of it a little like pacemakers in 1500m races in athletics. How can those second rate runners drop far better runners by the 1200m point?

 

[JimmyFingers]

And his results this year are more or less exactly the same in the same type of races, often in the actual same races. There's been no incredible transformation this year.
As for the difference at the Tour, well he has different team leaders. In 2010 there wasn't much call for him to set the pace in the mountains for Cavendish. This year he could drop people in the mountains as, just like Porte, he had no care as to where he finished himself (He finished 54 mintues down on GC). Think of it a little like pacemakers in 1500m races in athletics. How can those second rate runners drop far better runners by the 1200m point?

+1 rational points being made, will fall on deaf ears though

 

[the omertà hurts]

funny froome went to vinokourov's farewell criterium, which seemed to double as a who's who of dopers.

 

[argyllflyer]

funny froome went to vinokourov's farewell criterium, which seemed to double as a who's who of dopers.

It was in his home town!

 

[ToreBear]

It was in his home town!

He had a doped cyclists convention in his home town?


He must be a doper!

 

[maltiv]

Tirreno-Adriatico: some pretty reasonable riding going on there, but not on anything that prepares you for dropping elites on the mountains of the Tour. You could have been forgiven for not knowing he was there, but given that it's one of only two results there (Eroica being the other) where the result wasn't based on doing a good TT against a mediocre time trialling field I'll give you that one.

Let's not be ridiculous here, Rogers has always been a good climber. Most of his results do indicate that he should be able to do a decent job as a domestique in the mountains. He was also 7th in the Giro in 2009.

Something people continuously seem to ignore is that if a domestique goes to the front and a "elite" climber gets dropped, that doesn't mean said domestique is outclimbing that guy per se, because he's riding as if the finish line is right ahead and can soft-pedal to the finish when he's done with his turn...

 

[argyllflyer]

He had a doped cyclists convention in his home town?


He must be a doper!

No idea about Vino but Froome lives in Monaco which is probably why he rode a crit there.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Let's not be ridiculous here, Rogers has always been a good climber. Most of his results do indicate that he should be able to do a decent job as a domestique in the mountains. He was also 7th in the Giro in 2009.

Something people continuously seem to ignore is that if a domestique goes to the front and a "elite" climber gets dropped, that doesn't mean said domestique is outclimbing that guy per se, because he's riding as if the finish line is right ahead and can soft-pedal to the finish when he's done with his turn...

That 2009 Giro was the thing I was referring to when I was saying he had no results that would indicate sticking contenders out the back in Le Tour was feasible in the last couple of years - because that Giro was the last time he was really up there.

Doing well on the hills of Tirreno-Adriatico is different to doing well on the 20km alpine passes, though I concede maybe his 2010 was better than I gave it credit for, even if most of the results were due to the TT, which is unsurprising. Then again, do I believe Mick Rogers was clean between T-Mobile and Sky? Tough one.

I guess one of the main things is, I know Rogers is a good time triallist, but I don't rate him as a climber, and the only times he's ever been remotely close to that 2012 Tour level are when he was in a situation where thanks to Leipheimer and Sinkewitz we can be almost certain he was charging, and that 2009 Giro.

On Planche des Belles Filles, he shelled half the contenders, dropped off, then rode back to the group while Porte was still sticking other guys out the back door. Of the four Sky guys in their mountain train, I might even rate him below Froome in the believability stakes.