Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[bobbins]

I like what I read on Braveheart. It's the grassroots stuff that cycling needs going forward, and that will make the sport come out of this UCI mismanagement debacle stronger.

The Savile defence?

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

oh dear oh dear oh dear wiggo

Just can't seem to get anything right can you?.....

Man I wish I knew as much about cycling performance analysis as you. You're so amazing, you should get a job working as a physiologist for a pro cycling team.

the funny thing is. oh wiggo is actually unemployed filling the void in his life with this nonsense at least wiggins is making a living on his own

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

I liked Brian Smith, in that Sky Sports interview you can still see he is very bitter of what Lance did to him and rightly so.

What spoilt it for me was when he started the "Sky are definatly clean" I nearly wet myself.

Come on Brian, Definatly is pushing it lad, have you seen some of the performances this season?

could you please explain to me the out of this world performances by sky riders this year? I was watching cycling in a different universe I guess

 

[Benotti69]

hincapie was always with us epostal so was covered by uci until he quit in 2007 something. voigt I believe doped, but only in his csc years, horner may have never doped. who knows? never even accused of anything

Hincapie left Bruyneel in 2007 but definitely didn't stop doping.

Voight had a fantastic 2012 season and at 41 that was dope enabled.

Horner is an old guy who is doping.

 

[MartinGT]

could you please explain to me the out of this world performances by sky riders this year? I was watching cycling in a different universe I guess

Where have I said "out of this world?"

Froome's performances, the UK Postal Train at Dauphine, Tour to name two are suspicious as hell.

 

[davidmam]

Where have I said "out of this world?"

Froome's performances, the UK Postal Train at Dauphine, Tour to name two are suspicious as hell.

As suspicious as the GB performance at the worlds in 2011?

 

[MartinGT]

As suspicious as the GB performance at the worlds in 2011?

I hold my hands up, I didnt see it as I was away.

 

[MartinGT]

Oh dear Chris.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-looking-to-lead-sky-in-2013-tour-de-france

 

[Ferminal]

I hold my hands up, I didnt see it as I was away.

Team rode on the front all day for 45kmh, something like that.

 

[pmcg76]

Oh dear Chris.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-looking-to-lead-sky-in-2013-tour-de-france

At least I thought that interview was measured. I am incredibly skeptical of Froome but at least he understands why the fan's are suspicious of Sky. No hissyfits calling fans "lazy ****ing ****ers" or whatever.

He also clearly knows that some of the Sky team have a dodgy past.

 

[MartinGT]

At least I thought that interview was measured. I am incredibly skeptical of Froome but at least he understands why the fan's are suspicious of Sky. No hissyfits calling fans "lazy ****ing ****ers" or whatever.

He also clearly knows that some of the Sky team have a dodgy past.

Well thats true, I was more face palming at the "older employees" thing.

I am sorry, but when he is putting in performances like he has for the last two seasons then fingers are pointed at him!

Yes, the passed with Yates etc people are seriously looking at him, but also at the Porte's and Froome's too.

 

[Arnout]

Well thats true, I was more face palming at the "older employees" thing.

I am sorry, but when he is putting in performances like he has for the last two seasons then fingers are pointed at him!

Yes, the passed with Yates etc people are seriously looking at him, but also at the Porte's and Froome's too.

He does acknowledge that though. Overall, the answers are indeed reasonable, but to take that doubt away, we need more transparancy from them.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Hincapie left Bruyneel in 2007 but definitely didn't stop doping.

Voight had a fantastic 2012 season and at 41 that was dope enabled.

Horner is an old guy who is doping.

could you show me some proove of that?

lol @ everything else. I hope you are a troll or that by some luck you will get to acces whatever braincells you used to have in the future. or life must be a hell. I guess you also believe all those conspiracy theories

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Where have I said "out of this world?"

Froome's performances, the UK Postal Train at Dauphine, Tour to name two are suspicious as hell.

why would they dope for the dauphinee?

and froome broke through last year. there are many riders who've had huge breakthrough years in their careers that never doped(cobo). it's called talent and in froome's case he's had some bug virus for many years(still has) which hampered his progress a lot. 2010 was basically his first injury/sickness free spring and he always gets sick in the winter. also I remember him in the tour of 2008 climbing very well when he was a nobody. he has shown glimpses of big talent.

 

[MartinGT]

why would they dope for the dauphinee?

and froome broke through last year. there are many riders who've had huge breakthrough years in their careers that never doped(cobo). it's called talent and in froome's case he's had some bug virus for many years(still has) which hampered his progress a lot. 2010 was basically his first injury/sickness free spring and he always gets sick in the winter. also I remember him in the tour of 2008 climbing very well when he was a nobody. he has shown glimpses of big talent.

Aye, you are right. Only race worth doping for is the Tour.

You're right, my bad.

You're right these "marginal" gains has transferred him into a GT contendor from out of nowehere/

You're right lad, you're right.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Aye, you are right. Only race worth doping for is the Tour.

You're right, my bad.

You're right these "marginal" gains has transferred him into a GT contendor from out of nowehere/

You're right lad, you're right.

thank you

 

[taiwan]

could you show me some proove of that?

lol @ everything else. I hope you are a troll or that by some luck you will get to acces whatever braincells you used to have in the future. or life must be a hell. I guess you also believe all those conspiracy theories

Yeah that one about Armstrong juicing was ridiculous. 500 tests all clear.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Yeah that one about Armstrong was ridiculous.

not really as I always believed armstrong was full of ****. I also remember all the **** cobo and rujano got here. still waiting for them to get caught too

 

[hiero2]

At least I thought that interview was measured. I am incredibly skeptical of Froome but at least he understands why the fan's are suspicious of Sky. No hissyfits calling fans "lazy ****ing ****ers" or whatever.

He also clearly knows that some of the Sky team have a dodgy past.

Well thats true, I was more face palming at the "older employees" thing.

I am sorry, but when he is putting in performances like he has for the last two seasons then fingers are pointed at him!

Yes, the passed with Yates etc people are seriously looking at him, but also at the Porte's and Froome's too.

He does acknowledge that though. Overall, the answers are indeed reasonable, but to take that doubt away, we need more transparancy from them.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who is happy to see such letters from the peloton! But I think I'm more willing to believe Froome IS being honest. Oh, I will still maintain some scepticism - we aren't out of the woods yet.

But, assume for a minute that Froome is being honest - and riding clean the last 2 years. Now, what would he have said differently?

Based on his words, he KNOWS they have "older" people who exactly fit the way he describes them - having done something when they were younger, not working that path any more. Yates has to be one of them. Yates was reported in a positive test in 1989.
http://archives.lesoir.be/delgado-rehabilite-sean-yates-positif-au-t-w-classic_t-19891011-Z021PC.html
Sky will have to cover that, and if they don't, we will know they are liars, or that Brailsford is a complete idiot.

Froome's statement is, imo, THE most transparent to come out of Sky to date. Frankly, I'm voting for believing him. He honestly hits each element Sky has been getting zinged for. He openly admits that people are not believing their performances. And he says that more openness and clarity is probably what is needed. He gives us a reasoned approach to each point of suspicion. And we STILL have nothing except our suspicions to go on with Sky.

I'm applauding Froome's letter. I want to see more like it.

 

[roundabout]

not really as I always believed armstrong was full of ****. I also remember all the **** cobo and rujano got here. still waiting for them to get caught too

Cobo will ride like crap and morons like you will happily bull**** people about the special connection he has with Matxin.

 

[veganrob]

not really as I always believed armstrong was full of ****. I also remember all the **** cobo and rujano got here. still waiting for them to get caught too

Actually we're still waiting for Rujano to win something

 

[hiero2]

Aye, you are right. Only race worth doping for is the Tour.

You're right, my bad.

You're right these "marginal" gains has transferred him into a GT contendor from out of nowhere/

You're right lad, you're right.

thank you

Yeah that one about Armstrong juicing was ridiculous. 500 tests all clear.

not really as I always believed armstrong was full of ****. I also remember all the **** cobo and rujano got here. still waiting for them to get caught too

Ryo - they are being sarcastic. Personally, I don't like sarcasm as a humorous technique - for two reasons. First, because it is basically mean-spirited. Second, because it works very poorly in print.

In the 1st instance above, the key is the sentence I have bolded and highlighted. In the 2nd instance, the key is the dry nature of the statement, in addition to the date it was posted - after it has been widely accepted as proven that Armstrong cheated.

It seems to me from your answers that you did not "get it". And I'm pretty sure you told us at some point that English is not your native tongue. So, I thought I would point this out. Of course, if you DID get the jokes, and chose to respond, just ignore this post.

 

[Arnout]

Froome's statement is, imo, THE most transparent to come out of Sky to date. Frankly, I'm voting for believing him. He honestly hits each element Sky has been getting zinged for. He openly admits that people are not believing their performances. And he says that more openness and clarity is probably what is needed. He gives us a reasoned approach to each point of suspicion. And we STILL have nothing except our suspicions to go on with Sky.

I'm applauding Froome's letter. I want to see more like it.

Well... For a start, he says Leinders was a problem for the team in terms of appearance. Sure, he was, but that's not a relevant answer to the question whether or not Leinders is also a problem for anti-doping. He still only talks about appearance.

Sure, he is making all the right noises, and I agree that this is better and more elaborate than what we've heard so far (props to the interviewer for that as well), but it is still mostly about perception. It is still the fans who need to accept the perception instead of facts.

I know the difficulty with facts: they don't exist on the internet. That's the big problem with releasing blood values and what have you. There will always be people with a tin foil hat believing in what they want to believe. But in the end, if they are indeed clean, the only thing they can do to erase all doubts is transparency. No veto for critical journalists, no silly answers to doping questions and an explanation about Leinders are only a start.

 

[Knutsen]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who is happy to see such letters from the peloton! But I think I'm more willing to believe Froome IS being honest. Oh, I will still maintain some scepticism - we aren't out of the woods yet.


I'm applauding Froome's letter. I want to see more like it.

Hiero2, always the voice of reason. I fully agree.

 

[Franklin]

Oh dear Chris.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-looking-to-lead-sky-in-2013-tour-de-france

An amazingly decent interview if you consider the angry and downright weird reactions from Wiggo.

My problem is still with the Leinders thing... as he was in the Management Team during the Rasmussen case the court ruling should have popped up. Perhaps I could believe a rider misses it, as he isn't involved in the selection procedure, but DB really would have known. And tbh... I am hard pushed to understand that a rider doesn't do a background check on his doctor. It's so important (it could cost you your career), so I would do at least a few google to see what he did in the past.

That said, Froome certainly wasn't part of the selection procedure, so I do understand that he is careful in commenting on it.

Just to bad that words are cheap and the only thing that can allay fears is a lot more transparency.