Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[The Hitch]

The reason I persist with this isn't because I have complete faith in Sky, certainly not, but because there ARE people on here who state their opinions as fact, and some preposterously outlandish comments, like Hog's fr instance. There are opinions on here that I respect, but I wonder why some on here still watch the sport!

You mean why watch any sport? Because if you have come here to spout this tripe about how only cyclists dope then don't

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

...but I wonder why some on here still watch the sport!

That´s what i ask myself since 1999. I sometimes keep telling myself: It´s still worth it, it´s not as bad... and then things like yesterday happen.

Soon i´ll have forget it and start again thinking, it´s still worth it, it could be worse. Then boom, the next thing happens. It´s schizophrenic.

This year, I've found myself asking the same question, don't worry.

 

[Bala Verde]

Well in his defense here, the stage races have all been so perfectly suited to him. All tt based with just enough hills to drop the likes of Canc and t mart had they been bothered, but not anywhere near enough to let people challenge him.

Tony Martin was also owning in a number of stage races last year, in the same way wiggins has been.

In a case against Wiggins i would not say that him being on peak for 3 races before is that big a deal. If only because this is a guy who has an Armstrong like obsession with the Tour and would clearly, in a heartbeat, choose to never win a single other race in his life if it meant he could win the Tour.

If I haven't misheard this, and I don't think I did...

The Sporza commentators quoted Wiggins as saying "I feel/am more like a climber now, a climber who can time trial well enough"

(paraphrased)

Tapping the GBPs in the UK cycling market, tv rights etc. Team SKY finally needs a return on that investment. The cash they have been dropping since they started, with their ultimate goal of producing the first British TdF winner. (not buying into the whole Murdoch is evil nonsense. He doesn't even know what a bike is; but Brailsford needs to justify the amount of momeny he has been pouring into the sport. He needs to deliver results, return on investment.)

Wikipedia

Team Sky's original intention was to build a 25 man-squad with a core of British riders[11] and to nurture the young talent in order to produce the first British Tour de France winner within 5 years.[12]

2009+5=2014. They are ahead of schedule, but obviously this year would be as good an opportunity as ever. A lot of ITT (less suspicion with a guy like Wiggins?) and no Contador around. This has to be the year; since the route was announced they had to make it happen.

If this is the year for Wiggins, in 10 years we'll look back and say, "a track cyclist winning the TdF" lol. 29-30 years old when he transformed? He is now 32 years and only getting better.

And Froome, a guy with a blood disease, which has held him back 2-3 years development wise?, but more importantly, the severity of the disease (as reported) would suggest he could hardly to ride a bike at all, that he should not be competitive at all; And he beats people in the Vuelta and the Tdf, the highest professional cycling level, people who have never suffered from anything, who have had no career interruptions, or at least not had diseases that (apparently) affects one of the most important elements of an endurance athlete (blood), that guy now beats people who have made gradual annual progression.

Looking forward to the "serious" mountain stages.

 

[samerics]

You mean why watch any sport? Because if you have come here to spout this tripe about how only cyclists dope then don't

I certainly never implied that!

 

[Gloin22]

I'm sorry that we are using facts against Sky. The fact of their team structure, of the riders background, of the background of the only ones who can keep up. I wish these facts were not there.

The defenders only have opinion, belief.

Sorry, you really have this one backwards. All facts point that we have to be VERY suspicious about Sky.

But you don't have any facts they dope :lol: So your arguments are bit weak.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The reason I persist with this isn't because I have complete faith in Sky, certainly not, but because there ARE people on here who state their opinions as fact, and some preposterously outlandish comments, like Hog's fr instance. There are opinions on here that I respect, but I wonder why some on here still watch the sport!

So, what facts have you got? So far I have only seen your opinion.
And that appears to be along the lines of suspending judgement - but even you acknowledge that its 'suspicious', tut tut.

As for the "why watch the sport angle' - is that meant to be some sort of rebuttal? It is about as good as Mr Plumpys arguement earlier about the elephant in the room, an elephant he had to name so we knew who he was on about.

 

[hrotha]

Good points.I wonder given some peoples certainty of Sky's doping, do they think that the ASO should pull them out of the race?

Of course not. But they should be testing even their bus driver nonstop, and maybe have the gendarmerie search their rooms and vehicles.

 

[Caruut]

2. Is Cavendish so naive as to not realise what he was walking into? What is to be said of his 4kg weight loss and climbing at Ster? When weighing up the pros and cons of joining Sky it makes more sense if he was intrigued by what could be acheived with theirs sports science.

I think his climbing at STER is quite consistent with his weight loss. Then over those days he get beaten by Kittel, Greipel and Renshaw (and even Boom in the sprint on the hilly stage). While a little suspicious, I would say not at all out of the realms of probability. Cav carrying 2kg of useless weight and losing 2kg of useful weight is pretty believable.

Cav's joining Sky I think has a lot to do with the fact that in the space of under 12 months he has a WC and an Olympics very suited to him, and the fact that his new boss is in charge of the national team. I think Brailsford may well have said something along the lines of "Look, give me a year or two and I'll guarantee you full support in those 2 races. If not, then maybe we won't tell the others to go full gas. Come on Mark, just a year. With me, you're a world champion, and Olympic champion - go elsewhere and I make you no promises."

Pure speculation of course, but he must have known he wouldn't get full support in the GTs.

 

[peterst6906]

We're only a couple of days away from the 1st rest day and there is often a positive around this time.

So perhaps we'll see soon enough, though I suspect if one happens, it won't be from Sky.

 

[samerics]

So, what facts have you got? So far I have only seen your opinion.
And that appears to be along the lines of suspending judgement - but even you acknowledge that its 'suspicious', tut tut.

As for the "why watch the sport angle' - is that meant to be some sort of rebuttal? It is about as good as Mr Plumpys arguement earlier about the elephant in the room, an elephant he had to name so we knew who he was on about.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? My point is that all we have are opinions. You, and we, can have all the suspicions we like, but until we have at least something tangible about the riders in the form of dope tests, blood patterns etc, all we have are opinions, not facts. It may look suspicious, but we have no facts, no stories from riders at this years Tour, no previous drugs transgressions from Wiggins and Froome, no riders coming forward with even innuendo that they've done it. Nothing, just a team that is performing to a point where it rouses suspicion because they have dominated so far. Let's see, hey? Opinions, no facts at the moment.

As for the comment about watching, again, you deliberately misread me. Some people on here are so negative and paranoid about every single cyclist being a rampant, immoral doper that it DOES beg the question, why are you watching then??

 

[Libertine Seguros]

We're only a couple of days away from the 1st rest day and there is often a positive around this time.

So perhaps we'll see soon enough, though I suspect if one happens, it won't be from Sky.

Tests usually take a few days anyway.

I doubt any of Sky will test positive anyway, unless a German newspaper leaks it in about October.

 

[Bala Verde]

Tests usually take a few days anyway.

I doubt any of Sky will test positive anyway, unless a German newspaper leaks it in about October.

Geert Leinders has never had a positive has he?

 

[samerics]

Eurosport just played an interview with Froome from earlier before the start of today's stage and he said when they woke up early they had to do a blood doping control this morning.

Yeah, but McQuaid will cover it up if there's a positive, that what the people in the know here say anyway

 

[sniper]

Tests usually take a few days anyway.

I doubt any of Sky will test positive anyway, unless a German newspaper leaks it in about October.

nice / I agree

 

[Darryl Webster]

There are opinions on here that I respect, but I wonder why some on here still watch the sport!

Entertainment?. Peeps enjoy pro wrestling knowing full well it aint straight but still able to admire the athetisism.
Doping in pro cycling is as old as pro cycling and for decades played its part in the sports attraction for many fans. Its rather like a real life soap opera.
In the great scheme of all thats wrong in the world its pretty low on the list of priorities to sort out but we all have our own personal interests and reasons for them.
Its easy to dismiss it all as unimportant but for many genuine lovers of the sport who know the devestation caused to individual lives it feels almost an obligation to speek out. Doping, and in particuler doping in from the late 80,s onwards causes stolen carreers from those who ride clean, in many cases broken relationships, mental health problems and even death for both dopers and none dopers.
I know of one former UK champ for who doping caused him to lose all pleasure in his achievements and a severe curtailment of his carreer. Life after cycling was frought with depression and addiction, that addidction finaly claiming his life before he reached 50.
Personally as a rider who was clean ( you,l have to take my word on that) my dreams were shattered and that , for many years contributed to severe depressions and even suicide attempts. Pathetic realy on reflection but then depression isnt reasonable otherwise it wouldnt be depression.
So I,d say many of those who, like me, love the sport, speek out as and when they see "suspect" in the hope, perhaps naivily, that by doing so clean riders are encouraged and those fighting doping keep doing so.
Those dead riders deserve that.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

snip Some people on here are so negative and paranoid about every single cyclist being a rampant, immoral doper that it DOES beg the question, why are you watching then??

This is the clinic what else are we supposed to say , don't read it if you don't like it.

 

[samerics]

Entertainment?. Peeps enjoy pro wrestling knowing full well it aint straight but still able to admire the athetisism.
Doping in pro cycling is as old as pro cycling and for decades played its part in the sports attraction for many fans. Its rather like a real life soap opera.
In the great scheme of all thats wrong in the world its pretty low on the list of priorities to sort out but we all have our own personal interests and reasons for them.
Its easy to dismiss it all as unimportant but for many genuine lovers of the sport who know the devestation caused to individual lives it feels almost an obligation to speek out. Doping, and in particuler doping in from the late 80,s onwards causes stolen carreers from those who ride clean, in many cases broken relationships, mental health problems and even death for both dopers and none dopers.
I know of one former UK champ for who doping caused him to lose all pleasure in his achievements and a severe curtailment of his carreer. Life after cycling was frought with depression and addiction, that addidction finaly claiming his life before he reached 50.
Personally as a rider who was clean ( you,l have to take my word on that) my dreams were shattered and that , for many years contributed to severe depressions and even suicide attempts. Pathetic realy on reflection but then depression isnt reasonable otherwise it wouldnt be depression.
So I,d say many of those who, like me, love the sport, speek out as and when they see "suspect" in the hope, perhaps naivily, that by doing so clean riders are encouraged and those fighting doping keep doing so.
Those dead riders deserve that.

Fair comment, and respect to you for your honesty too mate.

 

[compete_clean]

Entertainment?. Peeps enjoy pro wrestling knowing full well it aint straight but still able to admire the athetisism.
Doping in pro cycling is as old as pro cycling and for decades played its part in the sports attraction for many fans. Its rather like a real life soap opera.
In the great scheme of all thats wrong in the world its pretty low on the list of priorities to sort out but we all have our own personal interests and reasons for them.
Its easy to dismiss it all as unimportant but for many genuine lovers of the sport who know the devestation caused to individual lives it feels almost an obligation to speek out. Doping, and in particuler doping in from the late 80,s onwards causes stolen carreers from those who ride clean, in many cases broken relationships, mental health problems and even death for both dopers and none dopers.
I know of one former UK champ for who doping caused him to lose all pleasure in his achievements and a severe curtailment of his carreer. Life after cycling was frought with depression and addiction, that addidction finaly claiming his life before he reached 50.
Personally as a rider who was clean ( you,l have to take my word on that) my dreams were shattered and that , for many years contributed to severe depressions and even suicide attempts. Pathetic realy on reflection but then depression isnt reasonable otherwise it wouldnt be depression.
So I,d say many of those who, like me, love the sport, speek out as and when they see "suspect" in the hope, perhaps naivily, that by doing so clean riders are encouraged and those fighting doping keep doing so.
Those dead riders deserve that.

Truly appreciate this. You've perfectly articulated a perspective that I share, but have a lot of trouble describing.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Fair comment, and respect to you for your honesty too mate.

Thank you samerics. Typing that out was done through tear filled eyes. Its not easy living with my memories and knowledge of lives lost.

 

[samerics]

Thank you samerics. Typing that out was done through tear filled eyes. Its not easy living with my memories and knowledge of lives lost.

Depression doesn't operate on logic does it, I know. Thanks for the insight though, you have balls to write that.

For all those who blithely condemn dopers for their actions, walk a mile in another mans shoes. There are bad, greedy people out there, but who knows both the peer and financial pressure that some have felt, and no doubt continue to feel that they have to dope. I do think the tide is turning, but it'll never go completely, that's for sure

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? My point is that all we have are opinions. You, and we, can have all the suspicions we like, but until we have at least something tangible about the riders in the form of dope tests, blood patterns etc, all we have are opinions, not facts. It may look suspicious, but we have no facts, no stories from riders at this years Tour, no previous drugs transgressions from Wiggins and Froome, no riders coming forward with even innuendo that they've done it. Nothing, just a team that is performing to a point where it rouses suspicion because they have dominated so far. Let's see, hey? Opinions, no facts at the moment.

No need to get angry.
All I asked was what 'facts' you bring - the answer is none.
Has anyone here stated as facts that they saw such and such a rider dope?

So we are back to forming opinions on what we see.

As for the comment about watching, again, you deliberately misread me. Some people on here are so negative and paranoid about every single cyclist being a rampant, immoral doper that it DOES beg the question, why are you watching then??

Then put your question to them - otherwise its just a snipy comment that makes you look rather silly - because a different angle to your question reveals the answer, do you defend the sport from these opinions, or is it just the Sky team?

 

[Ripper]

No question, it looks suspicious. However, we have no proof, no biological passport info, nothing, and for people to say it is out and out cheating is wrong. It may look that way to many, but innocent until proven guilty. Or in cyclings case, until you get caught or people start talking. Until then, this is all opinion. If they are doping then they are @rseholes, but please, stop expressing opinion as fact, let's wait and see first. I have an open mind, I believed Armstrong but ended up despising him, let's see how it pans out, fair?

Well, this is a forum, so everything here is mainly opinion.

 

[Darryl Webster]

No need to get angry.
All I asked was what 'facts' you bring - the answer is none.
Has anyone here stated as facts that they saw such and such a rider dope?
QUOTE]

If I put the name up it would be taken down ( so please dont ask me to) and dont put the name up those of you who know who. Bit I have witnessed the neadle going in on 4 ocassions, 4 differant riders.
One is backroom staff on this TDF of a team sponsored by a major broadcaster. Go figure?
You dont need the names to say it.

 

[samerics]

You must have read a different reply, no anger, straight question

Secondly, I have to put that question to each one of them individually? The quote "some people on here" should have given you a clue that it was aimed at, err, "some people"! If the cap fits. And the only thing I defend is a fair shot at what is truth, what is expressed as the truth, and what is simply an opinion based on the facts available.

As for facts, the information of previous wrong doing within the team proves jack about whether the top riders are doping in this Tour. I treat Sky with the same scepticism as any other team, I'm just not as prone to condemning people with no direct evidence as some on here are. Drat, that word again, do I need to go back and make the point to them individually?? Just asking...

 

[Caruut]

The problem I have with the "you have no facts" argument is that it assumes that with no facts, we should always assume that nothing is wrong. The world does not work like that - before facts are uncovered, we first must have suspicions so we know which facts we are looking for.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal principle that is necessary for a legal court to operate properly, and is important when a court has the power to impose genuine sanctions. It does not govern the expressing of opinions, especially when those expressing them have no power of punishment.

In the court of public opinion, if someone wants to make people believe something other than what they conclude based on what they see, and previous evidence, it is up to them to present their case. Sky don't present much of a case, especially given what we have seen.

The "armchair haemotoligists" argument for not presenting evidence is, for me, redundant. If you are worried about people drawing the wrong conclusions, then the ones who are going to see things wrong are probably going to be the ones who find presenting no evidence suspicious as well. Why not include an explanation of the blood values if you think people are going to come to the "wrong" conclusions.