Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[ebandit]

wiggo

Nice use of slander. Care to prove its slanderous? i.e. no Yates? No Rogers? No Tenerife?

You keep believing my friend. Keep believing.

Nothing to see here

if wiggo could be shown to be seeing ferarri he would be banned

 

[thehog]

if wiggo could be shown to be seeing ferarri he would be banned

Why would he be banned? Ferrari is still practising today. Its only the Italian Federation that bans the use of Ferrari. Non-Italians are free to use Ferrari as much as they like. The UCI didn't pass on the USADA ban.

Do you know what you're talking about?

 

[AcademyCC]

if wiggo could be shown to be seeing ferarri he would be banned

Ferrari is very much still active. You think dopers who know they are doing something illegal are going to just say "hes banned, **** one, better not use him anymore" please wake the **** up.

 

[No_Balls]

Relax. One is allowed to post inside knowledge without revealing sources. If I read from RaceRadio that rider x had got a warning because of abnormal blood values, then I would take his word for it.

On the other hand I don't think that TheHog has equal amount of inside knowledge as RR, but that doesn't mean that (s)he is lying (or telling the truth).

PS: Everybody knew that Riis doped before his confession in '07 without ANY proof. The same way I am 99.9% sure that the Tenerife-quartet is on the juice.

Great points.

Back in the late teens in 1998 i knew Armstrong was doped beyond the ludicrous seeing what kind of a rider he´d become walking out from that hospital. This is not exactly rocket science. If something is "too good to be true" it usually is not. Same things goes for the unexplainable, miracles...

That is why Chris Froome is the weak link in the Sky Saga. In order to avoid another 1999 it is him who is the unfitting piece in this chain. He is like a scientic evidence went horribly wrong when trying to build a undetectable breed with juice in his DNA. I have no doubt the Sky lab realised this why i would not be surprised had he been programmed...sorry told, to look more human from time to time.

Atomic boy who hardly could catch up in this "jock race" had a down season when coming to Sky before he turned up to make elite riders feel bad about themselves. Guys can believe in life on Mars for less.

 

[MatParker117]

Why would he be banned? Ferrari is still practising today. Its only the Italian Federation that bans the use of Ferrari. Non-Italians are free to use Ferrari as much as they like. The UCI didn't pass on the USADA ban.

Do you know what you're talking about?

British Cycling operates an academy in Italy.

 

[thehog]

British Cycling operates an academy in Italy.

With the riders registered with the Italian Federation?

 

[andy1234]

Again. As I keep saying. I'm not revealing my sources.

(requested to remove lawyers by CN)

I don't mind that you guys want Sky to be clean. That's fine. Its doesn't worry me. Its a nice feeling to believe your team is clean.

But it doesn't stop me from presenting an alternate view. If you don't like the view then thats fine. Its ok not to agree with me.

According to many here Sky are clean because they've not tested positive. Fine. Good. I'm ok that you're ok with that. Sky are clean. No positives, zero tolerance. Good.

But I would suggest there wouldn't be such vehement opposition to the story I present if they really thought Sky were clean.

I don't know why so many of you wish to fight me? What are you trying to protect? Clean cycling?

Many want to fight you because you tell lies.
Its just the sort of behaviour you criticise the riders for.

You dont have inside knowledge of Sky. Its all in your vivid imagination

 

[Barnaby]

you're joking...........you;re talking about a slanderous accusation

Actually it would be libellous if posted on the 'net. Net = written. No charge

 

[Grandillusion]

Why would he be banned? Ferrari is still practising today. Its only the Italian Federation that bans the use of Ferrari. Non-Italians are free to use Ferrari as much as they like. The UCI didn't pass on the USADA ban.

Do you know what you're talking about?

I barely know anything about cycling (just interested in this subject), but Dr Ferrari is the most discredited pariah in the sport is he not?

If there was credible evidence that Bradley Wiggins was "using" him then, he'd be out of the sport and publicly shamed in a trice, surely?

 

[taiwan]

TBH I have zero confidence that hog has inside info, but I can see where he's coming from with the Wiggins/Ferrari thing. What other team do Sky most resemble, and who was responsible for enhancing it's prominent riders? Which doctor would you trust above others to make you a Tour winner? But the stakes are higher with Wiggins, with the reputation of BC involved.

Would ebandit be satisfied if every "Sky are juicing" was preceded by "I believe" or "IMO"? The legalism is a sideshow - who cares? This whole forum should be taken as opinion. Sometimes they're correct.

 

[thehog]

I barely know anything about cycling (just interested in this subject), but Dr Ferrari is the most discredited pariah in the sport is he not?

If there was credible evidence that Bradley Wiggins was "using" him then, he'd be out of the sport and publicly shamed in a trice, surely?

You tell me. Many here are comfortable with the Yates, Julich, Rogers, GL, Tenerife combination.

I cannot predict how the fans will react. Only join the dots on their behalf.

 

[Grandillusion]

You tell me. Many here are comfortable with the Yates, Julich, Rogers, GL, Tenerife combination.

I cannot predict how the fans will react. Only join the dots on their behalf.

I am telling you. He would be booted out. Seems obvious to me & I know very little.

Can't see what "fans' reaction" has got to do with anything.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I barely know anything about cycling (just interested in this subject), but Dr Ferrari is the most discredited pariah in the sport is he not?

If there was credible evidence that Bradley Wiggins was "using" him then, he'd be out of the sport and publicly shamed in a trice, surely?

You could apply a lot of that logic to Lance Armstrong.

 

[thehog]

I am telling you. He would be booted out. Seems obvious to me & I know very little.

Can't see what "fans' reaction" has got to do with anything.

Booted out from where? Sky? Cycling? I'm not following. Why do you get booted out for consulting a doctor?

Armstrong wasn't booted out from anything for using Ferrari. 15+ years of Ferrari. Never booted out.

Same for Rogers - what has he been booted from?

 

[martinvickers]

Sure. Let's play connect the dots.


Ferrari (master of no positives & drugs)
|
Rogers/Yates/Lance love (mentoring proven)
|
Tenerife
|
Inhumane power levels for weight ratio (A Ferrari speciality)
|
Wiggins.

1. Pretty sure you mean inhuman. Inhumane means cruel. Inhuman means not human

2. post hoc ergo ...is a logical fallacy

or if you prefer - correlation doesn't prove causation.

Proving doping is not some game of six degrees of Kevin Bacon.

Where are the emma's, the betsy's, the walshes, the 'explained' positives, the rounding on clean athletes?

sigh...you look for evidence, you get nudge, nudge, wink, wink...it's really rather frustrating....

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I barely know anything about cycling (just interested in this subject), but Dr Ferrari is the most discredited pariah in the sport is he not?

If there was credible evidence that Bradley Wiggins was "using" him then, he'd be out of the sport and publicly shamed in a trice, surely?

No. What you have to understand is this when it comes to national heroes (Armstrong, Contador, Wiggins etc) :

Only acceptable evidence is a positive test.

When there is a positive test - the testing procedure is flawed + the test was triggered by too much beef/whisky/sex delete as applicable.

When there is eyewitness testimony - it is from bitter jealous people.

When there is documentary evidence - it was a misunderstanding and they never actually met the doctor concerned.

When there is indirect evidence - links between people, etc - it is all in the imagination of people.

So, just as Contador fanboys claim that there is no evidence of him working with Ferrari or Fuentes, Armstrong fanboys claiming he never tested positive, Sky fanboys will scream 'no evidence', just like the others did previously.

The evidence/suspicion is:

Froome's and Wiggins' improvement - Armstrong had a WC and a couple of decent 1 day race results before 'post-cancer weightloss and cadence' transformed him.

The number of people involved in/implicated in doping at Sky within the senior management and riders. The improvement in Sky's road performance from their first year seems to map onto their coming on board. Again, Armstrong hung around with Hog who was well known for his love of PEDs, Contador's ridden for Saiz, Hog, Riis.

Training in Tenerife - of all the places in the world you choose a place that is notorious for being a favourite of dopers. Even pre-USADA it was known that Tenerife was a favoured location for riders suspected of doping to go to dope/charge up etc. (Since confirmed by the USADA evidence). But again, when this was pointed out to the Armstrong and Contador fanboys - it was dismissed as 'not evidence'.

'No evidence' is something of a red herring, because most fanboys of any rider, will never accept any evidence against their heroes. If Wiggins were to **** hot tomorrow, you can bet that the Sky apologists will be out with excuses to explain why this happened and why Wiggins is clean.

Sadly, for some people, cycling takes on a cult like tendency as they refuse to accept that their heroes are fallible and anyone saying otherwise, is automatically a heretic or a talibani, bitter, jealous (delete depending on your chosen way of insulting critics).

 

[Grandillusion]

You could apply a lot of that logic to Lance Armstrong.

Yes, and wholly successfully.

 

[Grandillusion]

No. What you have to understand is this when it comes to national heroes (Armstrong, Contador, Wiggins etc) :

Only acceptable evidence is a positive test.

When there is a positive test - the testing procedure is flawed + the test was triggered by too much beef/whisky/sex delete as applicable.

When there is eyewitness testimony - it is from bitter jealous people.

When there is documentary evidence - it was a misunderstanding and they never actually met the doctor concerned.

When there is indirect evidence - links between people, etc - it is all in the imagination of people.

So, just as Contador fanboys claim that there is no evidence of him working with Ferrari or Fuentes, Armstrong fanboys claiming he never tested positive, Sky fanboys will scream 'no evidence', just like the others did previously.

The evidence/suspicion is:

Froome's and Wiggins' improvement - Armstrong had a WC and a couple of decent 1 day race results before 'post-cancer weightloss and cadence' transformed him.

The number of people involved in/implicated in doping at Sky within the senior management and riders. The improvement in Sky's road performance from their first year seems to map onto their coming on board. Again, Armstrong hung around with Hog who was well known for his love of PEDs, Contador's ridden for Saiz, Hog, Riis.

Training in Tenerife - of all the places in the world you choose a place that is notorious for being a favourite of dopers. Even pre-USADA it was known that Tenerife was a favoured location for riders suspected of doping to go to dope/charge up etc. (Since confirmed by the USADA evidence). But again, when this was pointed out to the Armstrong and Contador fanboys - it was dismissed as 'not evidence'.

'No evidence' is something of a red herring, because most fanboys of any rider, will never accept any evidence against their heroes. If Wiggins were to **** hot tomorrow, you can bet that the Sky apologists will be out with excuses to explain why this happened and why Wiggins is clean.

Sadly, for some people, cycling takes on a cult like tendency as they refuse to accept that their heroes are fallible and anyone saying otherwise, is automatically a heretic or a talibani, bitter, jealous (delete depending on your chosen way of insulting critics).

My talking of "no evidence" was sarcasm, don't you get it? Credible eyewitness testimony IS evidence, as successfully used quite recently to create the biggest shock in the sports' history.

If there is such credible evidence it's beyond me why it's not being pursued. It took Travis Tygart a few weeks to nail the whole gang didn't it?

 

[Grandillusion]

Booted out from where? Sky? Cycling? I'm not following. Why do you get booted out for consulting a doctor?

Armstrong wasn't booted out from anything for using Ferrari. 15+ years of Ferrari. Never booted out.

Same for Rogers - what has he been booted from?

Booted out of the whole sport ( for whatever length of time). You may have noticed Armstrong has recently suffered a minor setback. Somewhat related to his relationships with discredited and pariah- status Dr's. Amongst a thousand pages worth of other useless evidence.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

My point is that what is credible evidence to you or I, is not credible evidence to fanboys, in fact as far as they are concerned there will never be any credible evidence - it doesn't matter what is presented there will be those who will never accept it. Which is why people are still saying there is no evidence against Armstrong.

And no the sarcasm did not come across in your post. Sorry

 

[maltiv]

Sure. Let's play connect the dots.


Ferrari (master of no positives & drugs)
|
Rogers/Yates/Lance love (mentoring proven)
|
Tenerife
|
Inhumane power levels for weight ratio (A Ferrari speciality)
|
Wiggins.


- But I'm sure you'll tell me this means nothing. All this has been disproven as hearsay

Its just a myth

It's a strong argument, and it is undoubtedly sketchy...but the sad thing is that you can do that with more or less every professional cycling team, perhaps with the exception of FDJ. Most teams even score a lot worse than Sky in that regard, with even more sketchy doctors, staff and riders.

As for the power to weight ratio, I haven't seen anything inhuman except from that very questionable calculation from the Olympics TT. As I see it, all the climbing times are reasonably plausible for a clean rider.

On a side note, I'm convinced that if Sky were doping this year, they'll stop next year. They've already reached their goal now and the increasing risks resulting from the Armstrong scandal should outweigh the potential gains of doping if they are somewhat rational. Luckily they have a couple of naturally talented guys they can thrust to deliver without doping, like Henao, Uran, EBH and Dombrowski...Wiggins can go back to being a prologue specialist/lead-out and Froome can go back to being...err, a water-carrier.

 

[blackcat]

^ great post, as always, by Mrs John Murphy.

I will simplify this. Look at the history of cycling, and PEDs. Look at the era since the blood vector pharmaceuticals and techniques entered the sport.

Look at the power gains from O2 assistance doping techniques.

As D-Q says, all the marginal gains in accumulation, are but a rounding error on O2 doping.

Look at the power gains.

Work it out for yourself. All at the pointy end, are on the gear.

It only is in terms of natural justice, and prosecuting a sporting (NB SPORTING) sanction, that these rules and details are relevant.

 

[blackcat]

cycling is cycling, pro sport is entertainment
- L Gunderson

 

[silverrocket]

Booted out of the whole sport ( for whatever length of time). You may have noticed Armstrong has recently suffered a minor setback. Somewhat related to his relationships with discredited and pariah- status Dr's. Amongst a thousand pages worth of other useless evidence.

Armstrong's relationship with Ferrari was know for a long time before his latest "setback", but was never enough to bring him down. Similarly then, Wiggins' relationship with Ferrari, or with dodgy directors, is hardly enough to bring him down. What brought Armstrong down was that thousand pages worth of what you called "useless evidence".

 

[silverrocket]

I am telling you. He would be booted out. Seems obvious to me & I know very little.

Can't see what "fans' reaction" has got to do with anything.

I have to say, it is hardly the most inspiring argument when someone who knows "very little" says something is "obvious" to them.

It was "obvious" to the general public that Lance Armstrong was a cancer hero who would never cheat and resort to doping to win a bike race, but that was only because the general public knew "very little". Once they became better informed it was not so obvious.