Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Froome19]

Surely you must be fabricating this quote ?
Wiggins said that he never raced against Lance.

Surely you must realise that Wiggins said that comment mistakenly?

 

[thehog]

Surely you must realise that Wiggins said that comment mistakenly?

Of course he did

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I was speculating of course, I make no pretense otherwise. However people do change emotionally in five years, it's hardly fantasy to propose it.

I will ask why should he want Kimmage there? I think he generally articulates his feelings pretty well, you said yourself he is a straight-talker.

I know you were speculating - and it is indeed fantasy to propose something that has not happened. Brad is no more "mature" than he was 5 years ago.

I have already answered that for you. You just don't believe it.
(that was the "educated" part)

It might however, not be the reason Sky blocked Kimmage,
(that was the "guess" part)

What, that some think PK is an ahole?
Then please educate me on why he would be allowed back in after 8 days?

I also do not think Paul is an Ahole - he is pretty determined and shrewd so he certainly would have no problem in seeing past PR yak. I could certainly see people who attempted that as having a dim view of him - some might even describe him as an Ahole because of it.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I was speculating of course, I make no pretense otherwise. However people do change emotionally in five years, it's hardly fantasy to propose it.

I will ask why should he want Kimmage there? I think he generally articulates his feelings pretty well, you said yourself he is a straight-talker.

But then, why would it then be OK for Kimmage to be there from day 8?

This is the problem when, as you said yourself, Sky couldn't have looked more suspicious if they'd tried. Each tree that's explained away reveals more trees behind it.

It's the same as the statement earlier about how their throwing out anybody with a connection to doping is a strong statement. To which there are two obvious counters:
1) why the hell has Mick Rogers still got a job?
2) wouldn't it have been a stronger statement to have stuck to that principle from the word go, and not backed themselves into a position where they were publicly having to fire numerous staff and claim that they hadn't known about any of it, even though most of it was publicly available information and they note 'attention to detail' as one of the foundations of their success?

Other teams have not made such strong statements as Sky, it's true. And most of those teams have not been getting such a rough ride about it as Sky either. But again, there are two obvious reasons for this:
1) very few of those teams have made such a song and dance of cleanliness and based much of their PR on the promise of it, so they don't look hypocritical when found to have a number of former dopers amongst their staff
2) those teams that haven't made a song and dance of cleanliness have had their asses kicked all over Europe for five months of the season before getting an even bigger kicking around l'Hexagone in July, so Sky are not only at the forefront of the sport (most obvious, well-known team thanks to their massive success) but also at the forefront of suspicions (this well-known clean team that has now been shown to have been rather permeable when it comes to dirty staff escaping the net has faced some very shady teams and riders... and completely obliterated them), so they'll have to face more publicity and discussion than a team like, say, Ag2r and Euskaltel, who may not be any cleaner or dirtier than Sky but don't have to answer the same questions so often as they have fewer media requirements.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Surely you must realise that Wiggins said that comment mistakenly?

I think when he insinuated Sastre was doping by stating that Evans was the first TdF winner in years that we could believe in, that was an honest mistake and he didn't deserve to be taken to task for it, even if it might be seen as pretty disrespectful of Carlos to be overlooked - it was more a very clear and pointed barb at Contador.

Saying he never raced against Armstrong is such a blatant falsehood that I think he must have got muddled and failed to add a qualifying statement ("before his comeback" or "the first time around" for example?). I mean, his book from that time had a picture of him with Lance behind him on it. Wiggins has said some dumb stuff in his time, but like with the people suggesting Brailsford was naïve enough to believe Yates, de Jongh and Barry when they said they hadn't come across any doping in their careers, I feel that it credits him with too little intelligence. I mean, if he genuinely was trying to claim that he never raced against Armstrong, that's such a transparent deception it's like a kid's first day on the internet.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I know you were speculating - and it is indeed fantasy to propose something that has not happened. Brad is no more "mature" than he was 5 years ago.

Can you quantify or qualify that at all? Or are you simply making a statement? And pray tell please what makes you qualified to make this statement, Doctor?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

you've made no bl**dy case, you've just made some oblique reference to weak states (are we talking Failed States Index here or something?) but you've made no case whatsoever.

You really ought to get your head around the idea that there is more to making a case than hurling out a stream of conciousness amalgam of acronyms and gibberish.

I've given you the example and pointed you in the direction of the methodology. If you aren't willing to even look at the material then there is no point in me explaining it further and answering any questions you might have about it.

Needless to say, the blanket statement that correlation does not equal causation does not hold true and it is a mistake to assume that it does.

 

[ebandit]

sorry!

I've given you the example and pointed you in the direction of the methodology. If you aren't willing to even look at the material then there is no point in me explaining it further and answering any questions you might have about it.

sorry! mate reading this stuff has sent my pea brain in a spin.............

can we get back to talking about sky....that i understand..... mostly

...............thanks!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Can you quantify or qualify that at all? Or are you simply making a statement? And pray tell please what makes you qualified to make this statement, Doctor?

Here is one (gettit) example.

Bradley says hi, and thanks for all the support.

 

[JimmyFingers]

But then, why would it then be OK for Kimmage to be there from day 8?

This is the problem when, as you said yourself, Sky couldn't have looked more suspicious if they'd tried. Each tree that's explained away reveals more trees behind it.

It's the same as the statement earlier about how their throwing out anybody with a connection to doping is a strong statement. To which there are two obvious counters:
1) why the hell has Mick Rogers still got a job?
2) wouldn't it have been a stronger statement to have stuck to that principle from the word go, and not backed themselves into a position where they were publicly having to fire numerous staff and claim that they hadn't known about any of it, even though most of it was publicly available information and they note 'attention to detail' as one of the foundations of their success?

Other teams have not made such strong statements as Sky, it's true. And most of those teams have not been getting such a rough ride about it as Sky either. But again, there are two obvious reasons for this:
1) very few of those teams have made such a song and dance of cleanliness and based much of their PR on the promise of it, so they don't look hypocritical when found to have a number of former dopers amongst their staff
2) those teams that haven't made a song and dance of cleanliness have had their asses kicked all over Europe for five months of the season before getting an even bigger kicking around l'Hexagone in July, so Sky are not only at the forefront of the sport (most obvious, well-known team thanks to their massive success) but also at the forefront of suspicions (this well-known clean team that has now been shown to have been rather permeable when it comes to dirty staff escaping the net has faced some very shady teams and riders... and completely obliterated them), so they'll have to face more publicity and discussion than a team like, say, Ag2r and Euskaltel, who may not be any cleaner or dirtier than Sky but don't have to answer the same questions so often as they have fewer media requirements.

Firstly you do know Kimmage embedding with the team was supposed to happen in 2010, not this year. The general explanation for not wanting Kimmage there from day 1 was that a very tense Bradley wanted no distractions.

People now seem to be looking at it, several years later, as if it was Sky's and Wiggins' duty to the fans and the sport to embed Kimmage. Now shone through the prism of the 2012 season, a decision made two years previously suddenly is now whispered as something more sinister. It is not, as you say, another tree appearing behind one that has been explained away.

Why stage 8? Get the tense first week out the way, settle into the race, get into the mountains. Is the first week of a GT 'glowtime'? When are doper's most likely re-infusing blood bags?

I believe this is case of reds-under-the-bed.

The rest you have said to me before, and I have said it is a fair point, Sky have made a rod for their own back, and given they are the most successful team they deserve their performance being analysed. But that doesn't justify the often irrelevant discussions going off on tangents away from cycling, the frequent character assassination and the oft malicious glee certain posters go about smearing Sky and their staff.

 

[ebandit]

hi

Here is one (gettit) example.

Bradley says hi, and thanks for all the support.

is he not saying..........hi to the clinic faithful?

 

[JimmyFingers]

Here is one (gettit) example.

Bradley says hi, and thanks for all the support.

A fair reference, but contextually he was leaving hospital with injuries after a collision and was faced by a scrum of press and paparazzi.

The original question was why isn't he ranting and raving in the press about dopers any more. That is a very different context to the above, I'd assume you'd agree.

I also posited that he's not angry because now he is winning races rather than getting beaten and being thrown off the tour, as in 2007. As has been pointed out Sky employ a sports psychologist to help the riders deal with the pressures of the sport more, to maintain focus and generally HTFU.

So greater emotional maturity allied to therapy to help with pressure situations. But this time I assume you will disagree, probably in an irritating, passive-aggressive manner.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Firstly you do know Kimmage embedding with the team was supposed to happen in 2010, not this year. The general explanation for not wanting Kimmage there from day 1 was that a very tense Bradley wanted no distractions.

People now seem to be looking at it, several years later, as if it was Sky's and Wiggins' duty to the fans and the sport to embed Kimmage. Now shone through the prism of the 2012 season, a decision made two years previously suddenly is now whispered as something more sinister. It is not, as you say, another tree appearing behind one that has been explained away.

Why stage 8? Get the tense first week out the way, settle into the race, get into the mountains. Is the first week of a GT 'glowtime'? When are doper's most likely re-infusing blood bags?

I believe this is case of reds-under-the-bed.

The rest you have said to me before, and I have said it is a fair point, Sky have made a rod for their own back, and given they are the most successful team they deserve their performance being analysed. But that doesn't justify the often irrelevant discussions going off on tangents away from cycling, the frequent character assassination and the oft malicious glee certain posters go about smearing Sky and their staff.

Hi Jimmy,
it is always amusing when someone like yourself who joined in July of this year tries to post about what happened here a long time ago.

Here is a thread I started about it back in July, of 2010 - No Kimmage At Team Sky.
How does the light shine through your prism now

 

[JimmyFingers]

Hi Jimmy,
it is always amusing when someone like yourself who joined in July of this year tries to post about what happened here a long time ago.

Here is a thread I started about it back in July, of 2010 - No Kimmage At Team Sky.
How does the light shine through your prism now

I'll add smug to the passive-aggression. Lets all laugh at the noob.

I was reacting to the most recent discussion of this. If it has been discussed before, then why is it again?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

A fair reference, but contextually he was leaving hospital with injuries after a collision and was faced by a scrum of press and paparazzi.

The original question was why isn't he ranting and raving in the press about dopers any more. That is a very different context to the above, I'd assume you'd agree.

I also posited that he's not angry because now he is winning races rather than getting beaten and being thrown off the tour, as in 2007. As has been pointed out Sky employ a sports psychologist to help the riders deal with the pressures of the sport more, to maintain focus and generally HTFU.

So greater emotional maturity allied to therapy to help with pressure situations. But this time I assume you will disagree, probably in an irritating, passive-aggressive manner.

The highlighted is about the only part in the above that is correct - because the rest was twaddle.
Seriously, it was.

.... "contextually he was leaving hospital with injuries..." -he was in a car, the windows were up.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'll add smug to the passive-aggression. Lets all laugh at the noob.

I was reacting to the most recent discussion of this. If it has been discussed before, then why is it again?

I am not laughing at you because you are a noob..
I am laughing at you because you are attempting to defend something that you appear to know little about.

 

[JimmyFingers]

The highlighted is about the only part in the above that is correct - because the rest was twaddle.
Seriously, it was.

.... "contextually he was leaving hospital with injuries..." -he was in a car, the windows were up.

So he wasn't leaving hospital, and he hadn't been injured? Or are you being extremely zen?

 

[JimmyFingers]

I am not laughing at you because you are a noob..
I am laughing at you because you are attempting to defend something that you appear to know little about.

Must be why I fit in so well

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So he wasn't leaving hospital, and he hadn't been injured? Or are you being extremely zen?

He was leaving hospital (inside a car), he was injured (some broken ribs) -
I didnt realize that such exposure and terrible injuries meant he was unable to smile or wave at the people.

I wonder why Sky felt the need to issue an apology the next day - maybe they did not realize just how sore he really was.

 

[Digger]

A fair reference, but contextually he was leaving hospital with injuries after a collision and was faced by a scrum of press and paparazzi.

The original question was why isn't he ranting and raving in the press about dopers any more. That is a very different context to the above, I'd assume you'd agree.

I also posited that he's not angry because now he is winning races rather than getting beaten and being thrown off the tour, as in 2007. As has been pointed out Sky employ a sports psychologist to help the riders deal with the pressures of the sport more, to maintain focus and generally HTFU.

So greater emotional maturity allied to therapy to help with pressure situations. But this time I assume you will disagree, probably in an irritating, passive-aggressive manner.

In 2009 he was beaten by Lance and AC...Not a word.

Either he is doping or is a coward.

 

[JimmyFingers]

In 2009 he was beaten by Lance and AC...Not a word.

Either he is doping or is a coward.

So I stuck to my line that Lance returning was good for the sport.

... With hindsight I'm glad i never criticised him. I had to go and race with the guy and everyone around him. I know what Lance is like if you make an enemy of him. We've seen it in the past. He could have made my life very difficult.

But if he were doping in 2009-2010, he can get f***ed, completely."

I'll go with coward

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

In 2009 he was beaten by Lance and AC...Not a word.

Either he is doping or is a coward.

in 2009 was his first big break. I'm sure he was happy as one could be.

 

[JimmyFingers]

He was leaving hospital (inside a car), he was injured (some broken ribs) -
I didnt realize that such exposure and terrible injuries meant he was unable to smile or wave at the people.

Just to be sure, you know he isn't the Queen, right?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Just to be sure, you know he isn't the Queen, right?

I think so -when the Queen wears a blue coat she usually has a matching handbag.

At this stage Brad is making John Terry look positively civilized.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I think so -when the Queen wears a blue coat she usually has a matching handbag.

At this stage Brad is making John Terry look positively civilized.

Remember, this is England