Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[bobbins]

The road race coverage on tv was terrible. I switched off and I'm a cycling fan!

 

[Alphabet]

I'm a newbie here, where did this "Good post, Hog" forum meme originate?

 

[coinneach]

The road race coverage on tv was terrible. I switched off and I'm a cycling fan!

Yeh, but that's the point.....they didn't even know how to do it, and didn't know they didn't know. So instead of importing folk that have done it before, they thought there's nothing special to this, we'll muddle by.

MV & Hitch are right - British Cycling gets is main public kudos from track cycling: that MAY be changing, and it would be changing a whole lot quicker if the sponser wasn't the hated Murdoch clan IMHO

 

[Avoriaz]

Yeh, but that's the point.....they didn't even know how to do it, and didn't know they didn't know. So instead of importing folk that have done it before, they thought there's nothing special to this, we'll muddle by.

MV & Hitch are right - British Cycling gets is main public kudos from track cycling: that MAY be changing, and it would be changing a whole lot quicker if the sponser wasn't the hated Murdoch clan IMHO

But I think the pictures were supplied by the Olympics organisation itself, not the UK networks.

That Sky is the sponsor does not affect the public affection for the sport IMHO.

And anyway, there was no Sky fairytale at the Olympics - they failed to deliver gold to Cav. That was the fairytale

 

[martinvickers]

The time trial was a loop of what 45k? The road race was 80k to box hill, 8k lap around it where the rafters really were packed to the brim and a different 80k back.

Clearly the road race could and did fit far more people. Plenty of people who would not be otherwise bothered to go somewhere for a cycling race bought tickets months earlier for themselves and families. The road race also offered the chance to see them going slowly up box hill rather than just watch them fly away.

There is no way the tt managed to get half the spectators of the road race.

I won't disagree with that. Box hill and the mall were the only tickets bits - but on TV box hill, silly as it sounds, was TdF'esque - absolute madness, great fun to wathc- the power of the Cav!! haha

 

[sniper]

What was perhaps most striking at the press conference was the lack of any acknowledgement that, despite the biological passport and other anti-doping initiatives, and the emergence of teams with anti-doping as a central tenet, the sport is any cleaner now than it was in the Armstrong era.

Indeed, Ashenden and Kimmage both appeared to raise doubts about this year’s Tour winner, Bradley Wiggins, if only by implication.

“I honestly believe that the winner of next year’s Tour de France could be clean,” said Ashenden. “I really believe that we have an approach that could lead to that. And that would be a remarkable day, when a rider could stand up and say: ‘I didn’t blood dope.’ That is achievable. That is within our reach.”
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...t-change-group-urges-rider-involvement_267334

Guess Vaughters/Millar have now officially been called BS on.
Remove pinnochio Vaughters from that bunch and quickly please.

 

[sniper]

Asked to expand on his concerns about the legitimacy of Wiggins’ win, Kimmage said: “Nobody can believe it, for a start. I’m asked, ‘What about Bradley? Do you believe him?’ I say, ‘I don’t know.’”

Later, he added: “I’m not suspicious of Bradley Wiggins, all I’m saying is, I don’t know.”


http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...t-change-group-urges-rider-involvement_267334

 

[thehog]

Asked to expand on his concerns about the legitimacy of Wiggins’ win, Kimmage said: “Nobody can believe it, for a start. I’m asked, ‘What about Bradley? Do you believe him?’ I say, ‘I don’t know.’”

Later, he added: “I’m not suspicious of Bradley Wiggins, all I’m saying is, I don’t know.”


http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...t-change-group-urges-rider-involvement_267334

At last. Sounds to me MA knows something about Sky that others do not. Has someone been talking?

It's a strong statement and one I'd like to see Sky address withn the release of blood profiles.

If clean that shouldn't be a problem.

 

[ebandit]

new

I'm a newbie here, where did this "Good post, Hog" forum meme originate?

i'm new too but several times seen....................................

good post hog......................the hog...........................eh?

yup! 500th hoggie post in sky thread ............richie porte talks........

darn poor post..........another hoggie revelation saying feck all

 

[Mellow Velo]

At last. Sounds to me MA knows something about Sky that others do not. Has someone been talking?

It's a strong statement and one I'd like to see Sky address withn the release of blood profiles.

If clean that shouldn't be a problem.

Hah!
So, MA says he doesn't know, so, of course, according to you he must know.
“I’m not suspicious of Bradley Wiggins, all I’m saying is, I don’t know.”
Is actually weaker stance than most of the fence sitters on here.

 

[sniper]

Hah!
So, MA says he doesn't know, so, of course, according to you he must know.
“I’m not suspicious of Bradley Wiggins, all I’m saying is, I don’t know.”
Is actually weaker stance than most of the fence sitters on here.

That quote is Kimmage's.
MA said this:

“I honestly believe that the winner of next year’s Tour de France could be clean,” said Ashenden.

+1 to MA

 

[thehog]

At last. Sounds to me MA knows something about Sky that others do not. Has someone been talking?

It's a strong statement and one I'd like to see Sky address withn the release of blood profiles.

If clean that shouldn't be a problem.

Thanks Hog. Sounds like here are some serious concerns in relation to Sky.

This comment caught my eye:

“The unfortunate reality is that everything that a rider can say today, Lance Armstrong already said,” said Ashenden. “There’s going to be doubt whenever a rider says, ‘I’m clean, I’ve never taken drugs.’ We’ve heard that before and been let down. Whatever a rider says, there will be doubts.”

followed by:

Indeed, Ashenden and Kimmage both appeared to raise doubts about this year’s Tour winner, Bradley Wiggins, if only by implication.

It reminds me a lot of the Armstrong era. At first it was quiet discord which turned into louder and louder rumblings from the press.

Where's David Miller to save the day?


Sounds to me Ashenden and Kimmidge have serious doubts and concerns in regards to Wiggins.

I'd like to see full disclosure from Sky to put these doubts to bed. Blood profiles, please.

 

[hawthorner]

At last. Sounds to me MA knows something about Sky that others do not. Has someone been talking?

It's a strong statement and one I'd like to see Sky address withn the release of blood profiles.

If clean that shouldn't be a problem.

That's a Kimmage quote there.

I'm not sure it's that strong a statement: he's by no means implicating guilt but what it does is puts the onus on the riders/teams to prove their innocence rather than us to prove their guilt. Unfortunately that's the way around it should be until we're given some encouragement otherwise.

 

[armchairclimber]

So, there you have it, in black and white.
Kimmage says "I'm not suspicious of Bradley Wiggins".

He doesn't know. Few people do, but he IS NOT SUSPICIOUS.


ANd, if you are going to attach any importance to the Ashenden quote...ask yourself, if he thinks the winner of next year's tour could be clean, what exactly has changed sinc ethis year's tour that would have a material impact upon doping/detection?

 

[sniper]

Guess Vaughters/Millar have now officially been called BS on.
Remove pinnochio Vaughters from that bunch and quickly please.

That quote is Kimmage's.
MA said this:

+1 to MA

Excellent posts, sniper

The Kimmage/Ashenden quotes imply a lot. Even the journalist noticed that they express doubt by implication.

It's significant also because it's so different from the JV/Millar-tune ("Cycling/Sky/Wiggins are clean, I feel it") we've been forced to listen to like a broken record.

 

[Tinman]

Time to restate the "crackpot theory" DW proposed some 3 pages back, to which we have seen an extensive discussion on viewing figures and track vs road. Discussion that has all but made the theory disappear from our thoughts... Here it is again:

We know that Pat and Hein are about revenues first, then revisit my crackpot theory that the UCI assisted Sky in making the fairy tale of 2012 come true. They'd do it for a few million bucks just like they did it with Wonderboy.

Now, is that exactly the sports fraud story that breaks? Probably not. Did the UCI assist Sky's pursuit of wins in 2012 in exchange for a bigger Olympics payout? Very likely.

Nothing in this elaborate discussion steers me personally away from continuing to subscribe to the broad theory that UCI had a VESTED interest in seeing Sky succeed in 2012. For reasons of fame & money, for itself, UCI, as well as Pat himself (Olympics association), for cycling, as well as - quite likely - for Sky corporation. Actively assisting on seeing this come to fruition is something that I think is possible but hard to put a probability on. It is certainly not beyond reason to support the notion that UCI could have given team Sky some assurances and/or insights with regard to doping programs that would make it easier to achieve the successes we saw...

So whilst there may not be "proof" (on the monetary side or otherwise), it makes total sense if we take the Modus Operandi of UCI that has by now been well established via precedent.

Still, fun theory, crackpot or not, and i got to edu-me-cate meself into the bargain...

Does this mean you subscribe then to DW's theory or parts thereof? Or is the above line a self congratulatory one in debunking it based on mostly irrelevant discussion and obfuscating the audience...

 

[thehog]

Excellent posts, sniper

The Kimmage/Ashenden quotes imply a lot. Even the journalist noticed that they express doubt by implication.

It's significant also because it's so different from the JV/Millar-tune ("Sky/Wiggins is clean, I feel it") we've been forced to listen to like a broken record. Pinnocchio was a better liar than those two.

+1 Sniper.

I find the comments from Kimmidge and Ashenden compelling.

We know full well Miller has a conflict of interest in relation to Sky as does Vaughters. One should disregard their comments on that basis.

 

[Tinman]

Remove pinnochio Vaughters from that bunch and quickly please.

I still support him being there. He is the only active pro-cycling member on the team (other than Bugno) and his influence may become useful.

The rest of the group will also keep him honest when things start to matter. If he is true about clean sport going forward he will be forced to support the statements/initiatives that will come forth. In fact he will be leaned upon to use his influence, eg with other teams.

There is actually little upside for JV to be on this team if he plays the deceipt. He will fall deeper and will be exposed more easily.

Suggest some patience. It's not the major play for the ChangeCyclingNow initiative.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Time to restate the "crackpot theory" DW proposed some 3 pages back, to which we have seen an extensive discussion on viewing figures and track vs road. Discussion that has all but made the theory disappear from our thoughts... Here it is again:



Nothing in this elaborate discussion steers me personally away from continuing to subscribe to the broad theory that UCI had a VESTED interest in seeing Sky succeed in 2012. For reasons of fame & money, for itself, UCI, as well as Pat himself (Olympics association), for cycling, as well as - quite likely - for Sky corporation. Actively assisting on seeing this come to fruition is something that I think is possible but hard to put a probability on. It is certainly not beyond reason to support the notion that UCI could have given team Sky some assurances and/or insights with regard to doping programs that would make it easier to achieve the successes we saw...

So whilst there may not be "proof" (on the monetary side or otherwise), it makes total sense if we take the Modus Operandi of UCI that has by now been well established via precedent.



Does this mean you subscribe then to DW's theory or parts thereof? Or is the above line a self congratulatory one in debunking it based on mostly irrelevant discussion and obfuscating the audience...

The UCI also had a vested interest in Boonen doing so well in the cobbled classics and in a Spanish 1-2-3 in the Vuelta. Are we going to assume also that they had full knowledge of those riders doping and were in full support of them? Maybe they helped Voeckler get hold of the best drugs so that he could win the KOM in the Tour? Maybe they were filling Sagan with drugs to try and boost the popularity of cycling in eastern Europe? It seems that anyone can make up anything they like and if anyone disagrees then they can justify their argument by pointing out what happened with Armstrong.

 

[sniper]

I still support him being there. He is the only active pro-cycling member on the team (other than Bugno) and his influence may become useful.

The rest of the group will also keep him honest when things start to matter. If he is true about clean sport going forward he will be forced to support the statements/initiatives that will come forth. In fact he will be leaned upon to use his influence, eg with other teams.

There is actually little upside for JV to be on this team if he plays the deceipt. He will fall deeper and will be exposed more easily.

Suggest some patience. It's not the major play for the ChangeCyclingNow initiative.

agreed, his presence in the CCN could accelerate the process of removing McPhat.
But just like Boyer, I'm simply annoyed by JV/Millar for how they've gone around claiming clean cycling like it's their brand, insulting my intelligence with marginal gains talk, and how Sky won the TdF clean. They just knew, miraculously, that Wiggins won the TdF clean, and have said so multiple times in press, even without being asked nota bene!
JV/Millar are guilty of proactively fooling the cycling public.

 

[sniper]

@Tinman
nota bene: if it were up to JV/Millar, we wouldn't have CCN, and we'd all be believing that cycling has already changed and is now clean.

 

[martinvickers]

That quote is Kimmage's.
MA said this:

+1 to MA

Festinagirl, who was part of the panel, tweeted that it was clear MA was not challenging either Evans or Wiggins per se- rather that the sport was in such a mess you couldn't believe anybody - but if certain actions were taken, these issues wouldn't arise any more.

SuzeCY ‏@festinagirl

Ashendens point is that wiggins & others shouldn't have to be doubted - that there is a way to show they're clean beyond any doubt #ccn

In other words, more or less what Kimmage said.

 

[sniper]

Festinagirl, who was part of the panel, tweeted that it was clear MA was not challenging either Evans or Wiggins per se- rather that the sport was in such a mess you couldn't believe anybody - but if certain actions were taken, these issues wouldn't arise any more.

In other words, more or less what Kimmage said.

Fully agree.
And that's exactly why JV/Millar's vouching for Sky/Wiggins is so absurd, and how they somehow miraculously know the TdF was won on paniagua and marginal gains. As Festinagirl, MA and Kimmage have noticed: you can't know.
Both JV and Millar have vouched for Sky in press even without asking.
That's now officially B-crap and/or self-serving PR.

 

[martinvickers]

Does this mean you subscribe then to DW's theory or parts thereof? Or is the above line a self congratulatory one in debunking it based on mostly irrelevant discussion and obfuscating the audience...

Is that from evidence, or intuition?

Oh, and obfiscating the audience? Kettle, Pot called..something about colour.

 

[martinvickers]

Fully agree.
And that's exactly why JV/Millar's vouching for Sky/Wiggins is so absurd, and how they somehow miraculously know the TdF was won on paniagua and marginal gains. As Festinagirl, MA and Kimmage have noticed: you can't know.
Both JV and Millar have vouched for Sky in press even without asking.
That's now officially B-crap and/or self-serving PR.

Sorry, sniper that's far too harsh and irrational, and it doesn't pass Occams' Razor.

Can we be sure of Sky? Of course we can't - The Ashenden/Kimmage line is, frankly, the only sensible one to take - and let's be clear, by that i mean the Ashenden and Kimmage line those guys actually took at CCN, not the one some people here are trying to read it as!

Namely

- Cycling is in a complete mess.
- UCI head honcho's position is untenable.
- We have no proof or evidence that e.g. Sky are dirty
- We have no real way of knowing or trusting they are clean either
- such is cycling's history, it's impossible to simply believe without question, the sport is too tainted
- such questioning is unfair on clean riders, and clean winners, if they exist.

None of that, of course, is in anyway inconsistent with, e.g. JV saying, i think, from knowing the person, that Wiggins is clean. Doesn't mean they KNOW it, of course they don't. But they can believe it, believe it strongly, feel pretty sure of it - none of that means claiming knowledge they don't have.

Too, too many people here want to be proved right about their gut biases, rather than actually listen and learn...