Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[sniper]

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...

of course nobody wants to listen and learn.
we've listened to and learned from Lance, Bruyneel, Phat, McDruggem.
and now we're supposed to listen and learn from JV/Millar?
what a joke.
As Ashenden et al say: there is no way of knowing wiggins is clean or if cycling has actually cleaned up after 2008 or not or to what degree.
However you want to put it, that is in full contradiction with what JV/Millar has claimed (marginal gains, etc.) on multiple occasions, namely that they know Sky/Wiggo/cycling is clean.
JV has even defended Wiggins' rant against doping questions as "logical". WTF?
Wiggo has been beating known dopers, and JV knows he did it clean? Another WTF.
JV has drawn on data to prove his hypothesis that cycling is now clean, data of which Ashenden obviously thinks they mean zilk in terms of proving cleanhood. It'S what Ashenden has called 'databending'.
bottom line: JV says you can know/see/show cycling is clean. Ashenden says (at present) you can't.
of course in reality JV/Millar know better. PR agenda is the word. Perception is reality.

 

[thehog]

DW: Well, I don’t know if it should. I know the question you’re asking is legitimate and I know there’s a good reason for believing that Greg LeMond might have been the last clean winner for the Tour de France until Bradley Wiggins maybe. Cadel Evans maybe, I don’t know. What we’ve got to go beyond is the I don’t know. We’ve got to get to a situation where we do know. That’s why we need change in cycling because the people who have been running cycling haven’t been as determined enough to find out.

It's my belief at Walsh is unsure about Wiggins and Sky.

He certainly wouldn't be placing a bet on their cleanness.

 

[Mellow Velo]

It's my belief that Walsh is unsure about Wiggins and Sky.

Excellent post Hog
(Since it's also exactly what I said you were really implying about MA, 20 posts ago.)

 

[sniper]

DW: (...) I don’t know. What we’ve got to go beyond is the I don’t know. We’ve got to get to a situation where we do know.

Walsh is a bit behind: Millar and JV are already there, they already know:

Millar: 'We're clean riders and we're dominating the Tour,' says David Millar after superb Stage 12 success

http://www.itv.com/tourdefrance/new...-to-win-says-david-millar-after-stage-12-win/

Vaughters said he has no doubt that Sky ride clean and that Bradley Wiggins is an untainted Tour de France champion

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...s-policy-ignores-valuable-history-lesson.html

Jonathan Vaughters, who worked with Bradley Wiggins (above) during his time at Garmin, says he has no doubts the Englishman has always ridden clean and was clean when he won this summer's Tour de France

I like this one particularly:

The former US Postal rider ... also took the opportunity afterwards to stress his total belief that his former Garmin rider Bradley Wiggins won the 2012 Tour riding clean.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...ission-to-look-into-cyclists-doping-past.html

 

[Dear Wiggo]

JV HAS to say Wiggins was clean since 2009, or his house of clean cards crumbles, credibility crushed.

 

[armchairclimber]

JV HAS to say Wiggins was clean since 2009, or his house of clean cards crumbles, credibility crushed.

He says it because it's true. You're way behind the game.

 

[Ferminal]

TD, CVV, DZ, DM never doped at Slipstream either, it's true.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

TD, CVV, DZ, DM never doped at Slipstream either, it's true.

and former EPO pusher, Weltz now only supply energy bars with strawberry flavor.

 

[martinvickers]

It's my belief at Walsh is unsure about Wiggins and Sky.

He certainly wouldn't be placing a bet on their cleanness.

I agree. He is obviously unsure about Wiggins, and about Evans. He said as much. Everyone is. That ain't news.

But I'd bet money he likes their chances better than Contador's and Schleck's.

The point he's making. clearly. repeatedly, is that the system's f***ed.

However much you want to read that to be with Sky, or Wiggins specifically, Walsh's problem is with the system - Ashenden and Kimmage's too for that matter.

Now some of us would like to change that system, or see it changed.

And some people just want to see the world burn.

 

[RownhamHill]

And all this goes doubly so for Wiggins becuase, and i know you get tired of me making this point but Wiggins won the Tour and then the olympics 4 and 3 weeks respectively before the August 23rd thing, and i remember wiggins in the hero come home interviews talking about Lance about training like Lance and that he admires Lance for doing it 7 times becuase he found it difficult doing it just the once.

So i do think someone in who was praising Lance just before the **** hit the fan would owe more of an explanation than others, and saying that the USADA evidence is damning but that it happened long ago, does imo suffice.

Out of interest, do you have any links to these interviews? I don't recall seeing anything like that from Wiggins post-Olympics, so would be interested to read exactly what he said.

 

[sniper]

Contador's 2010 positive must also have come as a surprise to JV.
He's on the record in 2009(!) saying he has "very good sources telling me Contador is clean".
Goodness me. 2009, post-TdF. By then even the most optimistic cycling fan knew what was going on with Contador.

As for Alberto, maybe the one thing everyone hasnt considered is that I don't know if he's clean or not? I have some very good sources that say he is

and don't miss blackcat's response to that post

sorry, off topic now.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

sorry, off topic now.

Yup. This is becoming a major probem within the forum. Let's be better about it, everyone.

Susan

 

[Dear Wiggo]

TD, CVV, DZ, DM never doped at Slipstream either, it's true.

2 blood tests in one day, either side of a step test proved Ramunas had been clean for the previous 4 years or so of his career.

 

[The Hitch]

Out of interest, do you have any links to these interviews? I don't recall seeing anything like that from Wiggins post-Olympics, so would be interested to read exactly what he said.

It was on television. If bbc still have those interviews somewhere it will be there.

Heres some pre 2012 comments though.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=996732&postcount=4988

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

It was on television. If bbc still have those interviews somewhere it will be there.

Heres some pre 2012 comments though.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=996732&postcount=4988

I seem to remember it was an interview with Gary Lineker the day after the ITT. He said something along the lines of he couldn't imagine trying to win the TDF 7 times like Lance, or words to that effect. IMO it was neither pro or anti Lance just a throw away comment.

You have to remember that prior to the reasoned decision you had to be very careful in the UK as to what you said or published about him, given his successful libel case against the Sunday Times.

 

[RownhamHill]

It was on television. If bbc still have those interviews somewhere it will be there.

Heres some pre 2012 comments though.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=996732&postcount=4988

I seem to remember it was an interview with Gary Lineker the day after the ITT. He said something along the lines of he couldn't imagine trying to win the TDF 7 times like Lance, or words to that effect. IMO it was neither pro or anti Lance just a throw away comment.

You have to remember that prior to the reasoned decision you had to be very careful in the UK as to what you said or published about him, given his successful libel case against the Sunday Times.

Cheers for the clarification!

 

[Froome19]

and don't miss blackcat's response to that post

sorry, off topic now.

The response which ends with?

I know Walsh reckons Wiggins doped for July. Whether or not he tells you or goes on record.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

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...

What is there to listen and learn about the above?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Ashenden and Kimmage's assertions. Most fans would - should - agree that. Vaughters and Millar have perhaps been too egregious in spouting their certainty that Sky are clean, but they also know more than most of us forumites.

So we've listened to them, and we've learnt that these two people, both of whom are reformed characters but known former liars, are convinced that Sky is clean.

We have also listened to scientific rationale behind Sky's performance. And we have learnt that, in isolation, most of the trees can be explained away, and that the performance level indicates that it is theoretically possible to win a Grand Tour clean today.

We have categorically not learnt that this theoretical possibility means that it actually happened. There are far too many trees for many people to believe the large level of coincidence required for all of these factors to converge and make for the Tour not just being WON clean, but being absolutely obliterated clean. And with the other factors in place (such as those that caused JimmyFingers, one of Sky's staunchest defenders on the board, to say that they couldn't have looked more suspicious if they tried) and some of the questionable morals of some of the people involved, what more do we need to listen to in order for us to be convinced of Sky's cleanliness?

Certainly for many fans, a lot more than has been presented to us to date.

 

[richtea]

But Wiggins was a Wednsday too and i know lots of people had work whereas Cav was a Saturday and the opening event of the olympics no less.

Wiggins did get some promotion with the sun doing some get free wiggins clip on sideburns with your daily tits and celebrity gossip deal.

Though on the other hand, the road race had about 2 million of its base fans out on the road and a good million of those around box hill and nowhere near any tv to register their numbers on the peak time viewership thing.

I'm with you - they announced Wiggins gold when I was on the tube to a meeting in Green Park - the figures never were going to be the highest. Hoy was on in the evening - if you add in the spectators there wasn't a great of difference with the road race. Plus I doubt the TV figures properly accounted for the screens put up in various places around Dorking etc for the crowds at the road race.

 

[Avoriaz]

I'm with you - they announced Wiggins gold when I was on the tube to a meeting in Green Park - the figures never were going to be the highest. Hoy was on in the evening - if you add in the spectators there wasn't a great of difference with the road race. Plus I doubt the TV figures properly accounted for the screens put up in various places around Dorking etc for the crowds at the road race.

And Frankel was racing, and winning, at Glorious Goodwood!

 

[thehog]

What is there to listen and learn about the above?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Ashenden and Kimmage's assertions. Most fans would - should - agree that. Vaughters and Millar have perhaps been too egregious in spouting their certainty that Sky are clean, but they also know more than most of us forumites.

So we've listened to them, and we've learnt that these two people, both of whom are reformed characters but known former liars, are convinced that Sky is clean.

We have also listened to scientific rationale behind Sky's performance. And we have learnt that, in isolation, most of the trees can be explained away, and that the performance level indicates that it is theoretically possible to win a Grand Tour clean today.

We have categorically not learnt that this theoretical possibility means that it actually happened. There are far too many trees for many people to believe the large level of coincidence required for all of these factors to converge and make for the Tour not just being WON clean, but being absolutely obliterated clean. And with the other factors in place (such as those that caused JimmyFingers, one of Sky's staunchest defenders on the board, to say that they couldn't have looked more suspicious if they tried) and some of the questionable morals of some of the people involved, what more do we need to listen to in order for us to be convinced of Sky's cleanliness?

Certainly for many fans, a lot more than has been presented to us to date.

This I have continually stated. If clean then the Tour victory was the single most amazing riding ever seen in the history of the sport. Like you say; Sky obliterated the field. And if Sky smashed the rest of the peloton they way they did clean then you'd at least have to expect the remaining cyclists in the peloton were clean also. Which padova coming up which has a litany of mid-ranked cyclists still doping I'm finding it a rather large stretch of the imagination that Sky did what they did clean beating doped cyclists.

The Sky 2012 Tour team wasn't a team building for several years. They were cobbled together at the end of 2011 with Froome appearing from nowhere and by March 2012 all of their new recruits were smashing all the races they entered.

Everything about them was too good to be true.

Especially when you throw Rogers, Yates, Alien Froome efforts into the mix you get a completely uneasy feeling about them. Add the spice on top of Wiggins loving everything Lance and USPS and its a steamy cocktail.

Lance had the most appropriate expression and its fits perfectly for Sky, "not normal".

 

[DirtyWorks]

The UCI also had a vested interest in Boonen doing so well in the cobbled classics

Why, yes they do.

and in a Spanish 1-2-3 in the Vuelta.

Ask Zomnegen about the Giro samples he wouldn't test for CERA. Cleanest Giro in a couple of years... Or was it?

Are we going to assume also that they had full knowledge of those riders doping and were in full support of them?

It's 2012 the Wonderboy myth was well and truly shattered and Pat and Hein were/are *still* making stuff up to defend Wonderboy and you are suggesting they didn't know? It's not possible to paint Hein and Pat as unknowing buffoons. They are as smart and ruthless as the cheaters they enable.

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.

I'm the first person to admit I might be wrong. Epic wrong. Like Wonderboy faithful, Tyler's ephemeral twin wrong. It's okay. If it's a failed iteration to getting closer to what actually happens, then it is good work.

Finally, Wonderboy wasn't the only positive they suppressed. UCI utterly failed to hide Contador's positive is out there. Don't forget the UCI has total control over announcing positives and Hein has threatened as much. And then there's the historic problem of federations disposing positives and delaying Olympic arrivals to limit "the glow."

As thehog just posted, Everything about them was too good to be true. Especially when you throw Rogers, Yates, Alien Froome I would go even further than Hog's post and claim it was an entire, 100 years historic season for Sky. Not just the TdF and Olympics. What a great way to sell Olympic road-side tickets!

Nice post Hog! (I'll stop now)

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Why, yes they do.



Ask Zomnegen about the samples he wouldn't test for CERA.


It's 2012 the Wonderboy myth was well and truly shattered and Pat and Hein were/are *still* making stuff up to defend Wonderboy and you are suggesting they didn't know? It's not possible to paint Hein and Pat as unknowing buffoons. They are as smart and ruthless as the cheaters they enable.



I'm the first person to admit I might be wrong. Epic wrong. Like Wonderboy faithful, Tyler's ephemeral twin wrong. It's okay. If it's a failed iteration to getting closer to what actually happens, then it is good work.

Finally, Wonderboy wasn't the only positive they suppressed. UCI utterly failed to hide Contador's positive is out there. Don't forget the UCI has total control over announcing positives and Hein has threatened as much. And then there's the pre-existing problem of federations disposing positives and delaying Olympic arrivals to limit "the glow."

As thehog just posted, Everything about them was too good to be true. Especially when you throw Rogers, Yates, Alien Froome What a great way to sell Olympic road-side tickets!

Nice post Hog! (I'll stop now)

I now bow down to your superior knowledge. You are right, not a single ticket would have been sold on Box Hill if Wiggins had not won the Tour and these ticket sales netted the UCI a windfall of millions.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I now bow down to your superior knowledge. You are right, not a single ticket would have been sold on Box Hill if Wiggins had not won the Tour and these ticket sales netted the UCI a windfall of millions.

Reducing the argument to absurdity doesn't help. But, yeah I agree Sky's 100 years historic 2012 stage racing season sold a few more tickets. How much can be attributed to viewership/sales is an open question.

We got some general information, but no specifics about how cycling is quantified and rewarded inside the IOC.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Reducing the argument to absurdity doesn't help. But, yeah I agree Sky's 100 years historic 2012 stage racing season sold a few more tickets. How much can be attributed to viewership/sales is an open question.

We got some general information, but no specifics about how cycling is quantified and rewarded inside the IOC.

Sorry but what's absurd? You argued that the UCI were covering up Sky's doping to make money from sales of Olympic tickets. I have agreed with you. You only had to watch the Olympics to see all the empty venues where the Brits did not have a serious medal contender. They couldn't shift those tickets for love nor money!