Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[thehog]

Far shorter than mine and more informative and interesting.

Good post hog.

Sky at best are plexplexing.

Good to know that some here whether Tenerife is in or out just change their story. One minute Tenerife is good, then they thinks its out, so that's good because it suspicious place to train, but hang on, it might be back in, so it's a good place to train again.

I can't keep up!

Sky are smoke and mirrors. But lucky for them they have a captive audience eating up their words. Lucky team!

Don't know what to say? You have no proof! Link please, send a link. Proof!



I'm really looking forward to Froome-dawg. I want him to go completely crazy in 2013. Just make cycling look stupid. It will be fun to watch. He'll probably win Flanders riding away from Bonnen!

 

[wirral]

Sky at best are plexplexing.

Good to know that some here whether Tenerife is in or out just change their story. One minute Tenerife is good, then they thinks its out, so that's good because it suspicious place to train, but hang on, it might be back in, so it's a good place to train again.

I can't keep up!

Sky are smoke and mirrors. But lucky for them they have a captive audience eating up their words. Lucky team!

Don't know what to say? You have no proof! Link please, send a link. Proof!



I'm really looking forward to Froome-dawg. I want him to go completely crazy in 2013. Just make cycling look stupid. It will be fun to watch. He'll probably win Flanders riding away from Bonnen!

If UCI "free passes" do exist and certain teams know they will be "protected" at certain races, I would imagine OPQS has ringfenced the cobbled classics.

Sky and Froome have to look elsewhere.

All pure conjecture of course.

 

[PACONi]

Sky at best are plexplexing.

Good to know that some here whether Tenerife is in or out just change their story. One minute Tenerife is good, then they thinks its out, so that's good because it suspicious place to train, but hang on, it might be back in, so it's a good place to train again.

I can't keep up!

Sky are smoke and mirrors. But lucky for them they have a captive audience eating up their words. Lucky team!

Don't know what to say? You have no proof! Link please, send a link. Proof!



I'm really looking forward to Froome-dawg. I want him to go completely crazy in 2013. Just make cycling look stupid. It will be fun to watch. He'll probably win Flanders riding away from Bonnen!

It's not going to happen, but I would love to see that. Just watching all the 'cleaner peloton' types defend it and Sky would be worth it.

 

[Wiggo Warrior]

Hi everyone,

I may be the first card carrying, certified, actual 'new fan' and 'Sky fan who started watching (road) cycling in July' ever to post on this thread from what I have read here (if the legions of vitriolic Sky fans who are moaned about regularly ever existed outside peoples imaginations I can only assume that they had almost all of their posts deleted).

On that point I would like to thank the moderators who have removed literally hundreds of offensive posts from both sides of the argument. I was particularly glad to see the back of the Hitler one.

I have just finished reading this entire thread through for the second time, following all the provided links (where there was no pay-wall involved) and doing my own research into techniques in training and nutrition for endurance athletes because I hate not knowing stuff and trying to base a decision on 'smells'.

I would now like to announce my 'reasoned decision'.

There is absolutely no reason why Sky would have had to dope their riders to perform as they have this season, and my opinion is that they (either team or riders) haven't used any banned substances/techniques.

Note that this doesn't mean they haven't in the past, the only one I would make that claim for with anything like certainty is Brad.

I know that I have several 'strikes' against me being taken seriously in this thread so I am not holding out much hope but if anyone wants to know any specifics behind how I reached my decision I will be around until the season starts, after which you will probably find me in the Road Racing forum

Strike 1: I am a fat, forty-something female who prior to the tour hadn't been on a bike for ten years despite buying a second hand one some months before the race started. Post tour I have started commuting on it intermittently so I suppose I am also an example of the 'Wiggo effect' in action.

Strike 2: I am from the UK and live not a million miles away from BC central. (In my defense I have travelled extensively in Europe and further afield and agree that it is obvious that brits are no more immune from the temptation to dope than anyone else, particularly when there is lots of money involved).

Strike 3: I started watching the tour when the fact that Brad had taken yellow suddenly interrupted my Wimbledon viewing. (Since then I have watched every bit of televised cycling I could find, although 'watched' was a very loose term when it came to Lombardia. That last attack from Rodriguez must have been a belter).

Strike 4: I have been a (Olympics only) Brad fan since Sydney and do think there are potential physiological crossovers between great IP performances and great GC performances. If Bobridge (Current world record holder) is indeed a better IPer than Brad and shares a similar physiology then I would love for him to make the grade in a few years.

Strike 5: I have been a Sky fan since discovering their race tracker and using it during the race to get up to speed with both the race and cycling in general. I particularly liked Scott Mitchell's photographs and the amazing looking food that Soren produces My favourite Sky rider is currently EBH although I also have a soft spot for Bernie. Brad comes in third, just ahead of G.

Strike 6: I did not find the tour boring and not just for the obvious reason that Brad was in the lead. Compared to Formula one which I have been watching since the early nineties even the worst stage was packed with tactics and action (and beautiful scenery). My favourite stage was eighteen, although I found the Champs pretty special too.

Strike 7: I have a science/engineering/data background in a completely non-related field and thus tend to trust logic quite a lot rather than my instinct/gut feelings.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I have a science background and use both science and intuition.

You're wrong. But welcome anyway.

At 1 post a second, you'd be reading non-stop for 3 hours to read all posts in this thread. Let alone reading them properly, or following links. Make it 3 seconds and that's 9 hours reading.

If, on the other hand, you did read all the posts, and still reached your "reasoned" decision, kudos to you. But it changes nothing, for anyone. It reinforces your pals in Sky lovers land, and will be dismissed, as you already realised, by the anti-doping crowd, most of whom have watched cycling since long before Brad managed to ride worth a damn on the road.

 

[Cycle Chic]

If UCI "free passes" do exist and certain teams know they will be "protected" at certain races, I would imagine OPQS has ringfenced the cobbled classics.

Sky and Froome have to look elsewhere.

All pure conjecture of course.

Surely the UCI, Pat and Hein brotherhood are not going to risk giving out anymore free passes ? Surely they are going to be under intense scrutiny in 2013. Having their footprints tracked, business dealings etc.

Thats if they arent booted out or actually produce a conscience.

Surely the riders will now have to dope their own program or the teams risk having their own. The UCI surely wont be helping anymore.

 

[Avoriaz]

and will be dismissed, as you already realised, by the anti-doping crowd, most of whom have watched cycling since long before Brad managed to ride worth a damn on the road.

For the sake of balance, as have many of those refusing to put Sky on the ducking stool just yet

 

[Dear Wiggo]

For the sake of balance, as have many of those refusing to put Sky on the ducking stool just yet

For the sake of clarity, I was reinforcing
1. we are anti-doping, not anti-Sky or anti-Brit as is often bandied around by the informed UK intelligentsia et al
2. we are basing our decision on more than half a Grand Tour and 9000 posts in a forum somewhere
3. the complete lack of bias and purely scientific nature of Wiggo Warrior's post is reinforced by their username, clearly.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I have a science background and use both science and intuition.

Wow, you must be right then.

You're wrong. But welcome anyway.

Good to see you are keeping up your track record of reasoned argument.

At 1 post a second, you'd be reading non-stop for 3 hours to read all posts in this thread. Let alone reading them properly, or following links. Make it 3 seconds and that's 9 hours reading.

If she put you on ignore and then read the thread that would make it 5 minutes

If, on the other hand, you did read all the posts, and still reached your "reasoned" decision, kudos to you. But it changes nothing, for anyone. It reinforces your pals in Sky lovers land, and will be dismissed, as you already realised, by the anti-doping crowd, most of whom have watched cycling since long before Brad managed to ride worth a damn on the road.

Yes, because anyone that follows Sky would not have watched cycling before then.

 

[Benotti69]

Strike 7: I have a scientific background in a completely non-related field and thus tend to use logic quite a lot rather than instinct/gut feelings.

Better do some research on the sport. To help you it was not invented in Manchester by TeamGB/Sky.

Dopeology.org is a start if you find the clinic a bit difficult to work through.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

For the sake of clarity, I was reinforcing
1. we are anti-doping, not anti-Sky or anti-Brit as is often bandied around by the informed UK intelligentsia et al.

I recall you saying that you only really got interested in Sky/Wiggo after he indirectly accused you of being a bone idle w*nker at his infamous Tour press conference.

Whilst this is entirely understandable (Wiggo reaping what he has sown and all that) it does mean that you are somewhat anti-Wiggo on a personal rather than purely doping basis as a result, and your posts need to be interpreted in this light.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I recall you saying that you only really got interested in Sky/Wiggo after he indirectly accused you of being a bone idle w*nker at his infamous Tour press conference.

Whilst this is entirely understandable (Wiggo reaping what he has sown and all that) it does mean that you are somewhat anti-Wiggo on a personal rather than purely doping basis as a result, and your posts need to be interpreted in this light.

Need to be interpreted? Or need to be dismissed as soon as possible because your hero is being questioned?

Have you seen me post anywhere else? Have a look in the other famous doper thread, titled, "JV talks, sort of".

I question anything that looks dodgy. I am anti-doping. Funny a Sky lover having a go at me because I question the complete dodginess of Rogers, Wiggins, Porte, Froome.

If Rogers continues to perform in 2013 like he did in 2012, guess what? I will question his dodginess. And he's Aussie, like me. And he will be riding for Saxo.

You are going to slowly run out of ammo to dismiss me as anti-Wiggo.

Despite what you think I said, or interpreted what I said, the intent of this nom de plume is as described in the .sig: Letters to and from the pro peloton.

eg: if Wiggo retires tomorrow, I am still here, still calling the dodginess I see.

 

[del1962]

For the sake of clarity, I was reinforcing
1. we are anti-doping, not anti-Sky or anti-Brit as is often bandied around by the informed UK intelligentsia et al
2. we are basing our decision on more than half a Grand Tour and 9000 posts in a forum somewhere
3. the complete lack of bias and purely scientific nature of Wiggo Warrior's post is reinforced by their username, clearly.

You probably posted this with a complete lack of a sense of irony and self-awareness,

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Lots of interesting comment.

there is no single moment or person that could convince me because the defense that people make errors is always there.

What could make me revise my position on wiggins is if people in the anti doping movement start to say they believe the likes of Vino post 2009 and Contador post 2011 or post 2010 (or maybe even post 09) where clean. (other than Millar of course who already said it)

Cycling, in my mind, is like any other sport and will never be clean. I think the best we can ever hope for is that it gets to the point where a clean rider can win the major races. How can this ever be proven though?

because for me saying a rider who hasnt tested positive is clean has lost all its alure. Its if people defined as bad guys are aknowledged to have achieved things clean, that people are actually making any sort of leap and the idea that doping is on its way out can actually make some sense.

I think the idea that someone has not been tested positive equates to clean has long died a death. Some posters on the board seem to think they are making a hilarious and ironic comment when they say rider X has not failed a test therefore he must be clean. Perhaps it was funny at one time. Perhaps not...

But it would be the narrative of cycling getting cleaner and not the narrative of a few individuals ( Kerrison wiggins and bailsford) being the fathers of anti doping.

Wiggins afterall did say before he won the Tour that Cadel was the "first tour winner we could believe in" but since then Sky have taken all the credit for themselves.

While it would not neccesarily make it believable if their line was that people like Evans, Hejsedal Wiggins (and especially if they said Sastre) have shown it is possible to win clean, i find it curious that Sky have refused to credit anyone else in the story of how they win clean, and choose to portray themselves not as part of the movement but as the movement itself.

They probably have the best marketing and press department. Although, they certainly seem to ask everyone to believe they are clean but don't want to prove it i.e. We have proven you can win the Tour clean (But have no proof or at least choose not to share it).

To me condemning scapegoats has never meant anything. I said it long before the Lance thing and i say it now. People who just attacked Landis, Hamilton, Ricco, Vino, Di luca, never scored any points with me.

Words are cheap. Davide Rebellin anyone?

It attests more to the absolute stupidity of people like Nibali Contador Sanchez and Indurain or for that matter Dowsett, that they did not see Lances fall as an opportunity, than to any cleanliness or even intelligence from those who did. It was an open goal and, something for nothing opportunity to portray oneself as clean without any having to make any actual sacrifice.

also for me there were a few things worth calling out in his criticsm of Lance most notably that the thing was clearly organized (if not planned) by Bailsford, as it took the form of wiggins a prerecorded interview with Sky (their own sponsors) and took place on the same day that Bailsford did his own media blitz and other sky members did a media blitz and dowsett came on and explained his own praise for Lance. And of course it happened only after the USADA report and not 5 weeks earlier when people like Engoulvent spoke out.

I actually think many cyclists don't care about speaking out even if there are clean, certainly recently, because of the systematic doping would make them an outcast ala Bassons. If people are doping these days then I think they are more that likely doing it on their own. Teams could certainly be aware of it but I get the impression that team wide doping, while not non-existent, is not as blatant as previous years.

Again doing it 5 weeks earlier would not neccesarily mean anyone was clean, (doing it like Pinotti a few years earlier would), since lance was clearly on the way down, but why did all the people who eventually spoke out against lance only wait for him to become PEN1 and not do it when it would actually have taken some balls.

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.

Again, some people just want to keep their head down and avoid being associated with it one way or the other. No doubt Wiggins knew Armstrong was doping long before USADA got involved. And his surprise at the damning evidence is laughable at best but at least he came out and said something.

And you are right about his comments about Armstrong - I just mention it more as a running joke.

 

[coinneach]

I think Tenerife is a huge red herring and a poor argument being that what counts is with whom rather than where, and 'whom' is mobile... frankly I find it far more ethical to train in a natural environment at altitude, than to use artificial ones like altitude tents etc. which is presumably what they will use now. I seem to recall Brad had an altitude tent in his house? If the intention is to cheat, that can happen anywhere. If anything we should be encouraging riders to train without artificial aids and as such use natural aids like Tenerife if appropriate.

The fact that Team Sky is so reactionary to public opinion is an issue, and a reason why Sky make a poor sponsor for sport, reflecting how this sponsor behaves in its own industry. Sensational, reactionary, accusatory, unethical, imoral, and blame shifting. However, I think it's important to seperate the flawed Team PR actions from the teams sporting methodology. There are plenty of other points regarding Team Sky that raise suspicion without bringing geography and terrain into it?

Nobody hates Sky as a company more than me, but I disagree with you about their affect on cycling.
#1 They set themselves up to be clean
#2 After a couple of seasons investing and building up, they were successful in 2012
#3 They are taking proactive steps to separate themselves from as many connections with doping, past or present as they can.
#4 They have also sponsored lots of Sky days in different UK cities to promote cycling.
I have no doubt its all self interest, and that News International has learnt from the phone hacking scandal, but come on, how many sponsors do this much hands on to protect their image?
And wouldn't cycling be in a better place if spongers cared about the long term affect of their involvement, rather than leaving teams to get on with their own dirty work?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You probably posted this with a complete lack of a sense of irony and self-awareness,

Yes because you are surely the Dalai lama of such things, whereas I am a mere convict.

And "Dear" surely matches "Warrior" in terms of bias and intensity.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Need to be interpreted? Or need to be dismissed as soon as possible because your hero is being questioned?

You tried to pass yourself off as anti-doping, not anti-anything else. But you let Wiggo get to you personally with his "bone-idle w*nkers" comment.

Thus, it's reasonable to assume that you will interpret any info you find relating to Wiggo as unfavourably as possible.

I'm sure Wiggo Warrior will make her own judgements, but I thought it worth highlighting that you're not as impartial as you make out.

I'm not saying you're wrong; just not necessarily impartial.

 

[Benotti69]

Impartiality went out the window in this sport in relation to doping a long long time ago.

Sky are not impartial, Wiggins is not impartial. Why expect a fan of the sport to be when it comes to Sky who declared a clean tranparent team then ignored their own statements?

Defending Sky with all their PR BS is making their fans on here look like minions.

 

[coinneach]

You tried to pass yourself off as anti-doping, not anti-anything else. But you let Wiggo get to you personally with his "bone-idle w*nkers" comment.

Thus, it's reasonable to assume that you will interpret any info you find relating to Wiggo as unfavourably as possible.

I'm sure Wiggo Warrior will make her own judgements, but I thought it worth highlighting that you're not as impartial as you make out.

I'm not saying you're wrong; just not necessarily impartial.

There is no one on this thread impartial!
The best we can hope for is to have open inquiring minds, willing to be challenged on our beliefs as events unfold. That's why I'm still here, anyway, it works for me

 

[JimmyFingers]

There is no one on this thread impartial!
The best we can hope for is to have open inquiring minds, willing to be challenged on our beliefs as events unfold. That's why I'm still here, anyway, it works for me

This: anyone claiming to be impartial is in cloud-couckoo land and Dear Wiggo claiming his only agenda is anti-doping is indeed ironic, considering he changed his name from the Big Ring to Dear Wiggo. You fancy yourself a crusader and Wiggo is your number one target but hey-ho.

That said I'm impartial. Obviously

 

[The Hitch]

Lots of interesting comment.


Cycling, in my mind, is like any other sport and will never be clean. I think the best we can ever hope for is that it gets to the point where a clean rider can win the major races. How can this ever be proven though?


I think the idea that someone has not been tested positive equates to clean has long died a death. Some posters on the board seem to think they are making a hilarious and ironic comment when they say rider X has not failed a test therefore he must be clean. Perhaps it was funny at one time. Perhaps not...



They probably have the best marketing and press department. Although, they certainly seem to ask everyone to believe they are clean but don't want to prove it i.e. We have proven you can win the Tour clean (But have no proof or at least choose not to share it).



Words are cheap. Davide Rebellin anyone?



I actually think many cyclists don't care about speaking out even if there are clean, certainly recently, because of the systematic doping would make them an outcast ala Bassons. If people are doping these days then I think they are more that likely doing it on their own. Teams could certainly be aware of it but I get the impression that team wide doping, while not non-existent, is not as blatant as previous years.



Again, some people just want to keep their head down and avoid being associated with it one way or the other. No doubt Wiggins knew Armstrong was doping long before USADA got involved. And his surprise at the damning evidence is laughable at best but at least he came out and said something.

And you are right about his comments about Armstrong - I just mention it more as a running joke.

Total fluke that i caught this as i visit this thread about once every 20 pages these days, but you.look to me.like an objective intelligent poster who approaches the subject with a healthy cynicism and understands well the issue of doping among young adults trying to realize their dreams.in a competitive environment.

There

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Why expect a fan of the sport to be when it comes to Sky...

I don't.

But Dear Wiggo explicitly stated upthread that he was just anti-doping rather than being anti-Sky (amongst other things) so I commented on it as it's clearly a very strange thing to say in the context of this thread.

 

[Tinman]

Team Sky and their leaders, Brailsford and Wiggins, deserve every bit of anti doping scrutiny coming their way. After their self proclaimed strong anti-doping stance and the farce that that has become, and after the 2012 performances in the Dauphine and TdF. Contrary to Wiggins' routine statements, you cant have the high profile job, win the high profile races and make the high profile bucks but not want to be part of the media circus and anti-doping context that the media and fans now require. It comes with the territory and that includes serious scrutiny and open and truthful dialogue.

Dear Wiggo is the real deal of contributors on the forum here. Sharp mind, sharp wit, tenacious, calls it as he sees it, and contributes a considerable amount of original thinking and analysis. More backbone and action orientation than most posters here. Nothing nationalistic about the guy at all. As critical of Rogers and Australian cycling administration as he is of Sky and Wiggins. Off the board he is active in coaching young up and coming cyclists.

We need more Dear Wiggo's here, maybe a Dear Rodriguez, Dear Contador, Dear Gilbert, and many other Dears. We could certainly do with less of many others here, particularly those who like to polarize any scrutiny as nationalistic fervor.

 

[MartinGT]

Hi everyone,

I may be the first card carrying, certified, actual 'new fan' and 'Sky fan who started watching (road) cycling in July' ever to post on this thread from what I have read here (if the legions of vitriolic Sky fans who are moaned about regularly ever existed outside peoples imaginations I can only assume that they had almost all of their posts deleted).

On that point I would like to thank the moderators who have removed literally hundreds of offensive posts from both sides of the argument. I was particularly glad to see the back of the Hitler one.

I have just finished reading this entire thread through for the second time, following all the provided links (where there was no pay-wall involved) and doing my own research into techniques in training and nutrition for endurance athletes because I hate not knowing stuff and trying to base a decision on 'smells'.

I would now like to announce my 'reasoned decision'.

There is absolutely no reason why Sky would have had to dope their riders to perform as they have this season, and my opinion is that they (either team or riders) haven't used any banned substances/techniques.

Note that this doesn't mean they haven't in the past, the only one I would make that claim for with anything like certainty is Brad.

I know that I have several 'strikes' against me being taken seriously in this thread so I am not holding out much hope but if anyone wants to know any specifics behind how I reached my decision I will be around until the season starts, after which you will probably find me in the Road Racing forum

Strike 1: I am a fat, forty-something female who prior to the tour hadn't been on a bike for ten years despite buying a second hand one some months before the race started. Post tour I have started commuting on it intermittently so I suppose I am also an example of the 'Wiggo effect' in action.

Strike 2: I am from the UK and live not a million miles away from BC central. (In my defense I have travelled extensively in Europe and further afield and agree that it is obvious that brits are no more immune from the temptation to dope than anyone else, particularly when there is lots of money involved).

Strike 3: I started watching the tour when the fact that Brad had taken yellow suddenly interrupted my Wimbledon viewing. (Since then I have watched every bit of televised cycling I could find, although 'watched' was a very loose term when it came to Lombardia. That last attack from Rodriguez must have been a belter).

Strike 4: I have been a (Olympics only) Brad fan since Sydney and do think there are potential physiological crossovers between great IP performances and great GC performances. If Bobridge (Current world record holder) is indeed a better IPer than Brad and shares a similar physiology then I would love for him to make the grade in a few years.

Strike 5: I have been a Sky fan since discovering their race tracker and using it during the race to get up to speed with both the race and cycling in general. I particularly liked Scott Mitchell's photographs and the amazing looking food that Soren produces My favourite Sky rider is currently EBH although I also have a soft spot for Bernie. Brad comes in third, just ahead of G.

Strike 6: I did not find the tour boring and not just for the obvious reason that Brad was in the lead. Compared to Formula one which I have been watching since the early nineties even the worst stage was packed with tactics and action (and beautiful scenery). My favourite stage was eighteen, although I found the Champs pretty special too.

Strike 7: I have a scientific background in a completely non-related field and thus tend to use logic quite a lot rather than instinct/gut feelings.

Welcome.

BUT

I this just reinforces me belief of the Sky fans I am afriad.

Unless, you would like to show us your findings?

 

[martinvickers]

Yes because you are surely the Dalai lama of such things, whereas I am a mere convict.

And "Dear" surely matches "Warrior" in terms of bias and intensity.

What's this 'convict' thing, Wiggo?

You went off on one to me a few months back about 'convicts' - it's a reference to transportation, obviously enough, but since that ended in 1840 on the mainland, and 1853 in Tasmania, I'm struggling to see the relevance - unless it's a resort to the same basic silly nationalistic bias you decry elsewhere, but in reverse...

And for the record - I'm irish, as you know, admire Walsh and Kimmage, can't wait for Pat to go, loved Sean Kelly back in the day, and despite disgust at his doping, at heart, still do, and found the '87 Roche uplifitng at the time, particularl La Plagne (i was but a youngster at the time), but more and more dispiriting over time, for obvious reasons.

And you know my general views and approaches on doping issues, and accusations of doping.

I suppose my point is, it's not important, or necessary to always bring things down to some silly nationalistic p!ssing match.