Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[martinvickers]

Stylistically, is, in my opinion, the biggest link between the two. It really was Groundhog day for me in July this year and it was very very very depressing.

If it's the biggest link, it ain't a very substantial one. Very much 'intuition' rather than 'evidence'.

 

[ferryman]

If it's the biggest link, it ain't a very substantial one. Very much 'intuition' rather than 'evidence'.

Not evidence or intuition. But I saw what I saw in the days of USPS domination and I saw what I saw this year. And I have to tell you I was F***** depressed to the extent that I was almost giving up on this sport. I really thought that those days had gone.

 

[biopass]

Personally, i find the Mick Rogers argument quite odd. Sure he have a suspicious past. But if you take a look at his former performance and compare it to now, doesnt it suggest that he speaks the truth? I mean he couldnt climb with the best when the top contenders where clients of Ferrari and Fuentes. And with those doctors out of the picture, he is now able to climb along quite a bit, at least longer than he could before. Now when the VAMs are not the same and the w/kg are lower. Isnt it what we would expect from a clean rider back then and the same clean rider now?

 

[Ferminal]

Yet Rogers' performance in absolute terms has actually gone the other way. Even if he's doing the same as he was in 2004, it's not a good sign, unless Ferrari's training plans weren't that good.

 

[The Hitch]

. And BMW is clean of all but recreational drugs.

It has occurred to me that on the other occasions you did this i challenged your psychiatric state which left me doing the talking and made it all heated and took it off course.

So ill make sure this let you do the talking this time and make sure we stay on the subject.

1 simple question.

You, know this how?

 

[The Hitch]

Fair enough, but if that is so, why then do posters feel the need to attack the man's credibility, when we all know he is more credible than any poster, here?

I dont know why other posters attack Walsh's credibility. Thats a question for them, not for me,

And since Walsh didnt fit into my thought process on why i thought wiggins doped in July and it didnt fit in before July the mere fact that he says sky are clean now doesnt change anything for me.

What other posters said, got nothing to do with me or my arguments.

Basis? Past experience.

Care to explain exactly what your past experience is with me and my capacity to revise my opinions. What past examples do you have that prove i am incapable of changing my opinion?

Or was it just an amature attempt to flame me?

Most of LS's excellent posts are, naturally, about the past. Suspicious performances, suspicious team mates, suspicious doctors etc. Any one of which in isolation you could dismiss easily. However, as I understand it, for him (and that is where I disagree with him) all these things taken together suggest Sky and/or individual riders on Sky are doping.

I'm struggling to see what evidence would make you and him change your minds as it is always harder to prove a negative. Would the release of the blood passport, which is not cast iron proof but suggestive, do?

Your post is correct. There is unlikely to come out any evidence that will suddenly change my mind - especially since doping is something kept so secret that evidence for either side is often kept from the public.

The difference between your post and the one Jimmy fingers gave before is that his contained the following

No matter what happens from here on in, you'll always view 2012 Sky as tainted

Had jimmy just said that I am unlikely to see any evidence that will change my mind, i would have been unlikely to bat an eyelid at it.

But the above sentence, is different, it states that "no matter what happens" "you'll always view 2012 Sky as tainted".

So I am so small minded that no matter what, I will always defend an opinon even if it turns out to be wrong, and purely because it is the opinion i held originally

That is imo a very offensive comment that accuses me, just for a start of being incapable of any rational thought.

Pompous post of the year. Well done.
You are presumptuous about others on this board often enough and play the man not the ball often enough (including in the above post). Stop crying you wuss.

You have posted as fact that Wiggins never doped so many times that i have run out of hyperbole to make light of it with.

And not once have you offered any explanation as to how you came across this fact.

I understand a lot of you get upset when hog posts - ferrari is working with Lance, as an unbacked fact.

You are surprised we on the side who post thousand word essays as to why we think wiggins is suspicious, play the man when you stroll in playing jesus and telling us without so much as a words explanation, that wiggins never doped - fact
?

Can you understand the frustration with that?

As for the last 2 words, if you didnt mean them (and they are the kind of words that people say on the spot and later regret they said) then no worries, ill overlook them.

Man you are all class. No one here puts more words into my mouth than you, misunderstands me yet reacts with insults and condescension and ignores me when I point out the error.

.

I didnt put words into your mouth. You, have throughout this thread responded to posts i made with complaints about what posters who have nothing to do with me said.

For example in a most recent example you were visibly annoyed that hog or someone had said Sky was initiating systematic US postal level organized doping, - not an argument I "the hitch" ever made.

So you responded to my post not adressing anything I said, but with the sarcastic observation "oh but i thought sky was doping to UPS levels".

As i said to you the first time i locked horns with you, (and as i say above to mv) please do not treat everyone who thinks sky are suspicious as 1.

I dont care what dear wiggo or sniper posted. If you want to throw food with them then by all means do, but leave it out when you are talking to me.

As for the last paragraph, well i appreciate the outstretched hand. Takes a man to calm a situation while in the middle of heated words.

and part of the reason i responded so sharply last few times was because i thought you were being quite fair for a few weeks leading up to that point.

but you got me wrong if you think Im here for personal battles, and i dont think your angry with me. Im here to argue about sky is all, and my belief that the "cycling is clean now trust us" brigade (which isnt just sky) have got a hell of a lot of explaining to do.

Personal got nothing to do with it.

 

[thehog]

Yet Rogers' performance in absolute terms has actually gone the other way. Even if he's doing the same as he was in 2004, it's not a good sign, unless Ferrari's training plans weren't that good.

I think Ferrari did a great job with Rogers in 2012.

 

[The Hitch]

I think we can both agree on one thing, though. If Sky truly are a clean team, they have done a completely fricking horrible job of showcasing that. So far their policy of publicising clean cycling has consisted of the following plan:
1) win races
2) ?
3) say it was clean

Once again, Brilliant.

 

[Ripper]

I think Ferrari did a great job with Rogers in 2012.

Good one....

 

[Ripper]

I think we can both agree on one thing, though. If Sky truly are a clean team, they have done a completely fricking horrible job of showcasing that. So far their policy of publicising clean cycling has consisted of the following plan:
1) win races
2) ?
3) say it was clean

Don't forget, just to make it more convincing, hire a doping doctor

 

[Dear Wiggo]

@The Hitch: given I have never said anything bad to or about you, I find your constant spitting on me somewhat unpleasant.

I would have PM'd this but your inbox is full.

Ironic that you call me a broken record when every single post of yours has a sig that mentions 2009 and dodgy doctors, given Sky have ditched Leindeers now. It's old news.

The only forum members I (consciously) have had a go at are the PhDs, people in positions of "authority" who to this day have presented poor arguments, poor or no explanations, or defended complete and utter tripe like Ed Coyle's study of Armstrong. Or fail to follow the simplest thread arc whilst debating. IMO they are the ones who can and should be gate keepers - the checkers of BS performances. Instead, to a man they have defended and invented and extrapolated and contradicted themselves in an attempt to argue that Brad could have done it clean, all the while adding an empty "not saying he didn't dope but" or "I am Aussie so hate the Brits" or "I don't even like XYZ" to appear balanced and believable.

I also question the riders and team managers who claim it's all clean now, while spouting half truths and PR insinuations every time they post something here or in the media. Team Managers / riders / part-owners who are in their position purely because of their doping.

I would agree with The Hitch - there is something that could make me believe riders were clean: their data.

It's after the fact, WT season 2012 is gone now. There is no competitive disadvantage in releasing data.

So release the blood profiles, release the power files, and let's have at it. I am as interested in the domestiques as I am the GT winners, so bear that in mind before you get all uppity again.

 

[King Of The Wolds]

It's after the fact, WT season 2012 is gone now. There is no competitive disadvantage in releasing data.

Of course there is, given that Sky may very well be planning to win next year's Tour in the exact same way, with the exact same core of riders.

Not that I wouldn't like to see the data, mind.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Of course there is, given that Sky may very well be planning to win next year's Tour in the exact same way, with the exact same core of riders.

Not that I wouldn't like to see the data, mind.

Hard to have the exact same core of riders with Rogers gone, no?

Hard to win the Tour in the exact same way without having the exact same course and the exact same scenario play out in every stage, no?

I was being facetious: there is no competitive disadvantage whether you release power data a year later, 10 years later or the next day. None whatsoever.

 

[thehog]

Of course there is, given that Sky may very well be planning to win next year's Tour in the exact same way, with the exact same core of riders.

Not that I wouldn't like to see the data, mind.

I hope so! This years Tour was very exciting. I was in the edge of my seat.

 

[Gregga]

Funny stuff I found watching a spanish video of 2009 TdF Verbier stage :
It's here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCJ-niXnpVE&noredirect=1

At 6:30 Wiggins attacks behind Conatdor, the spanish commentator is... a bit surprised

At 7:10, Wiggins is still on the front of the chase group, the spanish commentator says something like this "situación casi anormal"... for Wiggins who is an "hombre de la pista"...

The spanish TV commentator seems more than surprised, maybe doubtful, just as if he was thinking :
NOT NORMAL !

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I hope so! This years Tour was very exciting. I was in the edge of my seat.

Voted most exciting race for 2012, with 33% of the vote. I think last year the Tour won with 64% of the vote. But hey, a win is a win, right?

 

[King Of The Wolds]

Hard to have the exact same core of riders with Rogers gone, no?

Hard to win the Tour in the exact same way without having the exact same course and the exact same scenario play out in every stage, no?

I was being facetious: there is no competitive disadvantage whether you release power data a year later, 10 years later or the next day. None whatsoever.

Wiggo, Froome, Porte, EBH, Knees - same core.

We both know the tactic will be the same - spend all day on the front and ride at a pace that means it's extremely difficult to put in a meaningful attack. Regardless of parcours or whether there's anybody capable of ruining this tactic, doesn't alter the fact that they'll try to do the same again.

To demonstrate the point, let me give you one example of where an advantage may lie. Say Sky release the data, and the other teams work out that their guys are hitting the exact same numbers as Sky. Yet Sky have still got a performance advantage. That would tell the other teams exactly how much work they have to do to catch up in terms of aerodynamic gains. A sense of tangibility makes it more achievable to catch up.

 

[thehog]

Voted most exciting race for 2012, with 33% of the vote. I think last year the Tour won with 64% of the vote. But hey, a win is a win, right?

It was nail biting. I couldn't contain my excitement at times.

 

[thehog]

Funny stuff I found watching a spanish video of 2009 TdF Verbier stage :
It's here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCJ-niXnpVE&noredirect=1

At 6:30 Wiggins attacks behind Conatdor, the spanish commentator is... a bit surprised

At 7:10, Wiggins is still on the front of the chase group, the spanish commentator says something like this "situación casi anormal"... for Wiggins who is an "hombre de la pista"...

The spanish TV commentator seems more than surprised, maybe doubtful, just as if he was thinking :
NOT NORMAL !

Hahha! It's a sad day when the Spanish start calling you 'not normal'!

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

At what point did you come to the conclusion that Lance Armstrong was suspicious? What would it take for you to say that Sky are suspicious? Not that Sky are definitely doping, but for you to say that the doubters are not wrong to have doubts?
These things taken together suggest Sky and/or individual riders on Sky are doping. That's a key word, suggest. It is theoretically possible for riders to do as Sky did last year clean. Theoretically. But it requires some serious leaps of faith regarding the clean capabilities of guys like "Freiburg" Mick "Ferrari" Rogers and Chris "Anyone Who Wins The Anatomic Jock Race Must Be A GT Contender" Froome, when realistically, because of illness and injuries, and Rogers' history of shady association until the point at which illness and injury started to derail things for him, judging those riders' clean potential is not a very exact science for pretty much any of us. If you believe that an aging Aussie time trial specialist who has been involved in not one but two doping scandals, clean, is one of the elite climbing talents of the péloton, then fine, but I don't.

I think we can both agree on one thing, though. If Sky truly are a clean team, they have done a completely fricking horrible job of showcasing that. So far their policy of publicising clean cycling has consisted of the following plan:
1) win races
2) ?
3) say it was clean

Nothing more to it. It requires a leap of faith from a cynical fanbase, and relies on that fanbase wanting to buy what's being sold to them. The casual fan may buy it, but for the hardcore fans, it's harder. There's too much smoke to wave away the suspicious as conspiracy theorist nutjobs, however. Naturally, there are some conspiracy theorist nutjobs, but it's not possible, unless one is a pro-Sky Betonkopf, to simply dismiss all of those suspicious of Sky as conspiracy theorists; there's far too much smoke that's gathered for that. Certainly I could live without certain ambiguous or even totally innocent quotes being spun as part of some vast network of lies (like people comparing Wiggins' victory celebration in the ITT to Floyd's, or the conflation of Wiggins' post-Tour quote about dreams coming true with Armstrong's one about believing in miracles, as if an aspiring cyclist might never have dreamed of the Tour), but there are plenty of reasons to suspect Sky might be about as kosher as a bacon double cheeseburger served on the Sabbath.

When he started spanking a dopped up Pantani in the mountains. If Wiggins or Froome do the same to a doped up Contador or Schleck then that would tip the balance. For me wheel sucking up mountains and not being able to react to a change of pace is not suspicious, so I'm not that suspicious of Wiggins but the jury's still out on Froome.

Again whilst I'm more suspicious of Rogers to describe him as part of the climbing elite is stretching it. He was on the front of the peleton during the mountains but when it came to the business end he was nowhere to be seen.

To be honest I don't think Sky give a flying **** about the clinic. If they can convince the general public that they are clean, and by and large they have, then that's all they want.

There are reasons to suspect Sky, as you have eloquently pointed out on more than a few occassions, but if you are not a bit suspicious about any sportsman you are deluded. There is nothing in the Sky performances, except maybe Froome and Rogers, to mark them out as more suspicious than the rest of the peleton.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Stylistically, is, in my opinion, the biggest link between the two. It really was Groundhog day for me in July this year and it was very very very depressing.

+1
Horrible to watch.
THE preferred modern method.
The method that most teams aspire to.
We've seen it time and again and it is deadly DULL.
Lib Seguros-Caisse-Moviestar at La Vuelta.
Lampre-Liquigas at Il Giro. (usually only until a decent climb, hence Giro, numero uno)
HTC at Le Tour.

With the possible exception of the old LS, none so USPS-like as Sky.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Voted most exciting race for 2012, with 33% of the vote. I think last year the Tour won with 64% of the vote. But hey, a win is a win, right?

At times, I question whether I should come near this forum.
This, was one of those times:

1 Tour de France 33.24%
2 Giro d'Italia 27.75%
3 Vuelta a España 23.14%
4 Amgen Tour of California 6.45%
5 USA Pro Cycling Challenge 6.27%

I mean, wtf?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

2011 Reader's poll:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/2011-reader-poll-tour-de-france-voted-years-best-stage-race
1 Tour de France 14,042 (64.9%)
2 Giro d'Italia 3,373 (15.6%)
3 Vuelta a España 1,182 (5.5%)

Marginal losses FTW!


Clearly, Evans > Wiggins.

 

[Ferminal]

+1
Horrible to watch.
THE preferred modern method.
The method that most teams aspire to.
We've seen it time and again and it is deadly DULL.
Lib Seguros-Caisse-Moviestar at La Vuelta.
Lampre-Liquigas at Il Giro. (usually only until a decent climb, hence Giro, numero uno)
HTC at Le Tour.

With the possible exception of the old LS, none so USPS-like as Sky.

If they ride at a terrifying pace then so be it. I'd much rather watch EBH/Rogers/Porte demolish the field for 100km than the bunch holding hands whilst some irrelevant rogues mess about up front. Even on final climbs, Sky on LPdBF was the better than all but the final two days of the Giro.

Problem is stage design and team size. It is too easy to control with the weak stages we have become accustomed to and 9 man squads. Even this up and it gives tactical options to other teams.

 

[Avoriaz]

What would you say is the difference between skys domination in the 2012 tour and Postals domination in the Lance years?

In the Postal years, USPS kept the pace high, dropped riders, then Armstring would attack and often win the stage.

In the Sky year, Sky kept the pace reasonably high, prevented people from attacking, and the breakaway won the stage