Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[ebandit]

messages.......i keep hearing?

You're just avoiding the obvious connection between Lance & Wiggins.

You're trying to shoot the messenger.

I find it strange that Cookson released his statement today. Sky appear worried.

Next week will be interesting. Damage control will need to be fully implemented from Sky.

Wiggins said some things about Lance which Armstrong might not appreciate. Considering Lance helped Brad out and got him connected.

Feel free to discuss or carry on shooting the messenger (me) as avoidance.

ok i see now.........both lance / brad are not racing right now

oops! hoggie forgive me for highlighting the crap in your posts

cookson ENCOURAGED lance to come clean

next week? is that when the 'lance' show goes live?

i guess? brad is training right now........can't imagine that lance is in his

thoughts much

 

[del1962]

TheHogs wet dream of an interview would be this

Oprah : Lance, did you dope when you won the tour de france
Lance : Oprah, you know back then cycling was different, but if you really want to talk about doping, you have to look at the English, particularly those with funny sideburns,

Oprah: So you think doping is worse now
Lance : Yes, I am reliably informede that Wiggins and Sky have the most advanced form of doping known to man

Oprah: How would you know
Lance :Well, Oprah, havent you been reading the hog's post's in the cycling news clinic forum.


But then the Hog does live in his own walter mitty world.

 

[thehog]

What am I avoiding, my porcine friend? I've said numerous times that Sky's performances this year are eyebrow-raising at the least. That doesn't mean that every anti-Sky/anti-Wiggo comment is true though, so I comment on some of your more outrageous ones.

Claiming that I am the only person suggesting Sky is doping is ridiculous. There's a fine line between trolling and spouting bullsh*t, and you crossed it there
And we're still waiting for your 100% proof of Wiggo's connection with Ferrari.

Don't make this about me. This is the Sky thread not the hog thread.

Cookson to me, in my opinion, is concerned about Lance. Wiggins said some things which considering how close the two are may have upset Lance.

Lance may see the Oprah opportunity as to "get back" at Wiggins.

Time will tell.

See you here next week.

 

[D-Queued]

TheHogs wet dream of an interview would be this

Oprah : Lance, did you dope when you won the tour de france
Lance : Oprah, you know back then cycling was different, but if you really want to talk about doping, you have to look at the English, particularly those with funny sideburns,

Oprah: So you think doping is worse now
Lance : Yes, I am reliably informede that Wiggins and Sky have the most advanced form of doping known to man

Oprah: How would you know
Lance :Well, Oprah, havent you been reading the hog's post's in the cycling news clinic forum.


But then the Hog does live in his own walter mitty world.

Why are you singling thehog out here?

Setting aside the wet dream rhetoric, even some fanboys might find that dialog entertaining.

The entire forum would be in an laughing uproar if any of us were cited on Oprah. Many of us are still flattered by JV's 'Clinic 12' reference.

I would even watch Oprah if that is how the conversation went.

Dave.

 

[SundayRider]

You're just avoiding the obvious connection between Lance & Wiggins.

You're trying to shoot the messenger.

I find it strange that Cookson released his statement today. Sky appear worried.

Next week will be interesting. Damage control will need to be fully implemented from Sky.

Wiggins said some things about Lance which Armstrong might not appreciate. Considering Lance helped Brad out and got him connected.

Feel free to discuss or carry on shooting the messenger (me) as avoidance.

Wiggins said in his latest book 'If Lance was doping in 2009 when I raced against him in the Tour then he can go and get fu@%ed because the culture of the sport has changed since his comeback'

 

[D-Queued]

Wiggins said in his latest book 'If Lance was doping in 2009 when I raced against him in the Tour then he can go and get fu@%ed because the culture of the sport has changed since his comeback'

Of course the culture changed.

But, what about the doping practices?

Dave.

 

[SundayRider]

Of course the culture changed.

But, what about the doping practices?

Dave.

I think the word 'culture' implied 'doping practices'.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

When did Brad and Saugy meet?

 

[thehog]

Wiggins said in his latest book 'If Lance was doping in 2009 when I raced against him in the Tour then he can go and get fu@%ed because the culture of the sport has changed since his comeback'

Lance won't be happy with those statements. What was Wiggins thinking? Lance reads this stuff.

Hope Wiggins doesn't label Lance as an bitter ex-doper.

 

[sniper]

Wiggins said in his latest book 'If Lance was doping in 2009 when I raced against him in the Tour then he can go and get fu@%ed because the culture of the sport has changed since his comeback'

Indeed the culture has changed.
The sweaping but empirically unfounded statements about clean cycling and cultural change in cycling are new, for instance. Lance never made such sweaping statements.

Of course the culture changed.

But, what about the doping practices?

Dave.

+1

 

[will10]

But then the Hog does live in his own walter mitty world.

Yes, every one of the 11,000 posts in this thread are by thehog.

 

[mastersracer]

Lance may see the Oprah opportunity as to "get back" at Wiggins.

Time will tell.

See you here next week.

Your hatred for Wiggins/Sky has clouded your thinking even more than usual. It doesn't serve Armstrong's self-interest to even mention Wiggins. What Armstrong says will be the result of careful deliberation with his legal and PR advisers. The only likely way Armstrong would get a reduction in his ban would be by providing testimony for open USADA cases, which would require him to implicate Bruyneel. The other thing in his self-interest is to deflect responsibility for doping by blaming it on the structure of the sport prior to 1998. If he were strategic, he would single out the episode from the 94 Tour when Indurain blew by him in the ITT. This would satisfy a number of requirements for an effective PR narrative, particularly as an emotionally salient event that translates well to an audience.

If he mentions any current rider, it would be Contador - a rider who has already faced a suspension, someone he could blame for doping during his comeback, and a teammate so someone he can allege specific information about. There's no strategic upside to calling out Wiggins.

 

[thehog]

There's that word again 'hate'.

So confrontational.

I don't hate Sky. I think they look spiffy in their new outfits. They're disruptive which I also admire.

I dislike doping. Especially from teams/riders who pretend to be clean but are really doping.

Not nice.

Lance and Wiggins had a special relationship.

Contador and Armstrong never did.

Contador is the rider Lance wanted to be but didn't have the talent. Armstrong liked taking guys under his wing who could never win a Tour and provided them with the keys to win. Lance is (was) connected.

Contador - athletic, poetic, aggressive, intelligent and reads a race better than anyone.

Wiggins - same speed, same pace, no style.

Armstrong - brutish, aggressive, ignorant, formally connected.

 

[SundayRider]

Yeah Hog is right, only one thing worse than doping and that is doping by athletes/teams who try to make out they are clean.

 

[Mellow Velo]

I dislike doping. Especially from teams/riders who pretend to be clean but are really doping.

Must say I've enjoyed the Hog's comedy act, today.
So many out-landis-h posts, all off topic...........and yet, he's still here, playing to the crowds. (all 5 of them)

So tell us, oh great one: Which teams are the good cheats who don't pretend to be clean and brazenly advertise their doping practices.
Tell us which ones to look out for.
Maybe, I've missed the syringe logo, on their team shirts?

 

[sniper]

Must say I've enjoyed the Hog's comedy act, today.
So many out-landis-h posts, all off topic...........and yet, he's still here, playing to the crowds. (all 5 of them)

So tell us, oh great one: Which teams are the good cheats who don't pretend to be clean and brazenly advertise their doping practices.
Tell us which ones to look out for.
Maybe, I've missed the syringe logo, on their team shirts?

you've pretty much summed up the sad state of present-day cycling.
there are two types of teams:
1. those who do everything to pretend they're clean, whilst micro-doping their way down the road.
2. those who do not pretend they're clean, whilst micro-doping their way down the road.

If you want to postulate a third category consisting of genuinely clean teams, please provide some palpable evidence to that extent.

 

[Mellow Velo]

you've pretty much summed up the sad state of present-day cycling.
there are two types of teams:
1. those who do everything to pretend they're clean, whilst micro-doping their way down the road.
2. those who do not pretend they're clean, whilst micro-doping their way down the road.

If you want to postulate a third category consisting of genuinely clean teams, please provide some palpable evidence to that extent.

I asked a question of Batman and get a non-answer from Robin.

Who are the teams not pretending to be clean?
Presumably, they should be easy to identify through their "we are proud dopers" literature.
If not, then surely they can be identified by their high number of positive tests.
This would obviously be the case, since the UCI are only protecting Sky, right?

 

[The Hitch]

Which teams are the good cheats who don't pretend to be clean and brazenly advertise their doping practices.
Tell us which ones to look out for.
Maybe, I've missed the syringe logo, on their team shirts?

Saxobank Astana Katusha maybe Movistar.

For the record i dont think all teams are doping or that claiming to be anti doping is in itself immediate proof of lying.

But sky have clearly been dishonest on a number of issues ( as even you yourself have admited before)

And when a team is taking credit left right and centre for cleanliness while offering nothing towards the anti doping movement itself, treating anti doping fans like 5 year olds (bailsfords pr crap post usada for 1 example) and feels above answering any of the questionmarks left behind, it wakes the mind faster than hearing say that vino is teaming up with martinelli.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Saxobank Astana Katusha maybe Movistar.

For the record i dont think all teams are doping or that claiming to be anti doping is in itself immediate proof of lying.

But sky have clearly been dishonest on a number of issues ( as even you yourself have admited before)

And when a team is taking credit left right and centre for cleanliness while offering nothing towards the anti doping movement itself, treating anti doping fans like 5 year olds (bailsfords pr crap post usada for 1 example) and feels above answering any of the questionmarks left behind, it wakes the mind faster than hearing say that vino is teaming up with martinelli.

Since they aren't pretending to be clean, how many positive tests did Saxobank Astana Katusha and Movistar accumulate between them last year?

The other premise here being that Sky are UCI protected and the others are not.
Hence, they are micro-micro dosing to avoid detection.
If so isn't that the same as pretending to be clean?

 

[sniper]

.
Joke of an arguement..

so what's your argument?
I've heard none.
the sky-fanboys specialize in counter-arguing but have nothing to present in Sky's favor.

 

[thehog]

Funny. It's now about the Hog. Not Sky. Haven't we come a long way.

Sad. How pathetic some have reduce themselves to.

I am Skybot. I will serve. Insert orders in my xxxxxx.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Don't make this about me. This is the Sky thread not the hog thread.

We don't have a hog thread? Why, it could be an even bigger trainwreck than the Levi-wins-the-Tour-de-Suisse one. Might struggle to contend with the "who is the most wheel sucker in the peloton" one though.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Since they aren't pretending to be clean, how many positive tests did Saxobank Astana Katusha and Movistar accumulate between them last year?

The other premise here being that Sky are UCI protected and the others are not.
Hence, they are micro-micro dosing to avoid detection.
If so isn't that the same as pretending to be clean?

Joke of an arguement.

Anyhow, nice that when one asks a question of the Hog, others are prepared to take responsibility for answering on his behalf.
Sniper was here earlier but wisely decided to delete.

Let me be straight, I do not like you as a poster - nevertheless maybe you are a great person in real life, let's assume u are - but what is your affiliation with SKY?

 

[thehog]

Let me be straight, I do not like you as a poster - nevertheless maybe you are a great person in real life, let's assume u are - but what is your affiliation with SKY?

You're dealing with a poster who likes to get personal.

Don't worry about it. He see's "victims" of the Sky kind. He was on another forum trying to tell them where I lived.

It's cool. Avoid it. Sky dope. Scary, yes?

 

[mastersracer]

You're dealing with a poster who likes to get personal.

Don't worry about it. He see's "victims" of the Sky kind. He was on another forum trying to tell them where I lived.

It's cool. Avoid it. Sky dope. Scary, yes?

interesting how you bemoan when the forum becomes about you and yet also seize every opportunity to make it about you. Wonder what the DSM-V will call that.