Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Benotti69]

How so? the clue is in the 'at all costs' bit. Just because he won alot last year doesn't mean it was at all costs, unless you know something I don't.

He won everything he wanted last year.

 

[The Hitch]

My point wasn't that Wiggins is win at all costs, far from it.

About whether wiggins is win at all costs, someone put up an article a few days ago from 2010 in which wiggins said that lance was his hero. But i read the article and there was a bit where he talked about how important winning was for him. If whoever posted that article perhaps remembers could they post it again.

 

[xcleigh]

About whether wiggins is win at all costs, someone put up an article a few days ago from 2010 in which wiggins said that lance was his hero. But i read the article and there was a bit where he talked about how important winning was for him. If whoever posted that article perhaps remembers could they post it again.

Winning being important and winning at all costs may well be completely different though. I don't even know what his costs are?

 

[Benotti69]

Winning being important and winning at all costs may well be completely different though. I don't even know what his costs are?

a spliff, a beer and jamming with Weller of course.

 

[xcleigh]

a spliff, a beer and jamming with Weller of course.

Well, Strictly speaking that's more of a benefit than a cost.

 

[xcleigh]

a spliff, a beer and jamming with Weller of course.

Well, Strictly speaking that's more of a benefit than a cost.

 

[The Hitch]

Winning being important and winning at all costs may well be completely different though. I don't even know what his costs are?

you dont know what he says in the article im talking about. How can you comment on it before reading it?

 

[xcleigh]

you dont know what he says in the article im talking about. How can you comment on it before reading it?

I'm not commenting on the article, I'm stating that in my opinion there is a difference between winning being important and winning at all costs.

 

[mastersracer]

you dont know what he says in the article im talking about. How can you comment on it before reading it?

so, your central contention - that Wiggins' 2009- performances can only be explained by doping is undermined by empirical data compiled by a leading sports scientist and you simply ignore it and instead choose to speculate about what Wiggins may have said about his attitude to winning that somehow is supposed to reveal a psychological weakness that brought him to dope - again, despite the fact that this flies in the face of his actual career-long capacity. And I thought the Hog was the master of biased misdirection...

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I have not offered a conclusion - I have stated I have suspicions, nothing more.

So, there is no need to tell me that I am not making things up. That is why I requested you stay away from the diversion crap of La Vie Claire & kimmage.
My suspicions are based on facts - at any time you wish to address them instead of taking it off on some wild tangent, then I will be happy to discuss.

Sorry. I think we are in the same place. We both suspect sky based on facts that aren't, in themselves, conclusive.

No wonder this forum is so tough, when one can argue with someone with whom you largely agree for two days!

I should shut up and let those more eloquent such as yourself do the posting. I doubt I will, as I've been a fool for years and don't expect that to change soon!

 

[Northern Monkey]

David Walsh spending time with Sky in Mallorca as per his twitter feed

https://twitter.com/DavidWalshST

 

[Benotti69]

David Walsh spending time with Sky in Mallorca as per his twitter feed

https://twitter.com/DavidWalshST

Hoped he asked Wiggins why he hates Kimmage.

 

[Froome19]

I wouldn't ever risk anything with a guy who knows what he is looking for.

/

On your best behaviour for 5 days.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

so, your central contention - that Wiggins' 2009- performances can only be explained by doping is undermined by empirical data compiled by a leading sports scientist and you simply ignore it and instead choose to speculate about what Wiggins may have said about his attitude to winning that somehow is supposed to reveal a psychological weakness that brought him to dope - again, despite the fact that this flies in the face of his actual career-long capacity. And I thought the Hog was the master of biased misdirection...

Have you looked at the graph recently? Because it's founded on one value from 2004 ... and then values form 2009 onwards.

If the 2009 value is doped (as some are willing to believe), then of course every other value used on that graph from 2009 and onwards is going to be internally consistent - with that of a doped rider.

The graph does not disprove dopage, empirical or not.

 

[The Hitch]

and instead choose to speculate about what Wiggins may have said about his attitude to winning that somehow is supposed to reveal a psychological weakness that brought him to dope -And I thought the Hog was the master of biased misdirection... ...

Dude, all i did was ask if anyone has the link for an article i just remembered. I didnt even express an opinion either way, since i dont remember exactly what was in the article - why im asking for someone to link it.

i read the article and there was a bit where he talked about how important winning was for him. If whoever posted that article perhaps remembers could they post it again.

Im willing to accept that the sky threads are naturally going to produce high emotions, but if you are going accuse my most harmless posts as hog like trolling attempts then i really am not interested.

 

[ferryman]

I wouldn't never risk anything with a guy who knows what he is looking for.

/

On your best behaviour for 5 days.

Best to rephrase this post Froomey. Not quite getting it.

 

[The Hitch]

Best to rephrase this post Froomey. Not quite getting it.

hes saying that if they are doping, they wont dope with Walsh there, because Walsh knows what to look for.

 

[will10]

So why are they happy to have Walsh within the team now (which is admirable nonetheless) but barred Kimmage the access he wanted? What's changed?

 

[ferryman]

hes saying that if they are doping, they wont dope with Walsh there, because Walsh knows what to look for.

Your grasp of double negatives in the English language trumps mine. But I get it now.

 

[mastersracer]

Have you looked at the graph recently? Because it's founded on one value from 2004 ... and then values form 2009 onwards.

If the 2009 value is doped (as some are willing to believe), then of course every other value used on that graph from 2009 and onwards is going to be internally consistent - with that of a doped rider.

The graph does not disprove dopage, empirical or not.

Some are claiming that Wiggins 2009-present performance is the result of his decision to dope, transforming him into a climber and - by some yet unaccounted for process altered his preferences for friends, so that as a side effect of his doping he befriended LA.

The only way to evaluate that claim is to examine Wiggins' 2009- performance to earlier one, such as the 2004 value. There is no a priori reason why it should be discounted - except according to clinic illogic that it results in the null hypothesis - that his performance is self-consistent. Of course, that doesn't demonstrate that he isn't doping, but provides no evidence that he is.

 

[Froome19]

Your grasp of double negatives in the English language trumps mine. But I get it now.

Yep and mine. I couldn't understand my own post for a while there.

So why are they happy to have Walsh within the team now (which is admirable nonetheless) but barred Kimmage the access he wanted? What's changed?

It was Wiggins who barred Kimmage.

What has changed? Well the main thing I see is Wiggins. I would hope he has matured and realised the importance of having someone like Walsh observing them. But of course this was not Tour time. I would assume Walsh is welcome whenever as that is the only way this idea will gain any proper credence and if so that would include the Tour, but I guess we have to wait and see...

 

[cineteq]

David Walsh spending time with Sky in Mallorca as per his twitter feed

https://twitter.com/DavidWalshST

He sounds like a sell out, an enabler in the making - I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Benotti69]

Yep and mine. I couldn't understand my own post for a while there.

It was Wiggins who barred Kimmage.

What has changed? Well the main thing I see is Wiggins. I would hope he has matured and realised the importance of having someone like Walsh observing them. But of course this was not Tour time. I would assume Walsh is welcome whenever as that is the only way this idea will gain any proper credence and if so that would include the Tour, but I guess we have to wait and see...

Do you see Kimmage getting an invitation too?

 

[Froome19]

Do you see Kimmage getting an invitation too?

Of course Kimmage has been rather provocative against Sky. I wouldn't be too happy having such a person viewing the team as who knows what he will come up with? But of course Brailsford will be more likely to invite someone like Walsh who he is on much better terms with than someone like Kimmage whom I would imagine he is not best pleased with atm.

But if Kimmage asked for permission to shadow the team I would not be surprised if it is granted.

 

[King Of The Wolds]

Do you see Kimmage getting an invitation too?

Of course not. Walsh is a real journalist in the sense that he has an actual job and a paper to write for. Who else should he invite, thehog?