Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[JimmyFingers]

Just put me on your ignore list if that is your attitude.

A fair reply....

 

[martinvickers]

I'm giving you one chance before you end up on the ignore list. Please post your evidence of their cleanliness. Be specific, because Sky's GT team's teens placings to field crushing performances speak for themselves.

I'm always looking for more evidence. Post it up. Again, be specific.

I'm sorry, but that's a bizarre demand. You can't prove a negative. Repeat. Slowly.

Demanding proof of a negative is essentially a deliberate refusal to engage. And you ought to know that.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Why so?

..

Are you serious? Just look up the definition of conspiracy and see if it applies.

Sky are doping - conspiracy.

Sky are clean - not a conspiracy.

Believing Sky dopes - believing in a conspiracy.

Believing Sky are clean - not a conspiracy.

 

[sniper]

Are you serious? Just look up the definition of conspiracy and see if it applies.

the definition of conspiracy could certainly apply to UCI/Sky/Garmin's proactive, joint attempt at selling cycling as clean(er) where they know damn well that the fraud continues.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

the definition of conspiracy could certainly apply to UCI/Sky/Garmin's proactive, joint attempt at selling cycling as clean(er) where they know damn well that the fraud continues.

Not relevant.

 

[sniper]

Not relevant.

sort of like the point you're trying to make.

 

[thehog]

Are you serious? Just look up the definition of conspiracy and see if it applies.

Sky are doping - conspiracy.

Sky are clean - not a conspiracy.

Believing Sky dopes - believing in a conspiracy.

Believing Sky are clean - not a conspiracy.

Could it be that they're doping the same as the last 20 or so winners and Top 10?

Not a conspiracy, just fact.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Could it be that they're doping the same as the last 20 or so winners and Top 10?

Not a conspiracy, just fact.

Yes, conspiracy, whether true or not, it is indeed a conspiracy. Is that really so very difficult to understand? The two are not mutually exclusive. Conspiracy does not mean fiction.

 

[bobbins]

The fact that Kerrison followed Sky around in 2010 in his camper van always makes me chuckle. Remind us of anyone?

He learnt very quickly what was required to win the Tour de France. He worked out what was needed to win from the numbers that Contador and Schleck produced in 2010. Does anyone seriously believe that Sky thought that Wiggins or any other Brit on Sky could even get close to those numbers without the use of PED's? We even have one poster on here who has stated that BSKYB were told by Team Sky officials at the end of 2010 that the majority of the top ten in the 2010 Tour were using PED's. What happened next? The zero tolerance policy was ''relaxed'' at the end of 2010. Leinders, Bartalucci and Rogers role into town and hey presto, 18 months later Team Sky finish first and second with two British riders in the Tour de France.

Combine this with the fact that they have both the UCI and British Cycling in their pocket and it is not hard to see how they possibly could get away with anything they like.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Combine this with the fact that they have both the UCI and British Cycling in their pocket and it is not hard to see how they possibly could get away with anything they like.

Who would believe such a thing?

Why, that hasn't happened since the owner of the former USPS cycling team is also the owner of U.S. Cycling Federation. It couldn't possibly happen again.

Don't forget the money Hein definitely earned from the London Games for service contracts to companies he partially owns/directs. The UCI will apparently make quite a bit of money after the London Games revenues are distributed. Just recently, Rogge's confidence in Hein remains high.

 

[mastersracer]

I'm giving you one chance before you end up on the ignore list. Please post your evidence of their cleanliness. Be specific, because Sky's GT team's teens placings to field crushing performances speak for themselves.

I'm always looking for more evidence. Post it up. Again, be specific.

It's easy.

1. Wiggins' performance at the 2012 Tour is consistent with his performances going back to 2004 according to a critical power plot.

2. Wiggin's 2009 Tour performance was the result of his first year dedicated entirely to the road following his decision to leave the track after the 2008 Olympics. It took place on a team widely regarded to be the best case for clean cycling. If Wiggins' 2012 Tour performance was doped, then one is committed to his 2009 performance as doped as well, which means Garmin would be as dirty as Sky. Maybe, but this is a big leap.

3. Sky's marginal gains approach utilizes plausible incremental advances in training, equipment, and management.

4. Sky is more disciplined and structured. Nibali regrets not going to Sky because he realizes it is the best team. Their approach comes out of British Cycling, which has a proven record of success and has never had a rider implicated in doping.

5. What is often overlooked. The 10% reduction in power outputs over the last few years means new riders will emerge as previously dominant doped riders are no longer competitive without doping - Basso is a prime example. Under this scenario, it would be predicted that riders such as Froome would emerge.

6. No Sky performance has been documented to be physiologically suspicious by sports scientists examining power outputs during the last 2 Tours.

almost forgot: Wiggins won the Tour because it had over 100km of ITT, few real mountain finishes, and Schleck and Contador did not participate.

 

[JRanton]

Vaughters has admitted himself that Garmin had nothing to do with Wiggins' transformation in 2009. Wiggins worked with Rod Ellingworth and Nigel Mitchell, both British Cycling employees at the time and both Sky employees from 2010 onwards. Not that I think all of the other riders on Garmin have been clean but lets get the facts right.

Rob ''50%'' Hayles says hi btw. And then there's David Millar. Very good friends with a certain Sir Dave Brailsford who was with Millar on the night of his arrest.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

The 10% reduction in power outputs over the last few years

Prove it.

A good start might be to compare Toussuire in -06 vs -12 and Peyresourde in -07 vs -12.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

"I remember a guy who came to cycling late, turned pro very late in fact, and spent the first few years of his career bouncing around small teams, not doing many big races or doing too much of note. Those races where he did perform well, however, had a pretty common thread running through them: big, long mountains. He was good at riding them. He did eventually get onto a decent sized team, and posted some good results in short stage races, but he was already 30 and so he was rather overlooked by larger teams as a prospect.

Then there was a big doping bust, and several of his peers and those who had previously been beating him were shown to be doping. Cycling, so we were told, cleaned up its act. And this we have found, thanks to the Reasoned Decision, to have been true. With a number of the people who'd been holding him down now suspended or jettisoned from their teams, he got a ride at a bigger team than he had previously been able to ride for, and that would give him a chance to ride Grand Tours for the first time. And, what we discovered was: he was good at them! His natural climbing talent that had shone through despite competing consistently against dopers was now allayed with an ability to recover that, now that cycling was cleaning up his act, was able to compete on a level playing field at last. Finally, at the very end of his peak years, he was going to be able to make it to the top!

Of course, things got even better after that. Performing so well in a major race now that the opposition was of course clean meant that the team, which had of course been shorn of all those evil nasty dopers, could now focus around this champion rider, enabling him to give the best possible attempt at a Grand Tour win. For two more years he toiled, with injuries derailing his shots at victory. But then, the unthinkable happened! A parcours well suited to him in the biggest race of his season! A parcours well suited to him along with a weak field of opposition, with the top men from the previous year's race all absent! A once in a lifetime opportunity, his men mobilized all their meagre resources towards this one goal.

However, it was not to be, and there was to be heartbreak at the last. Where Sky's resources could turn such a situation into a comfortable, dominant, easy victory, our unassuming, beloved hero did not have the same support to call on, and they fell at the last hurdle, despite throwing everything there was to throw onto the line. The tragedy of the man as he crossed the finishing line was that he was simultaneously taking in his greatest triumph and being subjected to his biggest failure. The era of clean cycling could take him far, but it couldn't take him all the way. He needed more. The story has a bitter end."

A passage extracted from the book "People Whose Transformations Were Less Shocking Than Those At Team Sky: A Collection of Short Stories" by Libertine Seguros.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

5. What is often overlooked. The 10% reduction in power outputs over the last few years means new riders will emerge as previously dominant doped riders are no longer competitive without doping - Basso is a prime example. Under this scenario, it would be predicted that riders such as Froome would emerge.

So what you're saying is, the entire péloton except Chris Froome doped en masse until August 2011, and then every single rider became clean en masse as well?

Also, if the péloton cleans up, the advantages of doping become more obvious. In 1998 there were 10-15 Riccardo Riccòs wearing out their brake pads on the switchbacks of Alpe d'Huez. In 2008 - far from the cleanest Tour in living memory - he stood out and looked ridiculous. Kohl looked way less ridiculous in the Tour than Sella and Riccò did in the Giro, but he was still doping. You see, the amount of doping that would turn you into Bjarne Riis isn't necessary now. The péloton hasn't stopped doping, but the amounts you can get away with are much, much less. An amount of dope that would turn a mediocre cyclist into a decent domestique in 1998 might be enough dope to turn you into a GC podium rider in 2013. The results improve as the péloton becomes cleaner, but it absolutely categorically does NOT mean that those riders whose results improved as the most egregious dopers slowed down were necessarily clean.

Disagree? Next time you're in Vienna, pop down Triesterstraße. There's a big bike shop there, have a look around. Ask for Bernhard, if he's there. He's usually happy to talk to customers.

 

[mastersracer]

Prove it.

A good start might be to compare Toussuire in -06 vs -12 and Peyresourde in -07 vs -12.

the only way to make sense of Vayer's 'numbers' is to divide by 0...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's easy.

I appreciate that you put some effort in to addressing these points, but its more simplistic than easy.

1. Wiggins' performance at the 2012 Tour is consistent with his performances going back to 2004 according to a critical power plot.

Where is this critical power plot? He finished his first GT in 05 in 123rd position.

2. Wiggin's 2009 Tour performance was the result of his first year dedicated entirely to the road following his decision to leave the track after the 2008 Olympics. It took place on a team widely regarded to be the best case for clean cycling. If Wiggins' 2012 Tour performance was doped, then one is committed to his 2009 performance as doped as well, which means Garmin would be as dirty as Sky. Maybe, but this is a big leap.

No - if Wiggins did dope in 09 it may have been independent of Garmin (or in 12 independent of Sky) - this is just a strawman.

3. Sky's marginal gains approach utilizes plausible incremental advances in training, equipment, and management.

.....And doctors like Leinders.

And there is nothing particularly unique in Skys approach- but even accepting 'marginal gains' it should only only yield marginal increases.

4. Sky is more disciplined and structured. Nibali regrets not going to Sky because he realizes it is the best team. Their approach comes out of British Cycling, which has a proven record of success and has never had a rider implicated in doping.

I believe track is slightly better than road whn it comes to PEDs.
But even still BC had Rob Hayles had a +50% HCT and Neil Campbell was banned in 2000.

5. What is often overlooked. The 10% reduction in power outputs over the last few years means new riders will emerge as previously dominant doped riders are no longer competitive without doping - Basso is a prime example. Under this scenario, it would be predicted that riders such as Froome would emerge.

Where is that published - what years?

Froome??
Taking it as is, the above actually might give some benefit to your Wiggins argument, but it does not relate to Froome IMO.

6. No Sky performance has been documented to be physiologically suspicious by sports scientists examining power outputs during the last 2 Tours.

About as relevant as "never tested positive".

almost forgot: Wiggins won the Tour because it had over 100km of ITT, few real mountain finishes, and Schleck and Contador did not participate.

It was an ideal (even unique) scenario for Wiggins to win the Tour - the question is not that though, its how he is at that pointy end in the first incidence.

 

[Froome19]

Vaughters has admitted himself that Garmin had nothing to do with Wiggins' transformation in 2009. Wiggins worked with Rod Ellingworth and Nigel Mitchell, both British Cycling employees at the time and both Sky employees from 2010 onwards. Not that I think all of the other riders on Garmin have been clean but lets get the facts right.

Rob ''50%'' Hayles says hi btw. And then there's David Millar. Very good friends with a certain Sir Dave Brailsford who was with Millar on the night of his arrest.

I would believe that Vaughters would have known if his Tour leader (true not necessarily at the beginning) was doping.

 

[mastersracer]

So what you're saying is, the entire péloton except Chris Froome doped en masse until August 2011, and then every single rider became clean en masse as well?

Also, if the péloton cleans up, the advantages of doping become more obvious. In 1998 there were 10-15 Riccardo Riccòs wearing out their brake pads on the switchbacks of Alpe d'Huez. In 2008 - far from the cleanest Tour in living memory - he stood out and looked ridiculous. Kohl looked way less ridiculous in the Tour than Sella and Riccò did in the Giro, but he was still doping. You see, the amount of doping that would turn you into Bjarne Riis isn't necessary now. The péloton hasn't stopped doping, but the amounts you can get away with are much, much less. An amount of dope that would turn a mediocre cyclist into a decent domestique in 1998 might be enough dope to turn you into a GC podium rider in 2013. The results improve as the péloton becomes cleaner, but it absolutely categorically does NOT mean that those riders whose results improved as the most egregious dopers slowed down were necessarily clean.

Disagree? Next time you're in Vienna, pop down Triesterstraße. There's a big bike shop there, have a look around. Ask for Bernhard, if he's there. He's usually happy to talk to customers.

Yes, this is obvious, but it just demonstrates that Froome's performance cannot be taken as evidence of doping. Kohl tested positive and his manager was arrested. Performance alone isn't evidence. But, look at how these threads are full of accusations against Froome based on nothing but performance.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Yes, this is obvious, but it just demonstrates that Froome's performance cannot be taken as evidence of doping. Kohl tested positive and his manager was arrested. Performance alone isn't evidence. But, look at how these threads are full of accusations against Froome based on nothing but performance.

Did you read my little story above? About the poor, beleaguered rider who had struggled in the minor leagues? And then when all the dopers were thrown out, he was able to compete?

Wouldn't that have indicated clean riding?

His transformation had NOTHING, NOTHING AT ALL, on Froome's. If Froome's reinvention is the result of the péloton cleaning itself up, it begs three major questions.
1) Why was Froome's reinvention so sudden? Did the whole péloton suddenly go Cold Turkey in week 1 of the Vuelta that year?
2) Why have so few other riders shown the same kind of drastic improvements? Was every single rider - other than Froome - doping until that point? And then all stopped within a few weeks of each other?
3) Why hasn't everybody been jumping - as they should - to defend the honour of Juan José Cobo? He's never tested positive, never been named in a bust, had a medical reason for his poor performance in the years and months ahead of that Vuelta.

 

[sniper]

I would believe that Vaughters would have known if his Tour leader (true not necessarily at the beginning) was doping.

He may not have cared too much about doping after having corroborated that Wiggins blood profile was within the limits of the passport.

 

[bobbins]

FFS, Sky aren't winning because they have a fancy bus, chef, special jerseys or because they warm down on a turbo trainer.

Sky aren't winning because of marginal gains because every team does similar things.

It concerns me that Sky and Dave B have a win at all costs mentality and having both the UCI and BC in their pockets must make short cuts tempting! Especially after their less than stellar first season.

 

[Froome19]

He may not have cared too much about doping after having corroborated that Wiggins blood profile was within the limits of the passport.

I would think that Vaughters whole team would go bust if one rider is caught, the whole basis the team was built on would be undermined. It really wouldn't be worth the risk would it? Whatever the chance of Bradley being caught.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Yes, this is obvious, but it just demonstrates that Froome's performance cannot be taken as evidence of doping.

How about his improvement? Give or take 30% is a sign of what?

 

[ferryman]

It's easy.

2. Wiggin's 2009 Tour performance was the result of his first year dedicated entirely to the road following his decision to leave the track after the 2008 Olympics.

Which were in August 2008 and it has been well documented that he went on the bender of benders afterwards for months. I'm sure it will be out there somewhere exactly when he buckled down for the 2009 season.

But given the facts he had only ever been a 120-130 finisher in any of the GTs he did previously and couldn't climb for toffee, that he had token road miles in his legs in 2008, was totally focussed on track in 2008, what he did in those, let's be generous, 8 months after the Olympics is simply beyond belief. But I am sure you are going to explain differently. Please take your time and make it easy for me to understand.

Bearing in mind all your other points of proof have already been ripped.