Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Doesn't show he was in good form though, Sanchez frequently comes top 5 in Ardennes. I only showed the stages where he performed disappointingly.

Why do you seem to think that we should take your word for it, over logical fact?

I am truly sorry for you but I am not going to discuss with someone who lies and bends statistics and then states he is in the buisiness of logical facts. You are not to be taken seriously. At least your posts are not.

The problem with this type of statement is that it implicitly assumes that form is fixed.

You think only the Sky robots can fix form? So that is the new story Wallace, everybody but team Sky were out of form?

Sanchez might have had the squits

Perhaps he just like 'asterix' was hitting the best numbers of his life.

I do not believe in 'perhaps'.

His finishing position relative to Monfort, Roche and Cancellara strongly suggests that on the day, the Cycling Gods were not on his side, irrespective of what happened in the Dauphine or at his training camps.

He had a total blow up, came across the finish a dead man, like everyone,compare that to the nosebreathers 'asterix', Froome, Wiggins and Porte.

“In the big mountain stages, you never see the (team) leader surrounded by three or four domestiques. He usually finishes the climb on his own. That wasn’t the case during the big period of EPO,” said McQuaid.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/20120629/tour-de-france-2012-preview/

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

third:
rogers performance is still normal because it is normal for him to go past guys like samu sanchez and scarponi which were giving their best to limit their losses, while free wheeling.

Rogers' performances are in the "not normal" territory throughout the Tour. However, "not normal" works both ways, and both Sanchez and Scarponi were well below their normal top climbing form, as is easily deduced by who they finished close to and behind on the stage to PDBF.

Scarponi was kn*ckered after the Giro, as indeed was Basso who finished further back. Who knows why Sanchez underperformed on the day, but it's hard to argue convincingly that he was on top form.

Thus drawing conclusions about Rogers on the PDBF from his performance relative to Scarponi and Sanchez is a waste of time.

 

[Froome19]

I am truly sorry for you but I am not going to discuss with someone who lies and bends statistics and then states he is in the buisiness of logical facts. You are not to be taken seriously. At least your posts are not.

Lying? I would believe you are lying if you are calling me lying.
I wanted to show the stages he did poorly in, true that particular one I didn't show as it was the only one he did not do poorly in. Sorry about that.

Even with that stage considered Sanchez's form was poor, do you argue with that?

Your choice not to answer me from now on, but many would call this a deflection because you can't actually answer the points posed.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

You think only the Sky robots can fix form? So that is the new story Wallace, everybody but team Sky were out of form?

Don't be stupid. Sanchez and Scarponi were out of form on the day in question. Most others amongst the group of final GC contenders were fine that day, though obviously there were a few small gaps due to the stage ending in a sprint. Even Evans was quite spritely that day and we all know how his form panned out.

Plenty of other potential GC contenders were out of form throughout the Tour because they'd ridden the Giro hard, and this is overtly very bad preparation for the Tour. Even you will surely concede this point.

None of which precludes Sky doping of course. I was responding specifically to your "suggestion" (if one can grace it with such a description) that everybody bar Sky was out of form.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Lying? I would believe you are lying if you are calling me lying.
I wanted to show the stages he did poorly in, true that particular one I didn't show as it was the only one he did not do poorly in. Sorry about that.

I guess the only 'poorly' is your assesment on riders results. Does not matter. Do not take it personally.

Don't be stupid. Sanchez and Scarponi were out of form on the day in question. Most others amongst the group of final GC contenders were fine that day, though obviously there were a few small gaps due to the stage ending in a sprint. Even Evans was quite spritely that day and we all know how his form panned out.

Plenty of other potential GC contenders were out of form throughout the Tour because they'd ridden the Giro hard, and this is overtly very bad preparation for the Tour. Even you will surely concede this point.

I am not talking about Giro riders like Scarponi/Basso, the last had a decent Tour nevertheless, Scarponi had some other 'problems'. Even an 'off form' as you state it Sanchez should have been able to follow the lead group when the Tasmanian Dope Devil is on front, at least when he was on the Saxo juice.

Guess only the TTT on the Joux Plane looked as worse as this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teKXVEQxzgo

Keep smiling while watching. 11K, 1700VAM

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Even an 'off form' as you state it Sanchez should have been able to follow the lead group when the Tasmanian Dope Devil is on front...

Why should he? He was very slow that day, as evidenced by his narrow margin of superiority over Cancellara.

Perhaps it would help if I described him as "seriously off form", for that is the logical deduction from his finishing position and time gaps against the field as a whole.

 

[Netserk]

I think this shows that Sanchez was far from good form in June/July:

 

[mattghg]

Has anyone in the over 1000 pages on this thread mentioned the time when David Walsh said he thought that Brailsford was committed to a clean programme?

https://twitter.com/DavidWalshST/status/274097075459858432

Or the report he wrote a report from within Sky's training camp, impressed with the access he was given?

 

[mastersracer]

He was part of the la Planche de Belle Filles coup d'etat but if you prefer I leave him out I will post asterixes in place nex time?Grasping I see, next try.

Power files for this stage has been analyzed ad nauseum. There were 0 'not normal' performances that day. In fact, it was one of the stages that led Vaughters to tweet about how clean the Tour had become.

 

[Netserk]

Power files for this stage has been analyzed ad nauseum. There were 0 'not normal' performances that day. In fact, it was one of the stages that led Vaughters to tweet about how clean the Tour had become.

So if Cav fx was able to ride 5.8 w/k it also wouldn't have been 'not normal'? Numbers should be seen in context, and the Sky-train Rogers-Porte-Froome-Wiggins was clearly as day light 'not normal'.

 

[Froome19]

Has anyone in the over 1000 pages on this thread mentioned the time when David Walsh said he thought that Brailsford was committed to a clean programme?

https://twitter.com/DavidWalshST/status/274097075459858432

Or the report he wrote a report from within Sky's training camp, impressed with the access he was given?

Aaah.. but Walsh.
He is about as reliable as Kimmage is. He is biased and has personal interests involved. Certainly not the amount of proof we need for this thread.

 

[mattghg]

Aaah.. but Walsh.
He is about as reliable as Kimmage is. He is biased and has personal interests involved. Certainly not the amount of proof we need for this thread.

But did it come up, was it discussed?

The guy has earned a bit more anti-doping respect than that, surely.

 

[Netserk]

But did it come up, was it discussed?

The guy has earned a bit more anti-doping respect than that, surely.

Yes it was, but a lot of things have been discussed more than just 10 times in this thread

 

[Tom375]

But did it come up, was it discussed?

The guy has earned a bit more anti-doping respect than that, surely.

It did if you back to the time when it was publicised (a couple of months ago?) You just need to check this thread and various Sky/ Walsh threads.

 

[mattghg]

Yes it was, but a lot of things have been discussed more than just 10 times in this thread

I can believe that ...

Does anyone know off the top of their head approximately what page of this thread it was discussed, then?

I think at the very least, the fact that Walsh says something like that should mean that people who think that Sky is clean shouldn't be called deluded or anything.

 

[The Hitch]

Has anyone in the over 1000 pages on this thread mentioned the time when David Walsh said he thought that Brailsford was committed to a clean programme?

Welcome back Joachim.

 

[The Hitch]

I think at the very least, the fact that Walsh says something like that should mean that people who think that Sky is clean shouldn't be called deluded or anything.

Walsh explained sky's cleanliness by saying that he thinks their success comes from buying all the best riders. This is a comment so dumb that one only needs 3 brain cells to recognize just how factually incorrect it is.

If Walsh is putting idiotic errors like that into his central argument, I dont think it is out of turn to dismiss the whole piece as amateur, regardless what kind of rep the author carries.

 

[Tom375]

I can believe that ...

Does anyone know off the top of their head approximately what page of this thread it was discussed, then?

I think at the very least, the fact that Walsh says something like that should mean that people who think that Sky is clean shouldn't be called deluded or anything.

I think you might want to read this thread a bit more before making any more comments you're looking a bit like a sitting target at the moment.
You'll realise what i mean when you've read the thread..

I'd suggest you go back to about page 1100 or something also has its own thread

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=19673&highlight=walsh

 

[mastersracer]

So if Cav fx was able to ride 5.8 w/k it also wouldn't have been 'not normal'? Numbers should be seen in context, and the Sky-train Rogers-Porte-Froome-Wiggins was clearly as day light 'not normal'.

if a doped Rogers can be a multiple ITT world champion and a top-10 finisher at the Tour, a clean Rogers can pull along the peloton at 5.8 watts. 'not normal' is meaningless in this context.

 

[The Hitch]

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=19673&highlight=walsh

Nah that is not the correct thread for this discussion, just a thread where 1 poster went full ***.

 

[Tom375]

Nah that is not the correct thread for this discussion, just a thread where 1 poster went full ***.

Sorry didn't really look at it properly just know that it was given plenty of air time on the various threads, particularly this one you just need to go back to when the story was released Jan? Dec ? or search threads/posts for Walsh...
anyway nuff said..

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I think this shows that Sanchez was far from good form in June/July[/IMG]

Following that logic he was not in good form eitherin 2011?

But okay, the dig is now: the other contenders were not in good form.

Power files for this stage has been analyzed ad nauseum. There were 0 'not normal' performances that day. In fact, it was one of the stages that led Vaughters to tweet about how clean the Tour had become.

Yeah, you had a great link the other day, stating Nibali was at 5.2w/k. You never responded to that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18921784

But not everyone agrees that the upper limits of power to weight ratio should raise suspicion. Dr Auriel Forrester is a sports scientist who works for SRM. They are the company that supply the data tracking equipment to most of the teams in the Tour de France. She is more interested in the variability of a rider's performance.

"We can plot the best power a rider can produce over one second, two seconds, five seconds, two, three, four hours and you will see a logarithmic decline in their power output."

She says that using this data you can build up a clear picture of a rider's power profile. You can then compare this to a power profile for a particular stage and see whether they are riding normally.

As you can imagine, this sort of data is closely guarded by the top riders but one, Nibali, has released data for his Stage 11, on Thursday 12 July. This is the ride from Albertville to La Toussuire, which includes three stiff climbs.

Dr Forrester says his data shows that he is riding consistently. His first two climbs are done at 320 and 322 watts and the final ride is 360 watts. This means on the final climb his power to weight ratio is 5.2W/kg. "Those figures are where you expect that rider to be."

Now, since when is Nibali 70kilo?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Power files for this stage has been analyzed ad nauseum. There were 0 'not normal' performances that day. In fact, it was one of the stages that led Vaughters to tweet about how clean the Tour had become.

Also to add, no-one tested positive that day.
We know that cycling has the most comprehensive anti-doping in the history of all sport. Leading scientists who work in the UCIs state of the art facility in Swhit sir Land near France where the first to develop a test for EPO back some time ago.

Also, while I cannot remember that JV tweet, he does have an abrasive personality and is known to tweet every day saying which stage is dirty and not normal - if he did indeed tweet that something or other (not really sure what) then I think we can all agree this is beyond conclusive proof that this performance was clean.

Here is a very cheap and lazy graph to assist people
__________ the line is perfectly straight, which is entirely consistent with consistency.

 

[Netserk]

Following that logic he was not in good form eitherin 2011?

So there is no difference between 15th and 111th?

PS: For the record I agree that the show on PdBF was a product of Sky dope, but that doesn't mean that Sanchez was in great form, 'cause he wasn't

 

[mattghg]

you're looking a bit like a sitting target at the moment.

I don't care.

Thanks for the attempts to answer my question but AFAICT there's no way to search for what particular page within a thread something is mentioned. So yeah, the search forum says that 'Walsh' in mentioned SOMEWHERE in this thread ... big deal.

Anyway thanks again.