Dr. Maserati said:
Possibly your best single post ever, for the bolded reasons. Funny sh*t, Mas...
Possibly your best single post ever, for the bolded reasons. Funny sh*t, Mas...
thehog
BANNED
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
Cyivel said:
It's a good question.
If this was 1997 or 2002 you could go full *** and no one would say much.
Now you have to 'appear' clean.
So going full *** one has to show some 'restraint'. Hard to do in the heat of the battle.
Thus the battle plan is good. If you smash the entire field into the ground for the first 90% of the stage so they can't attack. Then you go full *** in the last 1-2km. That way you don't look overly ***. Just a little bit ***.
Basically it's full *** disguised as 'medio retardo'.
The greatest magic of this tactic is no one notices that the dom is spending more time on the front at maximum wattage than anyone in the entire field. They all comment on the winner saying he's under 6.0. The dom is punching 5.8-6.0 for 50km! Then drops off. And he's doing this day after day, after day.
Insane.
So, yes, you'll see full *** but under disguise.
The next question is... what's the point?
Cyivel said:
Gotcha.
It's about awareness of physical activity. And maybe some gear, or a pitch, or a playground.
Anyone in the UK have experience or more knowledge about this? Sounds vague enough to remind me of another yellow-clad d*uche that had a foundation.
I don't like Wigans enough as it is, please tell me this foundation is awesome...
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
- Jun 19, 2009
- 13,250
- 1
- 0
Cyivel said:
Thats weak sauce.
Rich people dont really want to do sport (unless its their tennis trainer) they prefer to buy access to the sport and the star.
And the fact that no-one is really 'aware' of his foundation shows why it fails - the hole point of a foundation is awareness, awarenss in Nike, Oaklely, basically all the swag.
"They have a lot to learn"
- Sep 29, 2012
- 12,197
- 0
- 0
Wiggins, on around 2M GBP / year, mentioned at one stage the idea of funding a women's pro team. That would have actually meant something constructive, imo. They take about 500k GBP total to run a team for 8-10 or so women.
It looks like it was just talk. Wiggle have taken up the mantle instead.
Wiggle > Wiggins.
It looks like it was just talk. Wiggle have taken up the mantle instead.
Wiggle > Wiggins.
- Jul 9, 2009
- 7,894
- 1,307
- 20,680
- Jul 9, 2009
- 7,894
- 1,307
- 20,680
Tinman said:
I think I might start my own foundation, pretty sure I could get away with whatever I wanted. At least for a while.
- Dec 23, 2011
- 691
- 0
- 9,580
Dear Wiggo said:
Some people need to look a little further than the end of their cynical nose.
http://wigglehonda.com/sponsors/
Clearly shows the BWF is a sponsor of the team. So that's that particular bit of nonsense busted. What's next?
- Nov 7, 2009
- 11,100
- 5,291
- 28,180
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
- Jun 19, 2009
- 13,250
- 1
- 0
MatParker117 said:
So,its - i will fund a womens cycling team if you give me the money?
Ok, he is learning.
- Dec 23, 2011
- 691
- 0
- 9,580
Oh yes, why are Sky winning and better than everyone else? Well, they do happen to have more money than most other teams. And, even Vaughters says they're particularly adept at recruiting the riders they need to fit into their team structure.
From his Twitter feed tonight:
Key is Sky buys guys to be workers that are outright talents. I can think of 8-9 they have that have higher earning than my #1
dont get me wrong, a precious few other teams have similar budgets, but are as good at recruiting.
I respect their model a lot. Even though I still hate the fact we lost Wiggo.
their final climb tactics are very intelligent and neuter explosive climbers. But you need 3-4 €600,000+ domestiques to make work.
No doubt I'll get abuse from the blinkered Sky haters who will always bleat on about them doping, just because they're winning. Like others have said, some things look suspicious, but each time someone brings up some "evidence" that they're doping (usually based on performance observations), it gets countered, which then releases the forum venom-spitters.
From his Twitter feed tonight:
Key is Sky buys guys to be workers that are outright talents. I can think of 8-9 they have that have higher earning than my #1
dont get me wrong, a precious few other teams have similar budgets, but are as good at recruiting.
I respect their model a lot. Even though I still hate the fact we lost Wiggo.
their final climb tactics are very intelligent and neuter explosive climbers. But you need 3-4 €600,000+ domestiques to make work.
No doubt I'll get abuse from the blinkered Sky haters who will always bleat on about them doping, just because they're winning. Like others have said, some things look suspicious, but each time someone brings up some "evidence" that they're doping (usually based on performance observations), it gets countered, which then releases the forum venom-spitters.
- Nov 7, 2009
- 11,100
- 5,291
- 28,180
- Nov 7, 2009
- 11,100
- 5,291
- 28,180
doolols said:
Thank you for reiterating the same tired stupid argument that US Postal groupies were regurgitating in the early 2000s. You're as wrong as they were. At least Postal's domestiques (Heras, Rubiera) had a modicum of palmares before they joined the team. Froome was best known for climbing sideways.
- Jul 21, 2012
- 9,860
- 3
- 0
Why is Vaughters such a sky fanboy? He should be ****ed that his own clean team is getting trashed by another clean team.
martinvickers
BANNED
- Oct 15, 2012
- 4,903
- 0
- 0
Dr. Maserati said:
Perhaps I was guilty of separating the actual doping, where I think Rabo seem to have given Armstrong/Bruyneel a good run for their money, from Lance's more general sociopathy, which of course, was without peer.
But to be honest, I wouldn't give a damn about his foundation even if he was clean as a whistle - i certainly don't give a monkey's about BWF, and my jury's till just about out on him.
I know it's boring, but i care about the sport, and about anti-doping. C'est ca.
- Sep 29, 2012
- 12,197
- 0
- 0
the sceptic said:
Been mentioned many times before... the myth he built his team on relies on Wiggins being clean (2009), it relies on the possibility of clean GT winners (Hesjedal). The second he even hints that he thinks Sky are doping he loses any credibility in defending his team of clean winners.
- Nov 7, 2009
- 11,100
- 5,291
- 28,180
- Dec 23, 2011
- 691
- 0
- 9,580
the sceptic said:
Probably because he understands the truth, and is more open-minded than the blinkered rabid Sky haters that prevail around here. According to them, no one is allowed to improve after moving to a top-line, well-funded professional team. Maybe we should just feed everyone's figures into a spreadsheet, and the riders can sit around pontificating like everyone else.
Sky riders win because:
* Sky can afford the buy the absolute best riders
* Sky have years of empirical track training techniques behind them - where techniques are used to gain fractions of a second, which mean the difference between gold medal and no medal. These techniques are used in the road Procycling team. Yeah, it's very boring, seeing riders staring at computers and listening to data being fed to them over the radio, but that's how the races are set up. It's much more fun to watch Tommy Voeckler gurning his way up hills.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 23K
-
Teams & Riders Jonas Vingegaard thread: Love in Iberia- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 10K
-
Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.- Started by Miburo
- Replies: 22K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram