Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Moose McKnuckles]

Ritchie was just 1 minute 40 faster on Col d'Eze compared to last year, whoopee do.

Marginal gains.

Sky is a joke.

 

[Escarabajo]

Everyone knows what these guys are doing, just like everyone knew what US Postal was doing in 1999. That's when cycling had a chance to follow a cleaner route post-Festina, but Armstrong went full-doping. Everyone else had to follow.

I fear the same thing will happen now. After Armstrong's disgrace, cycling does have a chance again, but Sky appear to be following the same US Postal playbook and dragging the sport back into the mud.

Geert Leinders? How can a "clean" team justify hiring this guy? How can average riders suddenly become GT contenders. Foome is the poor man's Isidro Nozal, nothing more. Neither should have been anywhere near a podium at a GT.

This is what I am afraid off. I have been thinking hard about this and maybe that's what is going to happen all over again. Riders like Contador have big egos and they'll probably step up the notch that they need again to be competitive in the run of the Tour de France. Many other riders and youngsters will follow them also.

 

[blackcat]

Marginal gains.

Sky is a joke.

Sniag lanigram


/trascended

 

[JimmyFingers]

Just like....



Sky will join the list. I have no doubt that.

If they are doping, I believe they will too, and may God have mercy on their souls

As for your 'Meh', it belies your dediction to all things sky in the clinic. You pontificate that the clinic is not important but you have spent a lot of time in here in sky threads defending them. Meh, yeah right.

'Meh' was for the aggrandisement of the clinic. Yes I come here, no I don't know why, and I've actually said to myself I should come here less because it affects my enjoyment of the sport. I'm not sure why people who think everyone is doping still bothers watching, unless they have come to terms with the fact they are doping and accept it. Too many times people's opinion of whether someone is doping is down to whether they like the rider or team, evidenced by the fact yesterday caused zero discussion of Nibali and Sagan.

I see posters here firing barbs at Sky while in the road race section cheering on Nibali and Contador. That's hard to countenance. I hope you might notice although I do defend Sky, I also don't really throw around accusations for other teams or riders, because I don't have strong partisan feelings about them. I'll also defend them if I think it warrants it. I'll grant you are consistently critical of all the riders however.

I also don't like it when it gets personal here. I like bike-racing, you like bike racing, why can't we just get along?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Sniag lanigram


/trascended

"am raging snail"

"raging sin lama"

 

[JimmyFingers]

Marginal gains.

Sky is a joke.

See like this: utterly pointless and unnecessary comment betraying huge personal bias

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

See like this: utterly pointless and unnecessary comment betraying huge personal bias

Cycling fans have seen this movie before, complete with the groupies who sniff their team's chamois and fight over the dingleberries.

That's what separates fans of a particular team from fans of the sport.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I also don't like it when it gets personal here. I like bike-racing, you like bike racing, why can't we just get along?

Why would cycling fans get a long with fanbois who care more about propping up their teams than propping up the sport?

 

[del1962]

Cycling fans have seen this movie before, complete with the groupies who sniff their team's chamois and fight over the dingleberries.

That's what separates fans of a particular team from fans of the sport.

Why do you feel the need to resort to insults?

 

[JimmyFingers]

Cycling fans have seen this movie before, complete with the groupies who sniff their team's chamois and fight over the dingleberries.

That's what separates fans of a particular team from fans of the sport.

I rest my case m'lud

 

[JimmyFingers]

Why would cycling fans get a long with fanbois who care more about propping up their teams than propping up the sport?

You know nothing about me. Nothing.

 

[Galic Ho]

Would you at least admit that they are doping if anyone from Sky climbs alpe D'huez in 37 minutes?

Add 3 minutes to that time. Actually add 4. Nobody goes under 40 clean. Nobody. Not on the Alpe. Impossible. The best climber of the 80s went low 41' or just under. Tiny miniscule Columbian climber. These guys this year will be smacking on Floyd and Sastre's times if they make a go of it which is what Froome seems to be gagging to to do. He wants off the leash.

BTW Floyd and Sastre were both doping a lot for their climbs in 2006 and 2009. A lot. More than the rest were.

 

[The Hitch]

I think it's an ironic comment on the histrionics here immediately in the aftermath of the Prati di Tivo climb. You can't hold up performances like that as definitive proof of doping then not expect others to respond in kind when the same riders have a terrible day.

Performance is not proof, either way.

It is not possible for a clean rider to do say a 35 minute alpe d huez.

It is however perfectly possible for a doped rider to do a 42 minute alpe d huez.

Thats why Froomes mountain heroics do far more for the doping catergory, than not winning a stage does for the non doping catergory.

Especially since like the hog and others did on friday, some of you are totally blowing froomes loss out of proportion and acting like he had bonked and lost 10 minutes. He lost 50 seconds on a classics stage to 3 classics riders the current world number 1, the former world number 1 and the future world number 1, all working together on the flat, while froome was stuck in a mostly ineffectual group.

Either way those who did immediately make stupid predictions about froome winning by 5 minutes, are clearly idiots, polluting their own side of the debate Their stupidity does not take away from the reality of what froome has done this tirreno - something that would have been unthinkable even 20 months ago.

 

[JimmyFingers]

It is not possible for a clean rider to do say a 35 minute alpe d huez.

It is however perfectly possible for a doped rider to do a 42 minute alpe d huez.

Thats why Froomes mountain heroics do far more for the doping catergory, than not winning a stage does for the non doping catergory.

Especially since like the hog and others did on friday, some of you are totally blowing froomes loss out of proportion and acting like he had bonked and lost 10 minutes. He lost 50 seconds on a classics stage to 3 classics riders the current world number 1, the former world number 1 and the future world number 1, all working together on the flat, while froome was stuck in a mostly ineffectual group.

Either way those who did immediately make stupid predictions about froome winning by 5 minutes, are clearly idiots, polluting their own side of the debate Their stupidity does not take away from the reality of what froome has done this tirreno - something that would have been unthinkable even 20 months ago.

+1 excellent post. Chapeau

 

[mastersracer]

Why would cycling fans get a long with fanbois who care more about propping up their teams than propping up the sport?

could you let me know when Sky riders do anything suspect? So far, I see riders winning stages with power outputs that are much closer to pre-EPO 80s than the 90s. I see a team getting played by exhausting their support riders and leaving their team leader isolated and losing a minute to a rival he beat last year. I see Richie Porte beating Talansky while performing at unspectacular power outputs - not exactly the days of Armstrong and Pantani. But if it makes you feel better to make the facile comparison to USPS, go right ahead.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

+1 excellent post. Chapeau

Agreed......

 

[The Hitch]

I think if anyone road Alp D'Huez in under 35 minutes that would be evidence, however none of Froomes performances have been anywhere near that, so Jimmy don't fall for answereing a strawman argument.

What are you talking about, how is that a strawman argument?

Netserk is establishing limits. Hes trying to prove to jimmy that the - performance is never proof, argument, has limits.

That doesnt mean he is saying froome has ridden a 35 minute alpe d huez.

 

[Benotti69]

could you let me know when Sky riders do anything suspect? So far, I see riders winning stages with power outputs that are much closer to pre-EPO 80s than the 90s. I see a team getting played by exhausting their support riders and leaving their team leader isolated and losing a minute to a rival he beat last year. I see Richie Porte beating Talansky while performing at unspectacular power outputs - not exactly the days of Armstrong and Pantani. But if it makes you feel better to make the facile comparison to USPS, go right ahead.

But yet you cant see Sky dominating in manner over other talented and expensive teams in a manner similar to Mapei and USPS for example.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

could you let me know when Sky riders do anything suspect? So far, I see riders winning stages with power outputs that are much closer to pre-EPO 80s than the 90s. I see a team getting played by exhausting their support riders and leaving their team leader isolated and losing a minute to a rival he beat last year. I see Richie Porte beating Talansky while performing at unspectacular power outputs - not exactly the days of Armstrong and Pantani. But if it makes you feel better to make the facile comparison to USPS, go right ahead.

Tour de France, the ranking of the 2000s (W / kg)

1 Lance Armstrong | 2003 | 6.18 W / kg
2 Alberto Contador | 2009 | 6.17 W / kg
3 Lance Armstrong | 2004 | 6.09 W / kg
4 Lance Armstrong | 2005 | 6.09 W / kg
5 Lance Armstrong | 2001 | 6.07 W / kg
6 Bradley Wiggins | 2012 | 5.98 W / kg
7 Lance Armstrong | 2000 | 5.97 W / kg
8 Lance Armstrong | 2002 | 5.97 W / kg
9 Alberto Contador | 2007 | 5.92 W / kg
10 Carlos Sastre | 2008 | 5.85 W / kg
11 Alberto Contador | 2010 | 5.78 W / kg
12 Cadel Evans | 2011 | 5.68 W / kg
13 Floyd Landis | 2006 | 5.67 W / kg

 

[Benotti69]

Tour de France, the ranking of the 2000s (W / kg)

1 Lance Armstrong | 2003 | 6.18 W / kg
2 Alberto Contador | 2009 | 6.17 W / kg
3 Lance Armstrong | 2004 | 6.09 W / kg
4 Lance Armstrong | 2005 | 6.09 W / kg
5 Lance Armstrong | 2001 | 6.07 W / kg
6 Bradley Wiggins | 2012 | 5.98 W / kg
7 Lance Armstrong | 2000 | 5.97 W / kg
8 Lance Armstrong | 2002 | 5.97 W / kg
9 Alberto Contador | 2007 | 5.92 W / kg
10 Carlos Sastre | 2008 | 5.85 W / kg
11 Alberto Contador | 2010 | 5.78 W / kg
12 Cadel Evans | 2011 | 5.68 W / kg
13 Floyd Landis | 2006 | 5.67 W / kg

ooooopps.....

 

[del1962]

What are you talking about, how is that a strawman argument?

Netserk is establishing limits. Hes trying to prove to jimmy that the - performance is never proof, argument, has limits.

That doesnt mean he is saying froome has ridden a 35 minute alpe d huez.

No he is building an argument around something which Jimmy is not claiming, which makes it a strawman argument.

 

[Galic Ho]

Looks like the Sky fanbois are getting touchy.

Cycling fans have seen this movie before, complete with the groupies who sniff their team's chamois and fight over the dingleberries.

That's what separates fans of a particular team from fans of the sport.

Don't you love the part where the guy who joined the forum, complained non stop about older posters upon his arrival, whined to mods, now wants everyone to get along? Real cool guy that one. Take his stance on Nibali and Contador. Perhaps he's just trying to balance the world out in some uber warped manner? A sane person who is a fan would run away. Well most would.

To the Sky fan(s) and their defense. They've got nothing on the clowns who ain't had the nads to sign up to the Clinic. Last year on the cyclingnews facebook page, man did they get their panties in a twist when anything about Froome doping got mentioned. Or Wiggins. Or Sky in general. They howled and howled and howled. No mods on Facebook either. I think one or two took the challenge and signed up here and got owned really quickly. They left. Certain folk however are gluttons for punishment. Like Polish was. Devoted and dedicated to their cycling deity. BTW, I'm pretty sure I found Polish posting there around the USADA announcement. After his lifelong vacation. Not a happy camper. Still thinking his boy was the man, the cleanest and the greatest.

The best part is that these types of people don't get cycling or the Clinic. The Clinic guard, the elect few, want cycling clean. We know Nibali and Contador are doping. We also know there are degrees of doping. Some do more. Some go above and beyond what is needed and force others to up their regime to match them, ala Team Sky pushing the metaphorical doping envelope; a measure that has started a doping arms race. A crafted plan that is ruining cycling's chance post USADA 2012 Reasoned Decision, a chance once again like Festina to really clean the sport up. If one person or team goes full ***, the rest will copy. It's what they know and have done for so long.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

could you let me know when Sky riders do anything suspect? So far, I see riders winning stages with power outputs that are much closer to pre-EPO 80s than the 90s. I see a team getting played by exhausting their support riders and leaving their team leader isolated and losing a minute to a rival he beat last year. I see Richie Porte beating Talansky while performing at unspectacular power outputs - not exactly the days of Armstrong and Pantani. But if it makes you feel better to make the facile comparison to USPS, go right ahead.

Sky? Surely your within 'power outputs' defense extends to the whole peloton, everyone. Cycling is back at this magical state.
Does this mean every single rider is riding clean?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

That's what separates fans of a particular team from fans of the sport.

The most obvious distinctions between fans of a particular team and and fans of the sport are:

i) Fans of the sport, on the whole, consider themselves superior to fans of a particular team. This reaches its peak when the fan of the sport tells some lesser Clinic being to go away and come back when they've learnt as much about cycing as the fan of the sport does. No names, no pack-drills here, but the guy who has no fear who is named after a well-known Tour winner springs to mind.

ii) Fans of the sport, having endured 20 years of blood doping ruining their sport and spoiling their ideals are a miserable, cyncial bunch. Fans of a particular team, on the other hand, are generally more cheerful and upbeat, at least when their team is winning!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No he is building an argument around something which Jimmy is not claiming, which makes it a strawman argument.

Jimmy did claim it - Netserk brought it to its logical conclusion, which Jimmy had to admit he was wrong. By doing so it showed that if anyone was making a strawman it was Jimmy.