Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[martinvickers]

You really should look better vickers.

Really, I think you should.

Paris Nice: Talansky attacks 3 times, 3 times Porte JUMPS on his wheel [= a lot of matches for Porte normally] and then is able to make his attack stick.

Simply catching the wheel is not an attack. It never has been. And several of these 'jumps' were actually reeling in, if you actually watch the bthing.

Catalunya: Wiggins attacks from 1 K out till 400 metres from the finishline, a huge match we might say, Quintana/Valverde/Rodriguez attack and who is on Valverdes wheel at the finishline? Mountainsprinter Wiggo?

you see, this is what stands out as showing you don't know that much. It was BLINDINGLY obvious that Wiggins had to TT himself back to valverde; not a jump, not an 'attack'. It was equally obvious that Valverde's legs started to give with 50 to go.

Criterium International: Froome attacks, gets to Tchopp, paddles down and then SPRINTS away
Porte idem dito, sprints away from van Garderen, comes to the back of the Mollema group and has another SPRINT match.

Excuse me, i'm sorry, Porte more or less went straight past. That's just not accurate represetnation of what happened.

A lot of extra matches vickers.

But, let us not look at the facts. We just do not like Sky.

Are you saying this isn't true? Really? Come on, pull the other one, it plays Land of Hope and Glory.

 

[Ferminal]

Wonder if I can get money on Andrey Zeits for the Vuelta.

 

[BYOP88]

this is a good example of the facile, irrational analyses taking place by Sky haters. Froome was part of a 12-man 160km breakaway in mid-30's temperatures on that stage, which went over 5 climbs. He jumps on the last climb, fragments the break, and then cracks. He's clearly over-geared, as many riders were not properly geared for the ramps on the final. He ends up 6th on the stage. That's a flash of potential, pure and simple.

I guess many here have never tried to identify potential in an athlete. Froome ended up 7th in young rider GC on a small team and had virtually no professional exposure prior to 2008 or developmental experience of most riders. Not sure why the fact that he required a few years of development and experience is such a mysterious phenomenon. It's exactly what you'd expect would be required to develop a rider like that.

Young rider GC, doesn't mean anything. Look at some people who've won the white jersey at the TdF; Salmon and Karpets how many GT wins do they have? Also when guys like Guido Trentin and Niermann can come 2nd and 3rd in the 2000 White jersey comp. hardly a sign of future GT dominance.

 

[xcleigh]

So if the Clinic was right about LA and all their hangers on. Right about doping for over a decade. Why now, all of a sudden, when a new US Postal has emerged, mirroring the play book LA and Bruyneel fashioned, even calling themselves the same thing and with their team leader praising LA no less in the same year he is proven to be a doping lying sycophant, are the Clinic wrong? What percentage chance do you think the Clinic has this wrong about Sky? Or any big name rider who is winning lots? Face it, historically numbers are against them being clean.

If I flip a coin and it lands heads 50 times, what are the odds the next flip will be a tail based on the previous odds? About the same as knowing who is doping based on previous historical precendence? Unfortunately no one knows one way or the other at the moment who is doping. It's great that the Clinic are switched on to rooting out doping but just because you've been proved correct in the past on your suspicions doesn't always lead to knowing for sure the same situation will lead to the same outcome. However as you say, time will tell. If SKY are found to be doping then good riddance but at the moment I'm really not sure weither way.

 

[Cimber]

If I flip a coin and it lands heads 50 times, what are the odds the next flip will be a tail based on the previous odds? About the same as knowing who is doping based on previous historical precendence? Unfortunately no one knows one way or the other at the moment who is doping. It's great that the Clinic are switched on to rooting out doping but just because you've been proved correct in the past on your suspicions doesn't always lead to knowing for sure the same situation will lead to the same outcome. However as you say, time will tell. If SKY are found to be doping then good riddance but at the moment I'm really not sure weither way.

One thing is flipping a coin. Another is making informed evaluations based on a lot of emperical evidence. Thats how most informed decisions are made. But you are right that we 100% garauntee that we are right.

 

[the sceptic]

this is a good example of the facile, irrational analyses taking place by Sky haters. Froome was part of a 12-man 160km breakaway in mid-30's temperatures on that stage, which went over 5 climbs. He jumps on the last climb, fragments the break, and then cracks. He's clearly over-geared, as many riders were not properly geared for the ramps on the final. He ends up 6th on the stage. That's a flash of potential, pure and simple.

I guess many here have never tried to identify potential in an athlete. Froome ended up 7th in young rider GC on a small team and had virtually no professional exposure prior to 2008 or developmental experience of most riders. Not sure why the fact that he required a few years of development and experience is such a mysterious phenomenon. It's exactly what you'd expect would be required to develop a rider like that.

Yeah he managed to be less than 1 hour behind Kevin Seeldrayers. Im sure you wrote peer reviewed papers back then where you predicted his future GT dominance

How many young riders develop into riders that can ride on the peak of human physiology? 1 out of 1000? As a scientist, dont you think its an amazing coincidence that sky happens to develop 3 riders from relative obscurity into world beaters? I mean, from a statistical point of view, that seems incredibly unlikely.

 

[mastersracer]

Yeah he managed to be less than 1 hour behind Kevin Seeldrayers. Im sure you wrote peer reviewed papers back then where you predicted his future GT dominance

How many young riders develop into riders that can ride on the peak of human physiology? 1 out of 1000? As a scientist, dont you think its an amazing coincidence that sky happens to develop 3 riders from relative obscurity into world beaters? I mean, from a statistical point of view, that seems incredibly unlikely.

Not from a team that has more than 2x the operating budget of many other teams.

The peak of human physiology is more like 6.4 watts/kg/hour. We're not seeing that....

Rider potential can't be understood without context. Some riders are clear outliers in terms of context. Phinney is one extreme: developed from an early age by the world's best coaches, access to the world's best facilities (e.g., LA velodrome), and given 100% support. Froome is the other extreme: comes from a continent with 5 riders in the peloton, developed on a small team, without the benefit of a typical developmental support and experience of a national program, and tossed into grand tours. He showed flashes of potential: solid summit finishes (e.g., 2009 Giro, stage 5). His ITT on the final stage of the 2009 Giro is a solid result. Not sure what else you'd expect someone with his developmental context would show.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Simply catching the wheel is not an attack. It never has been. And several of these 'jumps' were actually reeling in, if you actually watch the bthing.

So, you are saying 'the reeling in' is at no cost, okay. Dont know in what dimension you are but here on earth is costs a lot of power.

you see, this is what stands out as showing you don't know that much. It was BLINDINGLY obvious that Wiggins had to TT himself back to valverde; not a jump, not an 'attack'. It was equally obvious that Valverde's legs started to give with 50 to go.

That must be it vickers. You clearly did not see Wiggins go out of the saddle in the last corner? Is that TT mode for you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cGi7ZVKzeuI#t=3924s
Wiggo the mountainsprinter. But, he has trained for it...
He was on Valverdes wheel with 150 to go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cGi7ZVKzeuI#t=3954s
Or does the video ly?

Excuse me, i'm sorry, Porte more or less went straight past. That's just not accurate represetnation of what happened.

Oh, my bad, that makes is more believable. My bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=LwzfWal4kE4#t=601s
The video evidence says differently vickers, sorry.

Are you saying this isn't true? Really? Come on, pull the other one, it plays Land of Hope and Glory.

I do not like doped up robots. Didnt like Festina, didnt like Gewiss, Once, you name m. But for the skrybabies it is a great defence, they should love Millwall too. ''No one like us, we dont care''.

 

[BYOP88]

I love how Porte blows past Mollema who's finished 4th in a GT(no 13 minutes gained by being in a break for Mollema), as if it's Mollema's first time on a climb.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

this is a good example of the facile, irrational analyses taking place by Sky haters. Froome was part of a 12-man 160km breakaway in mid-30's temperatures on that stage, which went over 5 climbs. He jumps on the last climb, fragments the break, and then cracks. He's clearly over-geared, as many riders were not properly geared for the ramps on the final. He ends up 6th on the stage. That's a flash of potential, pure and simple.

I guess many here have never tried to identify potential in an athlete. Froome ended up 7th in young rider GC on a small team and had virtually no professional exposure prior to 2008 or developmental experience of most riders. Not sure why the fact that he required a few years of development and experience is such a mysterious phenomenon. It's exactly what you'd expect would be required to develop a rider like that.

So, the guy goes on a breakaway and THAT shows his potential?

So, on dreamteam SKY in his first season he couldnt get over the Mortirolo?

That really makes sense mastersracer.

You will grasp at every straw to step in for team clean.

When u would be fair for once you would notice that after a certain doctor entered team clean superdawg went ballistic.

 

[Lanark]

I love how Porte blows past Mollema who's finished 4th in a GT(no 13 minutes gained by being in a break for Mollema), as if it's Mollema's first time on a climb.

He didn't just finished 4th that Vuelta, he could match Froome and Wiggins on some of the big mountain top finishes (here and here). Now though Wiggins and Froome have catapulted to another level entirely, and that's not even talking about Richie Rich. Makes you wonder what happened that a guy that could match or come close to Wiggins and Froome just 18 months ago now looks like an amateur.

 

[BYOP88]

He didn't just finished 4th that Vuelta, he could match Froome and Wiggins on some of the big mountain top finishes (here and here). Now though Wiggins and Froome have catapulted to another level entirely, and that's not even talking about Richie Rich. Makes you wonder what happened that a guy that could match or come close to Wiggins and Froome just 18 months ago now looks like an amateur.

Mollema has obviously become a lazy son of a gun. Blanco should get him on the track and do a few IP's. Also in 2011 I guess Froome had his illness, so probably couldn't go at full power!

 

[DirtyWorks]

Funny thing though is Team Sky / Wiggins are not really winning the British public over, who largely just don't care. Unlike USA going nuts for Armstromg and the TDF.

Interesting that you see it that way. I don't know either way, that's for sure.

My crackpot theory is the winning national team formula is what Hein and Pat are using to "grow" cycling. As always "growth in cycling" means more viewers. Can you think of a better way to attract more viewers?

Note well, the Tour of Britain is passing from a domestic promoter who appears to have done a great job growing the event it to ASO. It's all part of "growing" cycling.

 

[martinvickers]

So, you are saying 'the reeling in' is at no cost, okay. Dont know in what dimension you are but here on earth is costs a lot of power.

If I'd meant it, I'd have said it. My point was quite clear and quite finite. Please stop arguing with phantoms, address what i write, not what you'd wish I write. As in see below.

That must be it vickers. You clearly did not see Wiggins go out of the saddle in the last corner? Is that TT mode for you?

I'm sorry, but yes - it's perfectly standard for a mountain TT. You've never seen a good TTer out of the saddle in a final push? what do you want me to say? It doesn't happen?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cGi7ZVKzeuI#t=3924s
Wiggo the mountainsprinter. But, he has trained for it...
He was on Valverdes wheel with 150 to go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cGi7ZVKzeuI#t=3954s
Or does the video ly?

Now this is my bad. I meant to type 150, I typed 50. Silly mistake, and mea culpa. I can't prove it was a typo, just have to ak you to take my word for it. that's up to you.

Would you deny my main point though, that at 150, the Valverde legs seems to go?

Oh, my bad, that makes is more believable. My bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=LwzfWal4kE4#t=601s
The video evidence says differently vickers, sorry.

He slipstreamed for all of four, five seconds! Sweet lord, come on!

Just amazes me two people can watch the same race and see different things....

I do not like doped up robots. Didnt like Festina, didnt like Gewiss, Once, you name m. But for the skrybabies it is a great defence, they should love Millwall too. ''No one like us, we dont care''.

See, which is the bit you don't like - the dope, or the robotics?
And do you understand they aren't one and the same?

 

[dirkvijf]

watching the third race in criterium yesterday gave me a bad taste in my mouth...

We know nothing for sure, but I am going with Occam's razor on this one.

We all have seen it before.....

 

[ANCrider]

.

So if the Clinic was right about LA and all their hangers on. Right about doping for over a decade. Why now, all of a sudden, when a new US Postal has emerged, mirroring the play book LA and Bruyneel fashioned, even calling themselves the same thing and with their team leader praising LA no less in the same year he is proven to be a doping lying sycophant, are the Clinic wrong? What percentage chance do you think the Clinic has this wrong about Sky? Or any big name rider who is winning lots? Face it, historically numbers are against them being clean.

In the USPS era you or anyone could have pointed the finger at ANY team in the pro peloton and you'd have been right.

So much for the amazing powers of perception of 'The Clinic'. Do bears sh*t in the woods?

You're facing the greatest beast of all...the times. Because time is the great equaliser. If LA couldn't escape, Sky won't. It will come out. In Time.

Possibly. If they aren't doping clearly there will be nothing to come out. If they are it is not a foregone conclusion that it will come out, more teams and riders have got away with doping in the past than have been caught.

THE big difference between USPS and Sky is that almost immediately post 99 win there were detailed rumours. Detailed. Not mere internet warrior speculation but detailed knowledge. That is why Walsh knew he was on to a winner.

 

[pmcg76]

In the USPS era you or anyone could have pointed the finger at ANY team in the pro peloton and you'd have been right.

So much for the amazing powers of perception of 'The Clinic'. Do bears sh*t in the woods?



Possibly. If they aren't doping clearly there will be nothing to come out. If they are it is not a foregone conclusion that it will come out, more teams and riders have got away with doping in the past than have been caught.

THE big difference between USPS and Sky is that almost immediately post 99 win there were detailed rumours. Detailed. Not mere internet warrior speculation but detailed knowledge. That is why Walsh knew he was on to a winner.

Care to explain what these rumours were???

 

[ANCrider]

Motorcycle courier with refrigerated panniers following the team round France to name but one.

You would not believe how much I laughed about it at the time.

(of course pretty much everybody had organised supply as well)

 

[martinvickers]

Care to explain what these rumours were???

Walsh wrote about the Ferarri link in 2001. Unearthed Emma by 2003.

That's pretty early, really.

 

[MartinGT]

Interesting that you see it that way. I don't know either way, that's for sure.

My crackpot theory is the winning national team formula is what Hein and Pat are using to "grow" cycling. As always "growth in cycling" means more viewers. Can you think of a better way to attract more viewers?

Note well, the Tour of Britain is passing from a domestic promoter who appears to have done a great job growing the event it to ASO. It's all part of "growing" cycling.

Is the ASO taking it over? Last I heard was that the race was out to tender which was a shame, as like you say the domestic promoter run by ex rider Graham Jones did a cracking job.

Wiggins is loved and Sky are loved by the majority of the British public if you mention cycling. They are all towing the line of you mention doping "No they just work harder and have a more scientific approach than the others" then you get shot out of the sky and called unpatriotic if you say otherwise.

Sickening.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Wiggins is loved and Sky are loved by the majority of the British public if you mention cycling. They are all towing the line of you mention doping "No they just work harder and have a more scientific approach than the others" then you get shot out of the sky and called unpatriotic if you say otherwise.

Sickening.

Really? Most people I can think of will know Wiggins, probably won't know Sky (unless you mean pay-per-view TV) and would not even have an opinion about their approach yet alone know about 'marginal gains'.

I very much doubt the majority of the British public really even know or care about cycling.

 

[the sceptic]

Walsh wrote about the Ferarri link in 2001. Unearthed Emma by 2003.

That's pretty early, really.

Not bad, but it didnt even take that long this time to figure out that sky had a doping doctor on board.

 

[MartinGT]

Really? Most people I can think of will know Wiggins, probably won't know Sky (unless you mean pay-per-view TV) and would not even have an opinion about their approach yet alone know about 'marginal gains'.

I very much doubt the majority of the British public really even know or care about cycling.

Maybe its the lads I know then who know I love my cycling whom when I say say "Oh I see that Wiggins has done a great job"

The lads who I cycle with think sun shines out of their backsides and how dare I suggest they are on dope and how damaging it is for me to suggest such a thing.

 

[Galic Ho]

Good post.

You know i think Wiggins is the weaklest link in Sky and will likely be the one who will tell all.

We should all be hoping he flops and stuffs up at the Giro. Wiggins does not want the Giro. He wants the FIRST GT OF 2013. So if he stuffs that up, the power struggle reignites. So what does he switch to?

Le Tour. The same Tour Froome has marked out and told everyone that it is his. If Wiggins had to shift to that for any reason, we will get a full blown war at Sky. Who is on Wiggins side? Rogers? Nope, he is gone. Porte and Froome are best buds. Richie would be forced to choose his friend over future personal gains that would be gifted to him with his own GT leadership if he sided with top dog Wiggins.

Make no mistake, I want all three riding the one GT. I want them at one anothers throats. I want the pressure to mount and mount and mount and mount so Wiggins has another GT like last years Tour, where he can claim, despite the ease of his win, that he wants to pack the bag in and go home. Throw in some controversy at a lab or with the gendarmerie...yeah I can see what you think happening.

Personally I do not see the press standing up to Sky. Maybe some of the French will say something in July, but that is it. British media? Will keep quiet. Walsh is the tell. Wait till the Giro and see what he says. If he says nothing then it's gonna be clear his allegiances have changed. Which means investigative journalism won't likely uncover much. So a good old fashioned scandal from within is what I will have to settle for.

 

[ANCrider]

Wiggins is loved and Sky are loved by the majority of the British public if you mention cycling. They are all towing the line of you mention doping "No they just work harder and have a more scientific approach than the others" then you get shot out of the sky and called unpatriotic if you say otherwise.

Don't know who you've been talking to. I've encountered a healthy scepticism. Most Brits I've talked with think all cyclists are dopers. Even more so after the Armstrong confession.