Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Libertine Seguros]

Eddie the Eagle was a British Ski Jumber from the eighties who was so out of his depth in the competion, that he was a figure of fun. Just imagine a Pole palying in the premier league

Błaszczykowski and Lewandowski could probably do alright for themselves. Dudek did for years.

On a more contentious point, Lukas Podolski's been ok.

 

[mastersracer]

Your posts are really bizzare. First of all you claim that rankings are more important than races, which no one else does, (did Rodriguez get any awards for cyclist of the year last year?).

I mean really. Winning the world Tour is bigger than winning the Tour de France?
So everyone unjustifiably went after Lance after all those years because he was never the number 1 ranked rider.


Then having put all the emphasis on end of season rankings you declare that Sky are unjustly picked on because Wiggins did not win the rider rankings and Britain did not win the Nation rankings.

Yet you deliberately leave out the 3rd of the 3 ranking systems - the Team one.
Which Sky did win very comfortably. Funny that eh. Must have forgotten about it.
How convenient that according to you only the things Sky didnt win matter




See, you come on here claiming to be a top scientist offering scientific expertise on biology.

And yet you have no problem throwing out absolute amateur hour pscyhological analysis of posters based on very vague ideas of what type of people they might be.

You totally ignore challenges made to your theories, and refuse to even look at the arguments against your side, instead opting to dissmiss people who present these alternative arguments as "conspiracy theorists" and offer pscychatric explanations about what flaws they must have to disagree with you on issues.

You then continue to make the same arguments without addressing the challenges made against them.

You also, rather than reach conclusions based on facts, are willing to mould facts to suit pre chosen conclusions, and pretty spectacularly at that.

Thats why i laughed at the idea you were an expert a few days ago.

The only scientists ive ever come accross with anything like these character traits are the ones got their degrees from Jerry Falwells Liberty University claiming that dinosaurs and humans lived together a few thousand years ago.

And even they show far more willingness to engage in debates with opposite viewpoints than dismiss them as jealous conspiracy theorists.

I have addressed every argument directed at me, including your latest, rather petty ones, regarding Nibali, Schleck, and the white jersey. What argument directed at me haven't I addressed?

It is obvious that the accusations against Sky are non-proportional on these forums. There are teams up to their ears in scandal, dubious histories, dubious directors, dubious riders (Saxo Bank and Katusha to name just two), but nary a word about them. In contrast, the only thing brought against Sky is their winning and links to Leinders, now severed. If a link to a dodgy doctor is sufficient condition for guilt, then every team would be guilty.

My position is perfectly consistent with the literature on judgment and decision-making, namely that most judgments are based on an intuitive emotion and is only later - in a post hoc manner - rationalized. The notion that people here are rational, non-invested arbitrators of evidence is naive. Sky-haters begin with a large prior (based on an intuitive emotion) and proceed via confirmation biases and discounting of disconfirming evidence.

Your replies - and many others - illustrate this clearly. Rather than respond in a reasonable way, you (and FGL) make personal attacks, post facile pictures, and evade any real consideration of evidence. That Sky is doping is dogma to you. Plain and simple. You have set your prior to 1 and nothing will make you revise it.

 

[del1962]

There was a Pole a few years ago playing in the premier league who was totally out of his depth. Name of rasiak.

since you're here though, maybe you missed my continuation to our discussion from yesterday

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1183688#post1183688

anything to add?

No nothing really to add, so Mollema came to cycling late, fair enough, doesn't change my opinions though


As for Poles in the epl, there are a couple of decent ones at Arsenal and Dudek was ok

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

It is obvious that the accusations against Sky are non-proportional on these forums. There are teams up to their ears in scandal, dubious histories, dubious directors, dubious riders (Saxo Bank and Katusha to name just two), but nary a word about them. In contrast, the only thing brought against Sky is their winning and links to Leinders, now severed. If a link to a dodgy doctor is sufficient condition for guilt, then every team would be guilty.

Why do you not do something with Saxo and Katusha? Go to those threads and go nuts. Maybe there you will find an audience that agrees with you.

 

[The Hitch]

Your replies - and many others - illustrate this clearly. Rather than respond in a reasonable way, you (and FGL) make personal attacks, post facile pictures, and evade any real consideration of evidence. That Sky is doping is dogma to you. Plain and simple. You have set your prior to 1 and nothing will make you revise it.

If you don't mind, would you mind showing me a copy of your psychology degree or any other evidence that explains why you think yourself qualified to make repeated psychological assessments of me and others on the internet.

Oh and what facile pictures have i posted?

But I suspect like the points about how The TDF is more important than the world tour, you

As for the rest of this post, OMG what bull****, totally dismissed by posters even in the last 10 minutes.

People in the clinic dont think Saxo is doping really? Really? Any evidence to back this up? Any evidence ot back up any of your theories.

Any responses to the point I made that the Tour de France is bigger than the World tour? You made quite a big deal about how the 1-2 TDF was not as important compared to the World Tour nation ranking.

I challenged this. You have any counter arguments?

 

[mastersracer]

Why do you not do something with Saxo and Katusha? Go to those threads and go nuts. Maybe there you will find an audience that agrees with you.

1. Because I believe Sky is actually not doping. I think their account is plausible.
2. I am interested in the psychology of Sky detractors and I'm doing informal research on Dan Sperber's argumentative theory of reasoning in online forums.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Your replies - and many others - illustrate this clearly. Rather than respond in a reasonable way, you (and FGL) make personal attacks, post facile pictures, and evade any real consideration of evidence. That Sky is doping is dogma to you. Plain and simple. You have set your prior to 1 and nothing will make you revise it.

Really master?
:

and may your self-loathing cynicism/nihilism serve you well. It must be hard living in a country that only has its past and cannot get its head around a program that actually wins anything - no wonder binge drinking is your country's #1 sport.

I know it is friday afternoon for you but your debating skills seem to fail.

I would love to debate with you on Katusha for what it is worth.

1. Because I believe Sky is actually not doping. I think their account is plausible.
2. I am interested in the psychology of Sky detractors and I'm doing informal research on Dan Sperber's argumentative theory of reasoning in online forums.

Okay, thats enough reason to ignore you, slash, take anything you put on this bord with a buckload of salt.

Very scientific I must say.

Pop art next for u?

 

[mastersracer]

If you don't mind, would you mind showing me a copy of your psychology degree or any other evidence that explains why you think yourself qualified to make repeated psychological assessments of me and others on the internet.

Oh and what facile pictures have i posted?

But I suspect like the points about how The TDF is more important than the world tour, you

As for the rest of this post, OMG what bull****, totally dismissed by posters even in the last 10 minutes.

People in the clinic dont think Saxo is doping really? Really? Any evidence to back this up? Any evidence ot back up any of your theories.

Any responses to the point I made that the Tour de France is bigger than the World tour? You made quite a big deal about how the 1-2 TDF was not as important compared to the World Tour nation ranking.

I challenged this. You have any counter arguments?

You need to read what I said: I did not say the world tour ranking was more important than the Tour de France. I said there is proportionally much less accusation toward Purito despite the fact that doing so would be like shooting fish in a barrel, all the way from his start at Once to his 2012 season highlights of dropping Froome and Contador at the Vuelta to being on a team whose license was rejected due to links to doping.

I did not say people don't believe Saxo isn't doping. I said they do not discuss it in any manner of proportionality to that of Sky.

FGL - just saw your latest post - more ad hominen, thanks for the data!

 

[BYOP88]

it's the sociological account - considering there is no real evidence regarding Sky - certainly nothing that would explain why they are so singled out on these forums (they did not even have the world #1 rider on their team last year and Britain was not the top nation in cycling).

1. British self-loathing
2. Continental antipathy for Britain - hatred of Britain for their perceived superiority, as typified in their opt out of the Euro.

As I've said all along, it's post hoc rationalization for irrational dislike of Sky.

Ok I'm not British, my avatar should give you a hint where I'm from. I disliked USPS/Discovery because they were cheating. I dislike Sky not because I'm anti Britain, but because they're playing the same game as USPS but all year, at least USPS only had the nerve to destroy the field in (almost)2 races a year(Dauphine and TdF).

When Sky started, they said, no dopers/anyone with a link to a dodgy past will have a place on the roster/staff. Yet they hire Yates, Bobby J, Barry, Rogers, Dr Leinders and a few others. Doesn't that negate their 'no dopers' policy?

But then again Dave Brailsford knows if someone dopes or not, after all like Johan B he can tell by looking into the eyes of a rider. http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...d-defends-hayles-after-failed-blood-test.html

Just a question if Froome was Greek/not riding as a british rider would you be defending him?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

You need to read what I said: I did not say the world tour ranking was more important than the Tour de France. I said there is proportionally much less accusation toward Purito despite the fact that doing so would be like shooting fish in a barrel, all the way from his start at Once to his 2012 season highlights of dropping Froome and Contador at the Vuelta to being on a team whose license was rejected due to links to doping.

I did not say people don't believe Saxo isn't doping. I said they do not discuss it in any manner of proportionality to that of Sky.

FGL - just saw your latest post - more ad hominen, thanks for the data!

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=12121&highlight=katusha

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=17921&highlight=saxo

Ur welcome.

 

[peloton]

Has this been posted here? Very interesting

https://www.youtube.com/embed/2MRvw1vSivM

 

[Le Baroudeur]

1. Because I believe Sky is actually not doping. I think their account is plausible.
2. I am interested in the psychology of Sky detractors and I'm doing informal research on Dan Sperber's argumentative theory of reasoning in online forums.

Can I suggest you include your own mussing in your study?

I often see you taking poorly informed pops at Saxo yet blindly defending Sky, yet despite the fact that Saxo has been arround far longer, Sky has stronger links to employing doping doctors, riders, and DS's than Saxo. Look at the actual results, nature of the wins, do the math, cut the hypocracy and xenophobic insults, and stick to defending your beloved patriotic symbols rather than taking uniformed cheep shots as distractions that don't contribute to the subject at hand. There are some severly irational posters in this section and you don't look out of place amoung them.

 

[pmcg76]

I have addressed every argument directed at me, including your latest, rather petty ones, regarding Nibali, Schleck, and the white jersey. What argument directed at me haven't I addressed?

It is obvious that the accusations against Sky are non-proportional on these forums. There are teams up to their ears in scandal, dubious histories, dubious directors, dubious riders (Saxo Bank and Katusha to name just two), but nary a word about them. In contrast, the only thing brought against Sky is their winning and links to Leinders, now severed. If a link to a dodgy doctor is sufficient condition for guilt, then every team would be guilty.

My position is perfectly consistent with the literature on judgment and decision-making, namely that most judgments are based on an intuitive emotion and is only later - in a post hoc manner - rationalized. The notion that people here are rational, non-invested arbitrators of evidence is naive. Sky-haters begin with a large prior (based on an intuitive emotion) and proceed via confirmation biases and discounting of disconfirming evidence.

Your replies - and many others - illustrate this clearly. Rather than respond in a reasonable way, you (and FGL) make personal attacks, post facile pictures, and evade any real consideration of evidence. That Sky is doping is dogma to you. Plain and simple. You have set your prior to 1 and nothing will make you revise it.

I think the obvious difference between this SKY thread and threads concerning Saxo/Katusha or most other teams is that there are generally not many people defending the likes of said teams in comparison to SKY. When others team's have fan's pulling monkeys out of their *** to explain things like the Froome transformation, then we can talk.

As others have pointed out countless times, it is also to do with SKY's stated no dopers policy which they have contravened numerous times. They put themselves on the pedestal which has proven to be faulty.

Finally as others have pointed out again, SKY are killing teams like Movistar, Saxo Bank and Katusha whom you think there should be more talk about regards doping but at the same time claim SKY are clean. Do you see the disconnect there??

SKY have two guys Wiggins and Froome who have gone from pack filler to Tour winners/contenders almost overnight. What other teams have or had riders transform like that??

All your anti-British paranoia is just nonsense. Before SKY started killing everyone, Radioshack were the team to hate by the exact same posters but now that Lance and his cronies have been busted and the others are fading fast, of course there will be less talk about them. The team crushing things at the moment are SKY.

BTW, I don't think I have ever once claimed SKY are doping. In general I try not to make such claims about anybody but I do have suspicions based on numerous things and right now SKY look very more suspicious than most.

 

[doperhopper]

soorrry gentlemen, I just could not resist, hope the research results will be published

1. Because I believe LANCE is actually not doping. I think their account is plausible.
2. I am interested in the psychology of LANCE detractors and I'm doing informal research on Dan Sperber's argumentative theory of reasoning in online forums.

 

[willbick]

I think the obvious difference between this SKY thread and threads concerning Saxo/Katusha or most other teams is that there are generally not many people defending the likes of said teams in comparison to SKY. When others team's have fan's pulling monkeys out of their *** to explain things like the Froome transformation, then we can talk.

As others have pointed out countless times, it is also to do with SKY's stated no dopers policy which they have contravened numerous times. They put themselves on the pedestal which has proven to be faulty.

Finally as others have pointed out again, SKY are killing teams like Movistar, Saxo Bank and Katusha whom you think there should be more talk about regards doping but at the same time claim SKY are clean. Do you see the disconnect there??

SKY have two guys Wiggins and Froome who have gone from pack filler to Tour winners/contenders almost overnight. What other teams have or had riders transform like that??

All your anti-British paranoia is just nonsense. Before SKY started killing everyone, Radioshack were the team to hate by the exact same posters but now that Lance and his cronies have been busted and the others are fading fast, of course there will be less talk about them. The team crushing things at the moment are SKY.

BTW, I don't think I have ever once claimed SKY are doping. In general I try not to make such claims about anybody but I do have suspicions based on numerous things and right now SKY look very more suspicious than most.

Wiggins went from pack filler to tour winner overnight? Really?!

 

[mastersracer]

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=12121&highlight=katusha

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=17921&highlight=saxo

Ur welcome.

2 threads, a total of 48 posts compared to almost 17,000 posts in this thread alone. Proportional?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

1. Because I believe Sky is actually not doping. I think their account is plausible.
2. I am interested in the psychology of Sky detractors and I'm doing informal research on Dan Sperber's argumentative theory of reasoning in online forums.

Are Sky detractors really a valuable enough data set to study? Besides, what I've seen so far today includes you making accusations at these detractors making implicit assumptions that they are based on ham-fisted patriotic/nationalist arguments. Comments like that are clearly designed to provoke a reaction because they accuse detractors of not being capable of having reached their conclusion via rational means. Provoking a negative reaction is, to my mind, not reasoning. It is quite smart in that it does allow you to group your target audience (Sky detractors, which range from conspiracy theorists to smart people who've come to a rational conclusion based upon the weight of circumstantial evidence and based on the history of the sport, i.e. past discoveries inform present understanding) all together, which enables you to throw your accusations at the whole group and, knowing the responses will likely be that they uniformly reject your provocative hypothesis, enables you to confirm your theory that they're all the same because the result was as you expected.

Personally, I've been around enough internet forums also to know that when arguments flare up, it's also a common bait-and-switch by those who have caused or been privy to much friction on the boards to claim either
a) it was all a work, I've been playing a character, just to see the reaction I get
b) it was all a work, I'm doing a social experiment, I'm really much smarter than you guys and I'm conditioning your responses and you're making my points for me, I just never mentioned it before

You could be legit. But, based on my own experience of internet forums, I find this to be extremely appropriate for this Sky thread. After all, Team Sky could be legit, but there's many years of our experience of seeing everything that ends up this way eventually being shown to be the result of doping that we find the whole thing very hard to swallow. Similarly, your academic claims involving 'data' and 'informal research' on internet forum behaviour are pretty hard to swallow when we've many years of experience of seeing characters make claims like that and turn out to just be regular old posters who've backed themselves into a corner.

 

[hrotha]

2 threads, a total of 48 posts compared to almost 17,000 posts in this thread alone. Proportional?

If you read those threads you'll notice there's no one making hundreds of posts to defend either team. Consensus was reached the moment the OP was posted.

Of course this has been pointed out countless times and you just choose to ignore it.

 

[BYOP88]

soorrry gentlemen, I just could not resist, hope the research results will be published

1. Because I believe LANCE is actually not doping. I think their account is plausible.
2. I am interested in the psychology of LANCE detractors and I'm doing informal research on Dan Sperber's argumentative theory of reasoning in online forums.

The good old days.

 

[mastersracer]

If you read those threads you'll notice there's no one making hundreds of posts to defend either team. Consensus was reached the moment the OP was posted.

Of course this has been pointed out countless times and you just choose to ignore it.

yes, I realize that, but it is just the point that's interesting from the perspective of Sperber's argumentative theory of reasoning. What is interesting is the need to rebut Sky defenders - why people are so invested in their position. Why anyone should care that an anonymous poster on an Internet forum believes Sky is clean is interesting.

 

[hrotha]

yes, I realize that, but it is just the point that's interesting from the perspective of Sperber's argumentative theory of reasoning. What is interesting is the need to rebut Sky defenders - why people are so invested in their position. Why anyone should care that an anonymous poster on an Internet forum believes Sky is clean is interesting.

That's what you're researching? That's pretty stupid.

People debate because this is a forum. About doping in cycling. What else do you think people should do?

 

[thehog]

The good old days.

The Dawg would never do that to his body. Not after what he has been through.

After a debilitating blood dieaese do you think he'd blood dope? No way!

 

[BYOP88]

yes, I realize that, but it is just the point that's interesting from the perspective of Sperber's argumentative theory of reasoning. What is interesting is the need to rebut Sky defenders - why people are so invested in their position. Why anyone should care that an anonymous poster on an Internet forum believes Sky is clean is interesting.

And why do you care that people think Sky are doping?

 

[Benotti69]

Are Sky detractors really a valuable enough data set to study? Besides, what I've seen so far today includes you making accusations at these detractors making implicit assumptions that they are based on ham-fisted patriotic/nationalist arguments. Comments like that are clearly designed to provoke a reaction because they accuse detractors of not being capable of having reached their conclusion via rational means. Provoking a negative reaction is, to my mind, not reasoning. It is quite smart in that it does allow you to group your target audience (Sky detractors, which range from conspiracy theorists to smart people who've come to a rational conclusion based upon the weight of circumstantial evidence and based on the history of the sport, i.e. past discoveries inform present understanding) all together, which enables you to throw your accusations at the whole group and, knowing the responses will likely be that they uniformly reject your provocative hypothesis, enables you to confirm your theory that they're all the same because the result was as you expected.

Personally, I've been around enough internet forums also to know that when arguments flare up, it's also a common bait-and-switch by those who have caused or been privy to much friction on the boards to claim either
a) it was all a work, I've been playing a character, just to see the reaction I get
b) it was all a work, I'm doing a social experiment, I'm really much smarter than you guys and I'm conditioning your responses and you're making my points for me, I just never mentioned it before

You could be legit. But, based on my own experience of internet forums, I find this to be extremely appropriate for this Sky thread. After all, Team Sky could be legit, but there's many years of our experience of seeing everything that ends up this way eventually being shown to be the result of doping that we find the whole thing very hard to swallow. Similarly, your academic claims involving 'data' and 'informal research' on internet forum behaviour are pretty hard to swallow when we've many years of experience of seeing characters make claims like that and turn out to just be regular old posters who've backed themselves into a corner.

Such a nice way to call someone a fanboy

LS shoots and scores yet again

 

[BYOP88]

The Dawg would never do that to his body. Not after what he has been through.

After a debilitating blood dieaese do you think he'd blood dope? No way!

Dammit Hog, you've got me banged to rights there.