Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Libertine Seguros]

2010 was a guy riding his first GT versus a guy who had been pro for longer than Porte had been focusing on the road.

It's only logical that one of them would have a lot more room for improvement than the other.

In 2012 one of them was a helper. And Nibali will probably still beat Porte ceteris parebus in just about any GT.

They do? Peraud was known as a talent for years before he turned pro. Ultimately it's individual circumstances that decide.

Nobody is doubting that Nibali was much better than Porte in 2010. The question is what is the point of comparisons between a rider who had been a pro for 5 years and the guy who raced small amateur races in Italy.

Fair enough - I always maintained Porte to be the least suspicious of the 2012 quartet. However his step up 2012-13 has raised more alarm bells and looks like being another amazing Sky story backed by this incredible science that has totally undone the work of 30 years of doping doctors.

But what about the other 3? It's the usual "each tree is explicable" formula. Placing Porte's crazy improvements on their own, you can explain them. Put them alongside everything else, and it's a lot harder. The convergence of all of these factors to enable Team Sky's wholly clean team to dominate a season (and continue to do so the following year) leaving a trail of known dopers and riders who have no more against their name than the Sky bunch (less in Rogers' case) but who are still likely to be doping trailing in their wake... it's heading towards statistical anomaly territory.

As before: Team Sky have either, in the course of a few months, shat all over the careers' work of some of the most devious, clever and cutting-edge doping docs, scientists and teams, all while employing people involved in said devious, clever and cutting-edge practices... or they couldn't beat them so they joined them.

 

[martinvickers]

Paul Kimmage at the whistleblowers event last night compared his 1986 TdF with Wiggins 2006 TdF. Stark!

Kimmage finished 2+ hours down on winner LeMond in a race with 1 rest day.

Wiggins finished 3+ hours down on Landis in a race with 2 rest days.

Both races over 4000kms long.

Walsh talked to Bobby Julich and Julich said that Sky were the 'cleanest' team he ever worked with. Whatever 'cleanest' means for a guy who rode throughout the 'dark era'.

Kimmage said that Walsh being on the inside is not going to learn anything and that he should do what he did with Armstrong, talk to people on the outside.

Ok. Pardon my french, but if this is the case, why the f*** did Kimmage get into such a f***ing hissy fit when he didn't get exactly this access? Has he not raised the point about being denied this access like , a gazillion times? And yet NOW it doesn't matter that Walsh is getting this access because Walsh'll learn nothing? Why did Kimmage want the access if he'd learn nothing. Why did he bother doing it with Garmin if he's learn nothing? Why does he believe in Vaughters' project if all that embeded time with Garmin was meaningless? Why did he bother to do it?

Hell, I actually agree with Kimmage's point, here; it was Walsh's investigative work that got the ball rolling on Armstrong - I'm a big believer in that side of Walsh's work, rather than 'embedding'.

But, I'm sorry, that is ridiculously hypocritcal for Kimmage to be making that point now. And frankly, David deserves a bit more respect for his abilities than that.

 

[del1962]

They should be talking to the guys who rode for Sky, did well and are now crap.

Also asking Julich some darn hard questions. If many others can talk, why can't he? Yates deserves some attention as well.

Either way we should sit back and enjoy it. Sky's biggest fault in their grand plan is internal errors and personalities. It's not external. Riders not getting along (we've already seen that), promises that cannot be met (too many Roosters theory) and random s****s (mechanical issues) all play a part.

Sure Wiggins had three uber strong domestiques to drop everyone bar Nibali at last years Tour on every mountain stage, but he won't have that at the Giro. And let's not forget, the Giro is harder than the Tour and one of the favourites is an Italian, who has podiumed there before. What is Wiggins best at the Giro? Nowhere near close. There is a lot of implied shadiness there that is unspoken. Do we hear anyone defending Nibali or saying he is clean? It's the same theme again...some people don't like the function of the Clinic. If they didn't defend Sky to the death, then this thread would not exist. Nobody defends the Italians. Nobody. It's accepted how they roll and they roll juiced. We warned on this thread that going ballistic doping wise simply to WIN was dumb and would be met in force. Well it looks like Nibali has taken his game up a notch and he has home turf advantage. Vincenzo does not need to beat Wiggins...it's the other way around this time.

And yes everyone should be hoping Wiggins stuffs up. It means he rides the Tour EXPECTING to win. I've been saying this since last October FFS. Having him and Froome at one anothers throats will be exceptionally entertaining. Oh but, the fans want peace! Newsflash...they hate one another! Ask their missus'es.

So who are these riders that have done worse since leaving Sky, and don't mention Rogers as he was injured during the winter so we can't tell yet.

 

[wirral]

Just looked over Froome's results for the whole of his (pro) career. What an incredible uptick between the London Surrey Cycle Classic [2011] and the Vuelta 2011.

 

[The Hitch]

Yeah right

I mean since basso. Not quite a decade but not that far off. Who in their 20's is close to Nibali from Italy?

 

[Lanark]

Just looked over Froome's results for the whole of his (pro) career. What an incredible uptick between the London Surrey Cycle Classic [2011] and the Vuelta 2011.

You have to keep in mind that all the races he started in after the London Surrey
Cycle Classic had a weak field.

 

[the sceptic]

Anatomic jock race had a strong field though

 

[Netserk]

I mean since basso. Not quite a decade but not that far off. Who in their 20's is close to Nibali from Italy?

I agree with since Basso. But his last GT win is less than 3 years ago.

Of Italian riders in their 20's: Ricco

 

[Ripper]

OK. I've said it before and I've said it again. What I can't stand is you guys making an assumption then posting it as fact. What you say about Wiggins is utter and complete crap. It is also lies at a socio-pathic level. What it does is defames people in public without proof. You're trying to do the same to me and anyone who dares oppose your prejudiced view. Go back to Hockey. I've been in this sport all my life, as a rider, as a journalist, an organiser and as a coach. I know my onions and I don't need to raise my fists. I use my brain, something - it seems that you lack along with your lack of humanity. We don't need people like you in our sport. And don't even accuse me of closing my eyes to the reality of the peloton in years gone by: As a trainee journalist all those years ago, my essay and research was about drugs in sport - and I have been putting the finger on Lance Armstrong for many years. If you speak from a basis of facts, proof and knowledge then I'll listen -but everything I've heard so far does not add up to anything more than idiotic reasoning (or the lack of reasoning).

GH posts with intensity for effect. If you don't like it so much, then ignore.

The old lack of reasoning award more easily fits the chronic Sky defenders and the whole "you must hate the sport" mentality. Funny how both remind one of pharmstrong/USPS defenders.

Right now bike racing/racers really don't get much benefit of the doubt ... and that is normal given all that has come to light.

You seem far too upset about other people's posts on Sky and Brads. I will not bother making assumptions why, but you really should start working on whatever it is that is truly bugging you.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Kirienka is alive

 

[Ripper]

Ok. Pardon my french, but if this is the case, why the f*** did Kimmage get into such a f***ing hissy fit when he didn't get exactly this access? Has he not raised the point about being denied this access like , a gazillion times? And yet NOW it doesn't matter that Walsh is getting this access because Walsh'll learn nothing? Why did Kimmage want the access if he'd learn nothing. Why did he bother doing it with Garmin if he's learn nothing? Why does he believe in Vaughters' project if all that embeded time with Garmin was meaningless? Why did he bother to do it?

Hell, I actually agree with Kimmage's point, here; it was Walsh's investigative work that got the ball rolling on Armstrong - I'm a big believer in that side of Walsh's work, rather than 'embedding'.

But, I'm sorry, that is ridiculously hypocritcal for Kimmage to be making that point now. And frankly, David deserves a bit more respect for his abilities than that.

Kimmage seems prone to hissy fits.

I'm not anti-Kimmage or Walsh (in fact, I admire a lot of what they've done), but sometimes Kimmage hurts his own cred by being a **** about things where he clearly is upset for personal reasons/other historical issues.

We're all human, I just think he might be better served by holding back on the odd occasion.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I like Sky's tactics today: our classics team are crap. Put the GT team in instead. Seems to be working well so far!!

 

[martinvickers]

Kimmage seems prone to hissy fits.

I'm not anti-Kimmage or Walsh (in fact, I admire a lot of what they've done), but sometimes Kimmage hurts his own cred by being a **** about things where he clearly is upset for personal reasons/other historical issues.

We're all human, I just think he might be better served by holding back on the odd occasion.

I made more or less exactly this point anout his recent dig at Nico Roche, and got mauled for my troubles. It just makes it so easy to turn and dismiss Paul as justbitter or upset over prrsonal crap. Much as I admire his stand on doping, much ad he does some good, I make no secret that I prefer Walsh's methods as more useful and less blinded by emotions. The often say " fire in the belly. Ice in the veins" with PK its all fire, all the time...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Theory: David Walsh never rode. Kimmage did. Walsh has never uncovered doping whilst embedded with a team, it was done via external contacts and investigation.

Kimmage being embedded would be useful - he knows how they train, what a rider looks like when they are doing dodgy stuff and disappear for inexplicable reasons for 20 minutes, 40 minutes.

I'd trust Kimmage to uncover something whilst embedded, or get a good idea at least.

Walsh, not so much.

 

[oldcrank]

Walsh is an actual journalist that will attempt to verify information, Kimmage
not so much, but they both are on the right side in most cases.

 

[Digger]

Walsh is an actual journalist that will attempt to verify information, Kimmage
not so much, but they both are on the right side in most cases.

Tell me where Kimmage hasn't verified information.

 

[Benotti69]

I made more or less exactly this point anout his recent dig at Nico Roche, and got mauled for my troubles. It just makes it so easy to turn and dismiss Paul as justbitter or upset over prrsonal crap. Much as I admire his stand on doping, much ad he does some good, I make no secret that I prefer Walsh's methods as more useful and less blinded by emotions. The often say " fire in the belly. Ice in the veins" with PK its all fire, all the time...

If you went to whistleblowers last night you would have heard and seen Kimmage is not bitter.

 

[Benotti69]

Ok. Pardon my french, but if this is the case, why the f*** did Kimmage get into such a f***ing hissy fit when he didn't get exactly this access? Has he not raised the point about being denied this access like , a gazillion times? And yet NOW it doesn't matter that Walsh is getting this access because Walsh'll learn nothing? Why did Kimmage want the access if he'd learn nothing. Why did he bother doing it with Garmin if he's learn nothing? Why does he believe in Vaughters' project if all that embeded time with Garmin was meaningless? Why did he bother to do it?

Hell, I actually agree with Kimmage's point, here; it was Walsh's investigative work that got the ball rolling on Armstrong - I'm a big believer in that side of Walsh's work, rather than 'embedding'.

But, I'm sorry, that is ridiculously hypocritcal for Kimmage to be making that point now. And frankly, David deserves a bit more respect for his abilities than that.

He was asked the question at Whistleblowers last night.

Why get angry with Kimmage? Why not get angry with Roche for singing to Riis and aligning himself with the likes of Contador and Krueziger?

CCN has failed, McQuaid will get re-elected, there will be no T&R, the dodgy docs still dope the riders and the sport will continue in the same 'vein' as it has always done. Doping is integral and as much of the sport as bikes.

Sky getting riders body weight down to pratcially 0 and no loss of power aint clean.

 

[martinvickers]

Theory: David Walsh never rode. Kimmage did. Walsh has never uncovered doping whilst embedded with a team, it was done via external contacts and investigation.

Kimmage being embedded would be useful - he knows how they train, what a rider looks like when they are doing dodgy stuff and disappear for inexplicable reasons for 20 minutes, 40 minutes.

I'd trust Kimmage to uncover something whilst embedded, or get a good idea at least.

Walsh, not so much.

1. Kimmage never 'uncovered' doping in any team apart from his own, whether imbedded or not. He certainly never uncovered any at Garmin.

2. Walsh never rode is no argument at all. If Kimmage knows so much about these little things, I'm sure he can tell Walsh over the phone, no? In fact, one could just as easily argue a 'non-rider' is less likely to just assume certain things are kosher; he'll have no pre-set ideas about what's 'normal'

3. Kimmage left the peleton in 20+ years ago; I doubt his knowledge is that up to date in that sense.

4. You're welcome to 'trust' who you like. But it comes across, again, as believing the person likely to be closest to your preconceived biases.

 

[zalacain]

Is there a transcript or video of the whistlblowers event anywhere?

 

[maltiv]

So who are these riders that have done worse since leaving Sky, and don't mention Rogers as he was injured during the winter so we can't tell yet.

Funny how 1 guy getting worse after leaving Sky results in people saying "everyone" does. In fact, there's rather a trend that they improve their results upon leaving. With the exception of Rogers, almost every guy who has left Sky has improved.

 

[Benotti69]

Is there a transcript or video of the whistlblowers event anywhere?

There is a documentary being made about it. There was a camera crew at the one last night. So it no doubt will appear sometime.

 

[martinvickers]

He was asked the question at Whistleblowers last night.

Why get angry with Kimmage?

I thought I'd just explained this? If not, read back over the Nico/Roman thread.

Why not get angry with Riche for singing to Riis and aligning himself with the likes of Contadora nd Krueziger?

He didn't 'align'. It's not politics or war - he joined a sports team - one I would MUCH rather he hadn't. But Nico has given me no reason to doubt him so far in his career. And the idea that he answers for Krueziger's past, or has some duty to discuss something he has no reason to know the details of, is twaddle squared.

CCN has failed

I know. I predicted it would, and why. Indeed, anyone who really watched the presser would have seen it coming, it took no great insight.

McQuaid will get re-elected, there will be no T&R

Quite likely. And Kimmage's fury moved the dial not a flicker. And if you think I'm happy about that, you don't have a clue. I want him to win.

But I sincerely believe that some of the recent stuff actively makes that less likely, because it undermines him in the wider discussion.

If one man was in a position to truly put McQuaid in difficulty, it was Kimmage. Also Irish, so could undermine the homer vote. Reputation burnished by complete Armstrong vindication. Seen as a completely innocent victim of the ridiculous UCi lawsuit. And he took all that, and achieved precisely ...nothing.

24 submissions were received on the subject by Cycling Ireland. 24. I assume I was one of them.

Where was Kimmage's files and evidence? Where was all the stuff that would have made it harder yet to back McQuaid?

Nowhere. Kimmage chose to yell from beyond the city wall, rather than the dirty boring work of making some alliances to get something done. And now we're stuck with the b^stard.

And You wonder why I'm frustrated.

 

[dolophonic]

Galic Ho may be from the extreme end of the spectrum, but there are a lot of people who are anti-Sky here not because they're jealous haters who hate excellence, but because we are seeing history repeating, and that history tasted like a punch to the mouth before. It's fresh enough in the memory that many of us are already recoiling from it.

As Hitch said: here we have one of the most talented individuals from one of the biggest hubs in cycling. We have them working with arguably the most notorious doping doc in the history of the sport. A GT winner. And yet this is the first time they've been able to even remotely compete with - let alone defeat - a guy who was nothing on the road and climbed with the likes of Ivan Quaranta until 2009, a guy who was nothing on the road and was in fact thrown out of a GT while lying 104th for holding onto motorbikes - while our Italian turned up at the race on short notice and finished on the podium - who suddenly turned into a monolithic beast, and now a guy who turned pro at 25, and whose biggest performances were in a race where he averaged losing 5 minutes in every mountain stage to our Italian, gaining a 13 minute headstart and finishing 5 minutes behind overall.

The number of improvements and transformations at Sky are the problem. There are lots of explicable trees... but now they've become a copse, a wood, a forest, and now we have the fricking Amazon popping up in front of us.

tic tic boom..... well put sure sums up the way things look .

 

[DirtyWorks]

Where was Kimmage's files and evidence? Where was all the stuff that would have made it harder yet to back McQuaid?

Nowhere. Kimmage chose to yell from beyond the city wall, rather than the dirty boring work of making some alliances to get something done. And now we're stuck with the b^stard.

And You wonder why I'm frustrated.

You are imagining a system that Kimmage would theoretically engage that doesn't exist inside UCI cycling.

Reading what was published about the CI vote:
-Noted somewhere was an attempt from someone associated with CCN to discuss the matter with the CI members who voted and that was rejected outright.
-The matter was not open to debate, the details of whatever transpired not shared.
It was clear to methat an open discussion was the last, desperate option, not the first or second.

What can Kimmage do if he could engage a system? What if Adolph Hitler was never born?

The UCI's system supports sponsors feeding it money, and that's about it.

I agree that a more public effort on CCN's part would have helped cement the despotic beauty of the UCI's national federations. Even then, it's maybe you and I the only ones following the federation back-and-forth that would read about it. So, the impact of any effort with CI is pretty minimal.

All that said, I agree with your intent, get in there and change some things.