Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Le Baroudeur]

Au contraire - you have no official capacity, are laden with errors and false aspersions and are contextually grossly misleading!

Such wit. A bet the post took a while to conceive.

 

[Le Baroudeur]

How? can you give an example?

First entry i checked.

Andrea Peron.

Listed as a Doper on CSC - Tiscali page. Substance abused: Caffeine.

The caffeine was contained in four painkiller tablets found during a raid, and the quantities contained were within legal limits, further, caffeine was a substance not prohibited for possesion at the time, but subject to limits of consumption, moreover, charges were initialy applied to all occupants of a room in relation to finds in the room durring the raid. He was obviously cleared of all charges.

Last but not least, Peron was not riding for CSC-Tiscalli at the time of the raid for wich no charges were pressed and no offence committed.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

First entry i checked.

Andrea Peron.

Listed as a Doper on CSC - Tiscali page. Substance abused: Caffeine.

The caffeine was contained in four painkiller tablets found during a raid, and the quantities contained were within legal limits, further, caffeine was a substance not prohibited for possesion at the time, but subject to limits of consumption, moreover, charges were initialy applied to all occupants of a room in relation to finds in the room durring the raid. He was obviously cleared of all charges.

Last but not least, Peron was not riding for CSC-Tiscalli at the time of the raid for wich no charges were pressed and no offence committed.

That was the first name?

Nowhere does it say Peron was riding for CSC-Tiscalli at the time, he's listed under Fassa and lists 13 sources at the bottom of the page: http://www.dopeology.org/incidents/Blitz-raids-[List-51]/

If he was ever pinged for doping, he will always be listed as pinged for doping. Just because he appears on the CSC-Tiscalli list as having doped does not mean he doped there.

Under "incidents", there is no entry for Peron. Nor Frank Schleck, who appears in the same list as Peron, but again, has no incident entry linked with that team. He's just listed as someone who has since been pinged for doping.

I think you are just reading the data wrong.

Having seen an article where one rider accuses another, I know for a fact the dopeology site is very careful before they post anything - accusations do not make the grade, as an example.

 

[mattghg]

Jimmy, you just said

If Sky are doping the likelihood is you'll never hear about it, and not because they are silencing people, but because people won't know in the first place.

but previously you said

I do think that if Sky have doped, then the clinic will get their pound of flesh because, in the current climate, they are going to find it very hard to keep a lid on it.

Have you changed your mind (which is fine, of course), or were you making a slightly different point in each case?

 

[thehog]

Jimmy, you just said



but previously you said



Have you changed your mind (which is fine, of course), or were you making a slightly different point in each case?

Good spot.

That's Jimmy. Once he forgot that he said 40% of the peloton were doping

Another time he said he'd had enough of Sky and Geert and he thought they were doping.

Take him with a grain of salt.

 

[Le Baroudeur]

That was the first name?

Yes.

Nowhere does it say Peron was riding for CSC-Tiscalli at the time, he's listed under Fassa and lists 13 sources at the bottom of the page: http://www.dopeology.org/incidents/Blitz-raids-[List-51]/

If he was ever pinged for doping, he will always be listed as pinged for doping. Just because he appears on the CSC-Tiscalli list as having doped does not mean he doped there.

How is that not misleading? Further, to my knowledge has has never been "pinged" Unless pinged means 'having your room searched in a general raid' and on investigation no evidenced of wrongdoing being found.

Under "incidents", there is no entry for Peron. Nor Frank Schleck, who appears in the same list as Peron, but again, has no incident entry linked with that team. He's just listed as someone who has since been pinged for doping.

I think you are just reading the data wrong.

I don't agree. the data is presented in a flawed manner, and the data is full of errors.

Having seen an article where one rider accuses another, I know for a fact the dopeology site is very careful before they post anything - accusations do not make the grade, as an example.

And yet Andrea Peron is listed.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'll let L'arriviste continue should he so choose.

You have a bee in your bonnet and I am sure he will welcome the constructive criticism.

 

[Galic Ho]

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. 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. 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 a lack of reasoning.

Journalist. That says it all. No assumptions need to be made then. You don't wanna know how the majority of journos Down Under turn out. Worst bunch of people one can hope to meet at uni's. Like all communication students, most are natural born liars and that is a proven fact. Just waltz into your local uni and see for yourself. 70% are dodgy, the other 30% are great people.

On one note. So you knew about LA...then do you have gripes with the LA love fest Wiggins was singing last year? Does that not concern you? Because if you're a journalist by trade you should be familiar with all the current subject material. You should be concerned. It's not made up...it was self confessed man crush stuff from a guy with a suddenly super duper jump in performance and he was gushing.

 

[Galic Ho]

"One does not drop chains randomly" classic! Garlic, I think when I've dropped a chain it's been pretty random, I certainly didn't plan it.

Alberto? Andy? nope never hated, never loved, I'm a fan of the sport of cycling, I have no emotional investment in any pro cyclist.

And you really think I think Italians are evil, please, are you 5? Doping is done by all nationalities and character types in case you were wondering.

"Not so nice when the proverbial doping fan craps on you is it?" Don't know, I have no idea what you're talking about?

As for an internship, nah why would I want to work for SKY?

British pounds are worth a lot. Sky don't pay well enough for you? Then why support them?

Dropping chains is preventable. Preparing a bike is well...PREPARATION. Ask Bart de Clerq what a proper mechanical fault is. If you watched Liege you'd have seen one. Wiggins second bike had no mechanical issues. It was all him. Mans lied non stop...also, look up cognitive dissonance. Then apply it.

 

[Galic Ho]

I take it you don't have Di2 then? Kinda weird of you to say it's Wiggins' own fault for dropping a chain when it's a Di2 bike. I don't think he dropped a chain either, but regardless.

No idea about Di2, blames rider when it doesn't work = unfortunate.

From the footage Fearless Greg linked with 4 time stamps in the video, Wiggins did not drop his chain. The commentator said he almost did. Then Wiggins proceeded to meander along till he hopped off and threw his bike.

So not a proper chain drop unlike Andy Schleck. If Di2 is causing you to drop a chain...highly unlikely...then switch back to not electric shifting. How one drops a chain unless they have a physical hickup on the road (bump, fall, barged) is beyond me. Why? Because people should know exactly how to shift. If people road mountain bikes more often they'd know dropped chains are quite easily avoided. Especially with the pricier groupsets they are almost a non issue.

Thus why I have an issue with BOTH bikes having dodgy issues. I call BS on it. Just an excuse for any number of reasons already mentioned. I copied this from the first paragraph on Di2 on wikipedia.

An electronic system can switch gears faster, and because the system does not use Bowden cables and can calibrate itself, it may require less maintenance.

There you have it. Less maintenance. Why not just say that? Oh but that would mean the marginal gains is all baloney. When Lewis Hamilton cheated in the Aussie GP years back, the team lied for him. Even fired a manager who covered for him. Sky simply did the same thing here. Of course that means they are implying their bike technicians are incompetent gits and marginal gains aren't super important. Doesn't matter though when the fans need to believe Sir Wiggins is a hero and doesn't ever, ever stuff up.

 

[Galic Ho]

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.

Bahahaha. Soryy del, but the ***** is in the well on this one. The old wet cat comes back to haunt Rogers.

Story of his life? Sick. Every single year. Same story. Joins Sky in 2012...never sick, lightest weight of his pro career and pushing 450 watts that even the Ferrari special didn't give him whilst riding for Lefevre. Leaves Sky...oh wait don't mention him because he is back to his old self and is SICK ONCE AGAIN. Sure, that's legit.

Wait. That's normal Rogers when he isn't chugging back the juice like they're Tic Tac's. Name me a year Rogers hasn't been sick in when he wasn't riding for Sky post 2006. You won't be able to. Doper is a doper.

 

[Galic Ho]

In fairness, early last July you said Wiggins couldn't win a GT because he 'rides like a chump' and that the Wiggins deliberate steer into a crash was a sign that the Brits were choking. As such, I'm sure you'll understand when people completely disregard everything you say about the guy, because, quite evidently, you lack any degree of objectivity when it comes to Brits and Wiggins especially.

Not sure what you mean either on the LA return thing? Where's Wiggins returned from and how is that comparable to LA?

All said, Wiggo's lack of desire to take on a similar programme and have a similar degree of ambition as during last year, does suggest that he isn't quite in the same place mentally as he was before the Tour last year, when he'd already swept all before him.

Actually that example was pretty much in my books pinned on Rogers. He stopped Wiggins. No way should they have been allowed to get the same time as Sagan had that day. But they were. People were phenomenally behind him on that climb. All got the same time.

Yet at the time did we know Sky were going to be so dominant? The typical deflection from the Sky fans here is that the so called 'haters' didn't think Wiggins would win. That we also doubted Froome. There is a reason for that. Slack. Sky were cut way too much slack. Historically after wiping the floor of competition in the build up races, they'd looked too hot. We've seen a lot of doping and if you're going to win the Tour, you don't race the preceding months at break neck speed. Wiggins was treated on this forum FAR MORE FAVOURABLY than he or Sky deserved. Why? Because nobody here who calls Sky out on their doping thought they'd gone that far to the right of the mean, that their riders had jumped that many standard deviations away from their historical strength in GT's that the team would easily 1-2 and hold the maillot jaune for 14 or so days. Hence the reaction in the threads post Tour. All the fans thought it so magnificent. The clued in knew the only explanation was throwing caution to the wind and some uber elite levels of drugs were behind the rise.

The LA comparison is about attitudes. LA said everything was rosy in 2009. He made life hell for Contador. Everyone on the team worked for Lance at the Tour. They did not get along. Why? Because of LA's sense of self entitlement. The race was HIS TO WIN. Wiggins is very similar behaviour wise. Note the talk during the races last year. Note the women behind Wiggins and Froome at each others throats. Same scenario. Though Froome ain't exactly Contador...but he's more similar to him than LA. Note the team's stated goals and media talk post the Tour last year. Froome jumping the gun and saying he was gonna be the guy this year. Whether the fanboys see it or not, they are at one anothers throats. Also remember Wiggins said he didn't have a very good time last year. Difference is LA was a dictator. He rolled up, all the little b1tches got in line. Except Contador. Hence why the team all sucked the air out of his behind. Wiggins is similar to LA, but not a dictator. The masses are capable of standing up to him. Probably in part due to being a British drunkard in the past. He's too soft. Not enough of a bully. Think's he's the same as LA, hence the love in, BUT he ain't LA. There can be only one.

Bluntly. I've always thought we'd see more truth about Sky when the riders were at one anothers throats. Hence why I've been saying I hope someone stuffs up, so the guys who loathe one another (Wiggins and Froome) had to share a race. That would really upset the picnic basket. Because they both WANT TO WIN. They both expect it will be given to them. Froome ain't gonna hold back so Brad can disrespect him publicly again now is? Hence why I took Wiggins mental case the other day as a good sign. Like I said, a few more of those and he'll throw in the towel and give up on the Giro and that is a good thing. Unless you believe every word Sky force feed you. Then what I've typed is considered heresy.

 

[ultimobici]

It's a British thing isn't it? When Lewis Hamilton cheated in the Aussie GP years back, the team lied for him. Even fired a manager who covered for him. Sky simply did the same thing here. Of course that means they are implying their bike technicians are incompetent gits and marginal gains aren't super important. Doesn't matter though when the fans need to believe Sir Wiggins is a hero and doesn't ever, ever stuff up.

It's a British Thing? How so? Or do you tar am entire nation by virtue of the actions of a couple of individuals? By that definition all Americans dope, all Italians snort coke and all Russians are brutal thugs.

 

[del1962]

Bahahaha. Soryy del, but the ***** is in the well on this one. The old wet cat comes back to haunt Rogers.

Story of his life? Sick. Every single year. Same story. Joins Sky in 2012...never sick, lightest weight of his pro career and pushing 450 watts that even the Ferrari special didn't give him whilst riding for Lefevre. Leaves Sky...oh wait don't mention him because he is back to his old self and is SICK ONCE AGAIN. Sure, that's legit.

Wait. That's normal Rogers when he isn't chugging back the juice like they're Tic Tac's. Name me a year Rogers hasn't been sick in when he wasn't riding for Sky post 2006. You won't be able to. Doper is a doper.

So you can't name anyone other than rogers who had an injury,

 

[ianfra]

Journalist. That says it all. No assumptions need to be made then. You don't wanna know how the majority of journos Down Under turn out. Worst bunch of people one can hope to meet at uni's. Like all communication students, most are natural born liars and that is a proven fact. Just waltz into your local uni and see for yourself. 70% are dodgy, the other 30% are great people.

On one note. So you knew about LA...then do you have gripes with the LA love fest Wiggins was singing last year? Does that not concern you? Because if you're a journalist by trade you should be familiar with all the current subject material. You should be concerned. It's not made up...it was self confessed man crush stuff from a guy with a suddenly super duper jump in performance and he was gushing.

Actually I realised today that posting here is to get drawn into a den of which I want no part. Here we have a forum full of peeps who have a monopoly on truth. Whatever you say they find some derogatory remark to try and put you down and show the world how clever they are compared to you and the rest. Have it your own way. I hope you guys are happy defaming defenceless individuals. I hope you are happy that you are protected by Cycling News Forums Ltd - I can't defame you but you can defame Wiggo, Froome and anyone else that you want to sneer at. It's not nice. It's unjust and its childish. I guess in your next life you'll all come back as toads. Bye!

 

[mattghg]

Actually I realised today that posting here is to get drawn into a den of which I want no part. Here we have a forum full of peeps who have a monopoly on truth. Whatever you say they find some derogatory remark to try and put you down and show the world how clever they are compared to you and the rest. Have it your own way. I hope you guys are happy defaming defenceless individuals. I hope you are happy that you are protected by Cycling News Forums Ltd - I can't defame you but you can defame Wiggo, Froome and anyone else that you want to sneer at. It's not nice. It's unjust and its childish. I guess in your next life you'll all come back as toads. Bye!

Don't judge the whole forum by those few narcissists.

 

[Benotti69]

So you can't name anyone other than rogers who had an injury,

The other side is that those that left took with them the 'marginal gains' they learnt on Sky

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Now I'm at a computer with some data, I'd like to go back to this

Do you think this scatter diagram suggests suspicious behavior ?

Ret% is at best invariant with HGB, or more realistically shows a positive correlation (instead of the expected negative correlation).

Is it one rider?
What time of the day were the samples taken?
Did the rider spend any time at altitude?
Was the rider unwell at any stage?

 

[Trudgin]

Actually that example was pretty much in my books pinned on Rogers. He stopped Wiggins. No way should they have been allowed to get the same time as Sagan had that day. But they were. People were phenomenally behind him on that climb. All got the same time.

Yet at the time did we know Sky were going to be so dominant? The typical deflection from the Sky fans here is that the so called 'haters' didn't think Wiggins would win. That we also doubted Froome. There is a reason for that. Slack. Sky were cut way too much slack. Historically after wiping the floor of competition in the build up races, they'd looked too hot. We've seen a lot of doping and if you're going to win the Tour, you don't race the preceding months at break neck speed. Wiggins was treated on this forum FAR MORE FAVOURABLY than he or Sky deserved. Why? Because nobody here who calls Sky out on their doping thought they'd gone that far to the right of the mean, that their riders had jumped that many standard deviations away from their historical strength in GT's that the team would easily 1-2 and hold the maillot jaune for 14 or so days. Hence the reaction in the threads post Tour. All the fans thought it so magnificent. The clued in knew the only explanation was throwing caution to the wind and some uber elite levels of drugs were behind the rise.

The LA comparison is about attitudes. LA said everything was rosy in 2009. He made life hell for Contador. Everyone on the team worked for Lance at the Tour. They did not get along. Why? Because of LA's sense of self entitlement. The race was HIS TO WIN. Wiggins is very similar behaviour wise. Note the talk during the races last year. Note the women behind Wiggins and Froome at each others throats. Same scenario. Though Froome ain't exactly Contador...but he's more similar to him than LA. Note the team's stated goals and media talk post the Tour last year. Froome jumping the gun and saying he was gonna be the guy this year. Whether the fanboys see it or not, they are at one anothers throats. Also remember Wiggins said he didn't have a very good time last year. Difference is LA was a dictator. He rolled up, all the little b1tches got in line. Except Contador. Hence why the team all sucked the air out of his behind. Wiggins is similar to LA, but not a dictator. The masses are capable of standing up to him. Probably in part due to being a British drunkard in the past. He's too soft. Not enough of a bully. Think's he's the same as LA, hence the love in, BUT he ain't LA. There can be only one.

Bluntly. I've always thought we'd see more truth about Sky when the riders were at one anothers throats. Hence why I've been saying I hope someone stuffs up, so the guys who loathe one another (Wiggins and Froome) had to share a race. That would really upset the picnic basket. Because they both WANT TO WIN. They both expect it will be given to them. Froome ain't gonna hold back so Brad can disrespect him publicly again now is? Hence why I took Wiggins mental case the other day as a good sign. Like I said, a few more of those and he'll throw in the towel and give up on the Giro and that is a good thing. Unless you believe every word Sky force feed you. Then what I've typed is considered heresy.

Hahaha - I love this... dont always agree with this chap/ess but this is good.

 

[ianfra]

Hahaha - I love this... dont always agree with this chap/ess but this is good.

Good? Loada stupid rubbish and quite pointless if you ask me.

 

[Trudgin]

That was the first name?

Nowhere does it say Peron was riding for CSC-Tiscalli at the time, he's listed under Fassa and lists 13 sources at the bottom of the page: http://www.dopeology.org/incidents/Blitz-raids-[List-51]/

If he was ever pinged for doping, he will always be listed as pinged for doping. Just because he appears on the CSC-Tiscalli list as having doped does not mean he doped there.

Under "incidents", there is no entry for Peron. Nor Frank Schleck, who appears in the same list as Peron, but again, has no incident entry linked with that team. He's just listed as someone who has since been pinged for doping.

I think you are just reading the data wrong.

Having seen an article where one rider accuses another, I know for a fact the dopeology site is very careful before they post anything - accusations do not make the grade, as an example.

Seriously "If he was ever pinged for doping, he will always be listed as pinged for doping."

Is that not like if you were questioned by authorities as to why you were walking through a childrens play park in your lunch break and it turns out to be a shortcut, no eveidence of wrongdoing - you are always listed as a sex offender?

I dont agree with lists of well, maybe, there might be a chance, he could have doped!! you would need to put everyone on it. Certainly not a publicly accessed list.. Jeez, there will be graffitti on their front doors.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

So you can't name anyone other than rogers who had an injury,

Well, there is Nordhaug, but, of course, he also got sick after coming of SKY, and kinda crap at the same time.

No one else but Rogers left from the 'A-team', or am I forgetting someone?

I guess in your next life you'll all come back as toads. Bye!

Because, thats not childish at all.

 

[L'arriviste]

This is a thread about Sky and not about Dopeology so I will keep this brief:

On no occasion on the website have I ever called out any individuals or teams as dopers. Everything I list is based on established news sources you can check yourself. I don't sensationalise or invent anything.

At the same time, I think that history tells us that any attempt to study the doping phenomenon in cycling should consist of more than mere positive tests. Thus the site makes no distinction between positive tests or indictments or investigations or whatever.

Some people tell me that the site is a useful and sometimes fascinating resource, others that it is disgraceful and replete with innuendo and errors.

Perhaps the latter would prefer it if we all just posted the same 3,000+ unorganised links to newspapers, federations, press releases, judgements etc here in the forum, but that wouldn't really change anything of the facts and information these sources contain.

In any case, my reply to both camps is the same: I can always address limitations and make improvements but I am not the one making impassioned judgements. You as the visitor can decide what the site is telling you and what you want to feel about that.

 

[JimmyFingers]

This is a thread about Sky and not about Dopeology so I will keep this brief:

On no occasion on the website have I ever called out any individuals or teams as dopers. Everything I list is based on established news sources you can check yourself. I don't sensationalise or invent anything.

At the same time, I think that history tells us that any attempt to study the doping phenomenon in cycling should consist of more than mere positive tests. Thus the site makes no distinction between positive tests or indictments or investigations or whatever.

Some people tell me that the site is a useful and sometimes fascinating resource, others that it is disgraceful and replete with innuendo and errors.

Perhaps the latter would prefer it if we all just posted the same 3,000+ unorganised links to newspapers, federations, press releases, judgements etc here in the forum, but that wouldn't really change anything of the facts and information these sources contain.

In any case, my reply to both camps is the same: I can always address limitations and make improvements but I am not the one making impassioned judgements. You as the visitor can decide what the site is telling you and what you want to feel about that.

I think the website is an important resource and you do good work on it.

 

[neineinei]

Seriously "If he was ever pinged for doping, he will always be listed as pinged for doping."

Is that not like if you were questioned by authorities as to why you were walking through a childrens play park in your lunch break and it turns out to be a shortcut, no eveidence of wrongdoing - you are always listed as a sex offender?

I dont agree with lists of well, maybe, there might be a chance, he could have doped!! you would need to put everyone on it. Certainly not a publicly accessed list.. Jeez, there will be graffitti on their front doors.

No, it is not. He is not listed as a doper, he is listed as someone who was investigated after a blitz raid, and the information is public knowledge, it was in the papers and websites at the time. Putting graffiti on dopeology.orgs doors for this is like putting graffiti on the doors of the public library for stocking newspapers with information about the raids.