Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[The Hitch]

Almost impossible but as Contador and Schleck proved it can still be done. Besides Porte is going to go rogue according to you? And before Galic got banned for racist remarks he wrote that the cracks are already appearing.

They got caught for joke drugs though. If we assume drugs tests to be accurate than Contador is probably the most talented athlete in the history of sport cos he only doped a tiny ammount of clen the year he underperformed, but was clean the years where he matched and beat Pantani's numbers up climbs.

 

[Ripper]

I don't think Wiggins lies to his kids. He would never do that.

He's honest to them.






And forces them to lie

Post of the day

 

[taiwan]

They got caught for joke drugs though. If we assume drugs tests to be accurate than Contador is probably the most talented athlete in the history of sport cos he only doped a tiny ammount of clen the year he underperformed, but was clean the years where he matched and beat Pantani's numbers up climbs.

Yup noone posts this.

 

[Franklin]

They got caught for joke drugs though. If we assume drugs tests to be accurate than Contador is probably the most talented athlete in the history of sport cos he only doped a tiny ammount of clen the year he underperformed, but was clean the years where he matched and beat Pantani's numbers up climbs.

From a legal standpoint this is oh so important.

In another thread people are in a tizzy when saying there's awfuly little solid against Contador and nothing against Schleck, Nibali, Wiggo and Froome.

The latter three are pretty much squeaky clean (no you can't ban someone for a Ferrari rumor) and the former most likely got his Clen due to contamination of either meat or a supplement(It's like Al Capone being caught on a different crime).

I have no illusions about mr. Contador and have no trust in the others (though benefit of the doubt counts extremely heavy), but somehow people here seem to be angry that these guys aren't banned. The fact is that there is truly no solid evidence against them.

Does this mean we shouldn't call out the riders? Of course not. And there is never an excuse for employing dodgy doctors or flat out lieing about the subject. Those things should be bannable (and they aren't...).

 

[sittingbison]

...the former most likely got his Clen due to contamination of either meat or a supplement(It's like Al Capone being caught on a different crime)...

Franklin are you paraphrasing the "tizzy" point of view here?

Because going off topic for a moment, it was clearly established to the actual farmer of the cow that clen was not part of the food chain, and Berti never once used the "contaminated supplements" gambit. That was a pure concoction of the courts.

What WAS most likely given the presence of plasticizers (disallowed evidence) and miniscule trace of clen was he infused a blood bag that was taken during a pre season training phase while he WAS taking clen (in larger doses).

Back on topic again, sorry couldn't resist

 

[keithmcmahon]

The point which was made in the interview regarding the comments Wiggo made about Landis:

"Wiggins, who could have stayed clear of the debate, chose instead to run with the mob that attacked Landis, questioning the former Postal rider’s mental state and suggesting that only a crazed man would say the things Landis was saying. For someone watching from a distance, the obvious question was why would Wiggins, who most people considered clean, defend a cheat such as Armstrong?

He is embarrassed by the memory but attempts to explain how it happened that he too tried to discredit Landis."

In other words Walsh thinks Wiggo could/should have said nothing and Wiggo is embarrassed by what he said.

After a couple of more paragraphs of an admittedly feeble attempt for justification.

“Then you get asked about Floyd and feel like you’re in a gang and you say what everyone in the gang is saying. You become part of that, because it’s easier. A lot of people look really stupid now, as do some of the comments I made.”

Personally, I am glad that Wiggo has admitted that he said some idiotic things in the past.

Time to move on...

 

[Franklin]

Franklin are you paraphrasing the "tizzy" point of view here?

No the point is that if you point out there is almost zero evidence against rider X (fill in name) people start to get mad and pointing out there is evidence... which then amounts to hearsay and dodgy links.

I certainly hink those are worth to be looked into, but to save a lot of heartbreak (see the Lance Saga), don't believe for a second that will be enough for a ban!

Believing someone doped does not constitute a slam dunk dope conviction.

And stating thereis a lack of evidence does not mean that person thinks the rider is innocence. Facts are just facts.

Because going off topic for a moment, it was clearly established to the actual farmer of the cow that clen was not part of the food chain, and Berti never once used the "contaminated supplements" gambit. That was a pure concoction of the courts.

Sorry, I have zero believe in the state of meat and I advice you to be just as sceptical as I am. And Berti picked the most likely venue of contamination. Realize that the Mexican dope scandal with Clen has now been ressearched and that meat contamination is indeed the likely culprit.

The Supplement angle was not working anyway considering he would get the ban anyway as you are responsible for your own supplements (see Schleck).

What WAS most likely given the presence of plasticizers (disallowed evidence) and miniscule trace of clen was he infused a blood bag that was taken during a pre season training phase while he WAS taking clen (in larger doses).

Good luck taking that to court as plasticizers are in the blood of a lot of people. Why do you think the funding for the research of a plasticizer test was withdrawn?

But more to the point why is it more likely? Because we do no trust Contador! The use of Clenbuterol is problematic considering it's window of detection. If he had to take such a big doses to get into stored blood he would clearly run into detection issues. Considering his ability not to be caught that seems a pretty odd choice of drug.

This is at best a matter of opinion. I do think it's almost 99.99% certain he's a big blood manipulator, yet I find it unlikely he used Clen.

Back on topic again, sorry couldn't resist

Perhaps this is alien to most people here; There simply is no slam dunk blood doping case against Contador.

They got him like they got Al Capone, on a rather problematic test (really low amounts) on something that verifiably is indeed common in both meat and supplements.

I don't say he didn't have a ban coming and I certainly think everyone is responsible for their own intake. He couldn't proof it was from the cow, so indeed he was rightly sentenced.

 

[thehog]

Invoking the kid shield. Interesting. I know I said it before, but wth: if, as a kid, my Dad could earn 70k pa or 2M pa, just by cheating, I would not have given a flying fat rat's tail about the cheating.

Just sayin'.

Christmas at 2M GBP pa is so much more interesting.

I noticed that. It worked during the Tour and ever since then it's been deployed.

And what's with the Kimmage love now?

 

[Franklin]

I noticed that. It worked during the Tour and ever since then it's been deployed.

And what's with the Kimmage love now?

Flippetyflopety

 

[xcleigh]

Ag2r set up the sport science facility years ago.

Roche is a benefactor of its work.

Problem with Bots-R-Us is they only read articles on Sky.

They no little about ProCycling as a whole.

OK, you mean the Chambery Cyclisme Formation? As far as I was aware this was more set up to help young riders become professional riders while also being able to study. But hey Hog you know more than I do, so carry on comparing apples and oranges.

 

[thehog]

OK, you mean the Chambery Cyclisme Formation? As far as I was aware this was more set up to help young riders become professional riders while also being able to study. But hey Hog you know more than I do, so carry on comparing apples and oranges.

Google is your friend. Took you what? 3 days to find it?

And no it's not just for young riders.

It's a sport science clinic in combination with Ag2r which allows young riders to study.

And yes I do know more than you.

According to you only Sky use sport science! Lol!

 

[The Hitch]

From a legal standpoint this is oh so important.

In another thread people are in a tizzy when saying there's awfuly little solid against Contador and nothing against Schleck, Nibali, Wiggo and Froome.

The latter three are pretty much squeaky clean (no you can't ban someone for a Ferrari rumor) and the former most likely got his Clen due to contamination of either meat or a supplement(It's like Al Capone being caught on a different crime).

I have no illusions about mr. Contador and have no trust in the others (though benefit of the doubt counts extremely heavy), but somehow people here seem to be angry that these guys aren't banned. The fact is that there is truly no solid evidence against them.

Does this mean we shouldn't call out the riders? Of course not. And there is never an excuse for employing dodgy doctors or flat out lieing about the subject. Those things should be bannable (and they aren't...).

I don't care if they are banned. It's their reputations I want, and their ability to claim that they are the most clean athletes in history, while lying through their teeth(only applies to Wiggins, the last one)

 

[xcleigh]

Google is your friend. Took you what? 3 days to find it?

And no it's not just for young riders.

It's a sport science clinic in combination with Ag2r which allows young riders to study.

And yes I do know more than you.

According to you only Sky use sport science! Lol!

I love google now. Sky have now hardwired it in to my Bot Search protocol. Based on their website it suggest that yes it is for young riders to study and graduate and pursue sport. It doesn't mention supporting the Pro riders at AG2R though. You know more so could you tell me a bit more about the support they do provide the AG2R professional riders? Testing, training plans, nutritional advice, aerodynamics etc..Much obliged.

Yes you do know more than me. You know SKY are doping 100% and you know Wiggins is working with Ferarri 100%.

Where did I say Sky are the ONLY ones using Sports science? Just a quote will do. Thanks. I had my first sports test in 1996 so I have some personal awareness of sports science.

Now Hoggie go ride your bike and don't forget your SRM, it's da footor.

 

[martinvickers]

I don't care if they are banned. It's their reputations I want, and their ability to claim that they are the most clean athletes in history, while lying through their teeth(only applies to Wiggins, the last one)

And there, in a nutshell is the problem.

You want vengence. Or vindication. Much the same in practice

I just want clean sport. And cathartic though it is for many, it doesn't clean up the sport now. And thats more important than vindication...

"History, despite itd wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage need not be lived again" - mary Angelou, via seamus mallon.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Explain this.

Froome's weight according to Sky: 69 kg

Brad's weight according to Sky: 69 kg

Brad's weight at Garmin according to JV/Brad himself: 71-72 kg

Froome's average power in the ITT of the 2011 Vuelta according to his SRM: 406 W

Brad's average power in the 2nd ITT of the 2009 TdF according to JV: 434 W

Brad's average power in the 2011 Worlds ITT according to Shane Sutton: 456 W

Brad's average power in the 2nd ITT of the 2012 TdF according to Brad himself: 450 W

How come Brad doesn't drop Froome like a bag of cement whenever the peloton hits a speed bump? His power to weight ratio is waaaay higher.
Allegedly...

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

And there, in a nutshell is the problem.

You want vengence. Or vindication. Much the same in practice

I just want clean sport. And cathartic though it is for many, it doesn't clean up the sport now. And thats more important than vindication...

"History, despite itd wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage need not be lived again" - mary Angelou, via seamus mallon.

Me guesses the Hitch wants, just like me, the shenanigans of 'doing it in the name of clean cycling' to stop.

At TylersTwin, Froome is at 67 kiloos.

 

[Pentacycle]

Explain this.

Froome's weight according to Sky: 69 kg

Brad's weight according to Sky: 69 kg

Brad's weight at Garmin according to JV/Brad himself: 71-72 kg

Froome's average power in the ITT of the 2011 Vuelta according to his SRM: 406 W

Brad's average power in the 2nd ITT of the 2009 TdF according to JV: 434 W

Brad's average power in the 2011 Worlds ITT according to Shane Sutton: 456 W

Brad's average power in the 2nd ITT of the 2012 TdF according to Brad himself: 450 W

How come Brad doesn't drop Froome like a bag of cement whenever the peloton hits a speed bump? His power to weight ratio is waaaay higher.
Allegedly...

Has to do with endurance, TT power numbers aren't the norm for MTF's at the end of a big mountain stage.

 

[maltiv]

Explain this.

Froome's weight according to Sky: 69 kg

Brad's weight according to Sky: 69 kg

Brad's weight at Garmin according to JV/Brad himself: 71-72 kg

Froome's average power in the ITT of the 2011 Vuelta according to his SRM: 406 W

Brad's average power in the 2nd ITT of the 2009 TdF according to JV: 434 W

Brad's average power in the 2011 Worlds ITT according to Shane Sutton: 456 W

Brad's average power in the 2nd ITT of the 2012 TdF according to Brad himself: 450 W

How come Brad doesn't drop Froome like a bag of cement whenever the peloton hits a speed bump? His power to weight ratio is waaaay higher.
Allegedly...

Avg Power output in a TT =/= Performance up a mountain after 200 km...

I agree that Froome's weight is probably a bit off, but so is your analysis. There are lots of riders who have excellent w/kg numbers who still easily get dropped in mountains because they can't handle accelerations, don't have the endurance needed, etc etc.

 

[Clausfarre]

I can't believe you guys keep writing about Wiggins. He TOLD you he would never lie to his kids. Case closed.

Bjarne Riis lied to his kids. Brad is aware of not hurting his kids' feelings so he does not dope.

The children. Won't somebody think of the children?

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Not when the difference in power output is a whooping 0.6 W/kg. Not believable. Unless you can show me the 5.5 W/kg riders dropping 6.1 W/kg riders. Go ahead and calculate the difference in finishing time between a rider doing 6.5 W/kg on Alpe d'Huez and a guy doing 5.9 W/kg and then tell me Brad is that superior to Froome in MTT's. It's ludicrous.

 

[WinterRider]

Explain this.

Froome's weight according to Sky: 69 kg

Brad's weight according to Sky: 69 kg

Brad's weight at Garmin according to JV/Brad himself: 71-72 kg

Froome's average power in the ITT of the 2011 Vuelta according to his SRM: 406 W

Brad's average power in the 2nd ITT of the 2009 TdF according to JV: 434 W

Brad's average power in the 2011 Worlds ITT according to Shane Sutton: 456 W

Brad's average power in the 2nd ITT of the 2012 TdF according to Brad himself: 450 W

How come Brad doesn't drop Froome like a bag of cement whenever the peloton hits a speed bump? His power to weight ratio is waaaay higher.
Allegedly...

Wiggins position on a TT bike is impressively good. He has worked on it for many years and is almost certainly able to put out more power in a TT position than most people on the planet.

I don't think you can assume that this power output translates directly to hill climbing.

Once you're not constrained to a TT position most people's power output goes up. Given Wiggin's specialization in the TT position from his track days, his power output out of the TT position likely goes up a lot less than most peoples.

 

[Pentacycle]

Not when the difference in power output is a whooping 0.6 W/kg. Not believable. Unless you can show me the 5.5 W/kg riders dropping 6.1 W/kg riders. Go ahead and calculate the difference in finishing time between a rider doing 6.5 W/kg on Alpe d'Huez and a guy doing 5.9 W/kg and then tell me Brad is that superior to Froome in MTT's. It's ludicrous.

TT bikes can make the difference as well. Some riders just can't push as many W on a TT bike as they would be able to on a normal bike. Sometimes higher power output is sacrified for better aerodynamics.

Wiggins looks like he can use his max treshold very efficiently in his aero position, while Froome loses a lot of power, he can't use the full strenghth of his legs. I think their power outputs on normal bikes are pretty similar.

 

[BroDeal]

Wiggins position on a TT bike is impressively good. He has worked on it for many years and is almost certainly able to put out more power in a TT position than most people on the planet.

I don't think you can assume that this power output translates directly to hill climbing.

Once you're not constrained to a TT position most people's power output goes up. Given Wiggin's specialization in the TT position from his track days, his power output out of the TT position likely goes up a lot less than most peoples.

Wiggins time trial prowess is a myth. Until his transformation he struggled to stay with the second tier time trialists. He was no better than Millar off the juice. Then--snap!--he was suddenly as good as Cancellara. Not normal.

 

[maltiv]

Not when the difference in power output is a whooping 0.6 W/kg. Not believable. Unless you can show me the 5.5 W/kg riders dropping 6.1 W/kg riders. Go ahead and calculate the difference in finishing time between a rider doing 6.5 W/kg on Alpe d'Huez and a guy doing 5.9 W/kg and then tell me Brad is that superior to Froome in MTT's. It's ludicrous.

I can't tell you why, but the fact is that lots of riders with incredible w/kg values at FTP suck at climbing, for one reason or another. Meanwhile there are riders whose power outputs aren't nearly as impressive, yet always are up there on the climbs.

I'm pretty sure the difference in w/kg between Rodriguez and the 100 guys who beat him in the 2010 Vuelta ITT is a whole lot more than 0,6 w/kg, yet he obviously beat most of them in the climbs...

 

[DirtyWorks]

No the point is that if you point out there is almost zero evidence against rider X (fill in name) people start to get mad and pointing out there is evidence... which then amounts to hearsay and dodgy links.

Again with the 'evidence' claim. As long as the UCI is the doping authority, the UCI is not a reliable doping authority.

You are relying on the UCI to produce a positive. We know they ignored Armstrong's 2009 AAF. (aka positive) We know they tried to keep Contador's positive a secret. No one is going to get a positive out of the UCI for a Grand Tour winner, except for Landis, who was kicked out almost as fast as FuYu Li. Which is the opposite of how Contador's eventual positive was handled. Which, again, shows how unreliable the UCI is for anti-doping.

You are also relying on the notion that no AAF means the rider is clean(ish). When the reality is no AAF means anything from actually clean, doping, but not positive, to doping and positive.

Reducing pre-EPO bicycle racing history where no riders "learned how to climb" into a Grand Tour podium to hearsay and innuendo is not a rational choice. It's okay if you just want to believe. Just understand it is reducing relevant facts to fit your world view.