Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[JimmyFingers]

...is the relevant quote. If you thought this means the same as "There is nothing to suggest that Bradley Wiggins achieved yesterday’s historic victory through anything other than talent and hard work.", you would fail English GCSE.

@martinvickers it's clearly not a statement of full confidence in Wiggins. It's written with careful ambiguity. It's not even as positive as "they're clean but they've made themselves look dodgy" as you say, because he entreats the reader to draw their own conclusions about the hiring of Leinders and the credibility of the race. For the total casual fan, it introduces doubt. Let's not kid ourselves, if this was a pro Wiggins article it would be about how Kerrison has taught him to eat and drink during a bike race and he gained 50W.

So basically he said there's nothing to suggest Wiggins doped his way to the Tour win, but Sky shouldn't have employed Leinders? Wow, glad you cleared that up

 

[martinvickers]

...is the relevant quote. If you thought this means the same as "There is nothing to suggest that Bradley Wiggins achieved yesterday’s historic victory through anything other than talent and hard work.", you would fail English GCSE.

@martinvickers it's clearly not a statement of full confidence in Wiggins. It's written with careful ambiguity. It's not even as positive as "they're clean but they've made themselves look dodgy" as you say, because he entreats the reader to draw their own conclusions about the hiring of Leinders and the credibility of the race. For the total casual fan, it introduces doubt. Let's not kid ourselves, if this was a pro Wiggins article it would be about how Kerrison has taught him to eat and drink during a bike race and he gained 50W.

I'm sorry, to leave that 'but' hanging out of context is intellectually dishonest.

the 'but' went on -

But at this time of glory, why does Team Sky leave itself open to insinuation by employing Leinders

i.e., exactly my point, the But referred not to Wiggins individually, but to Sky's lax policy in employing Leinders.

I never suggested it was a 'supportive' article, that's a strawman - the very basic point was parsing a statement that was made as to the evidence of Wiggins cleanliness, but followed with a counter statement averse to Sky's policy.

No one doubts Paul's views on Wiggins. The issue is of interest only in it shows a perfectly natural progression in those views - his views on Wiggins at the time, as published, and i repeat, as published, are not as hard as they are now. that's all.

 

[Benotti69]

So basically he said there's nothing to suggest Wiggins doped his way to the Tour win, but Sky shouldn't have employed Leinders? Wow, glad you cleared that up

tsk tsk Jimmy, he said 'there is no positive yet but how did they do that without dope and with a doping doctor to boot?'

 

[Benotti69]

<snip>..his views on Wiggins at the time, as published, and i repeat, as published, are not as hard as they are now. that's all.

I think since then Kimmage has had a longer look at Sky and like most reasoned people who know the sport, it all points to one thing. Wiggins finished 3 hours down in 2006 then wins it in 2012. Not believable.

 

[martinvickers]

I think since then Kimmage has had a longer look at Sky and like most reasoned people who know the sport, it all points to one thing. Wiggins finished 3 hours down in 2006 then wins it in 2012. Not believable.

His views were published in 2011, Benotti. I think you may be guilty of trying to put your views ion his mouth. his views stand on their own.

 

[taiwan]

So basically he said there's nothing to suggest Wiggins doped his way to the Tour win, but Sky shouldn't have employed Leinders? Wow, glad you cleared that up

Oversimplification.

 

[JimmyFingers]

tsk tsk Jimmy, he said 'there is no positive yet but how did they do that without dope and with a doping doctor to boot?'

Ahh, I read it as he's not accusing Sky or Wiggins of doping, but hiring Leinders was effing stupid and question marks over his role at Sky need to be answered.
Which is spot on of course.

Not saying your interpretation is wrong though, I think the truth will out either way. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt as is my want, silly old me, and whoever is right buys the other a beer

 

[taiwan]

I'm sorry, to leave that 'but' hanging out of context is intellectually dishonest.

the 'but' went on -



i.e., exactly my point, the But referred not to Wiggins individually, but to Sky's lax policy in employing Leinders.

I never suggested it was a 'supportive' article, that's a strawman - the very basic point was parsing a statement that was made as to the evidence of Wiggins cleanliness, but followed with a counter statement averse to Sky's policy.

No one doubts Paul's views on Wiggins. The issue is of interest only in it shows a perfectly natural progression in those views - his views on Wiggins at the time, as published, and i repeat, as published, are not as hard as they are now. that's all.

Sky and Wiggins are not seperate, at all. If Sky's policy on Leinders casts doubt on their credibility, it casts doubt on the credibility of Wiggins' Tour win. It was a Sky project. It is ridiculous to suggest that GC leader Wiggins might be the innocent guy on a team compromised at management level.

Also, you refer to Kimmage's statement about the evidence of Wiggins' cleanliness, but as they say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". You've confused the two.

The article introduces doubt to the trusting reader and does not reassure the doubtful reader.

 

[the sceptic]

Giro must have a week field this year

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Sky and Wiggins are not seperate, at all. If Sky's policy on Leinders casts doubt on their credibility, it casts doubt on the credibility of Wiggins' Tour win. It was a Sky project. It is ridiculous to suggest that GC leader Wiggins might be the innocent guy on a team compromised at management level.

Also, you refer to Kimmage's statement about the evidence of Wiggins' cleanliness, but as they say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". You've confused the two.

The article introduces doubt to the trusting reader and does not reassure the doubtful reader.

+infinity.

As if someone is going to talk about an individual, and then add a BUT clause, discussing the individual's support network and have it be completely irrelevant.

It's pedantic splitting of hairs. And obviously subjective. But man. That second bit points at Wiggins with a big over its head.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Giro must have a week field this year

It's a 3 week field.

 

[thehog]

Giro must have a week field this year

Flat course. No Contador.

 

[goggalor]

What evidence is there of that? Lost so much weight as to,go from the grupetto to winning it. Did he lose 40lbs?

He's been a full time cyclist since he was a kid, where would said upper body muscle have come from in the fist place

Yeah, WIgans was a real he-man before.

The most you can say is he went from the 97 pound weakling look to the 96.5 pound weakling look.

He used to be the BC arm wrestling champ in his track days.

 

[heart_attack_man]

Giro must have a week field this year

Marginal gains and all that...

 

[SundayRider]

His views were published in 2011, Benotti. I think you may be guilty of trying to put your views ion his mouth. his views stand on their own.

Benotti simply posted Kimmage views.

 

[Benotti69]

His views were published in 2011, Benotti. I think you may be guilty of trying to put your views ion his mouth. his views stand on their own.

I quoted Kimmage from his Whistleblowers talk

 

[martinvickers]

Benotti simply posted Kimmage views.

Yes, his views now. Not his published views as expressed in the article. This isn't that hard to get, folks...

 

[Benotti69]

Yes, his views now. Not his published views as expressed in the article. This isn't that hard to get, folks...

Always the dig at the end. Big.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Marginal losses for Garmin today.

Huray for Salvatore, and clean cycling of course.

 

[Spectacleur]

So basically he said there's nothing to suggest Wiggins doped his way to the Tour win, but Sky shouldn't have employed Leinders? Wow, glad you cleared that up

Froome and Wiggins performances will be analyzed by Frédéric Portoleau and Antoine Vayer in "Did they dope ? 21 counts".

 

[horsinabout]

Sky and Wiggins are not seperate, at all. If Sky's policy on Leinders casts doubt on their credibility, it casts doubt on the credibility of Wiggins' Tour win. It was a Sky project. It is ridiculous to suggest that GC leader Wiggins might be the innocent guy on a team compromised at management level.

Also, you refer to Kimmage's statement about the evidence of Wiggins' cleanliness, but as they say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". You've confused the two.


And the winner is....with this post....taiwan.

The article introduces doubt to the trusting reader and does not reassure the doubtful reader


He was playing to all sides?

This would be understandable pre 2012 Olympics any real criticism of our British contenders was off limits.

 

[horsinabout]

Sky and Wiggins are not seperate, at all. If Sky's policy on Leinders casts doubt on their credibility, it casts doubt on the credibility of Wiggins' Tour win. It was a Sky project. It is ridiculous to suggest that GC leader Wiggins might be the innocent guy on a team compromised at management level.

Also, you refer to Kimmage's statement about the evidence of Wiggins' cleanliness, but as they say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". You've confused the two.

The article introduces doubt to the trusting reader and does not reassure the doubtful reader.

He was playing to all sides?

This would make sense pre 2012 Olympics, because any real criticism of British contenders was off limits.

 

[horsinabout]

Froome and Wiggins performances will be analyzed by Frédéric Portoleau and Antoine Vayer in "Did they dope ? 21 counts".

Welcome.........

 

[taiwan]

He was playing to all sides?

This would make sense pre 2012 Olympics, because any real criticism of British contenders was off limits.

It's certainly pretty cagily written, hence the debate over it's meaning.

 

[Gloin22]

Marginal losses for Garmin today.

Huray for Salvatore, and clean cycling of course.

Look at Vini Fantini... No TT specialist but still beat Garmin as well..... Lampre as well...

Garmin had an off day. ( I hope ) anyone smart could see that..