Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Libertine Seguros]

Leon was too obvious from the start, they've done well to stick around long enough persisting with the schtick that people have started to treat them as half-serious.

I dont think they dope anymore, i just think they agree who is going to win according to the drama script some hollywood chap is writing.

If it's all scripted, couldn't they at least make it entertaining? I mean, pizzazz it up, go the pro wrestling "well, since everybody knows it's fake, let's go totally over the top" route?

 

[melkemugg]

If it's all scripted, couldn't they at lest make it entertaining? I mean, pizzazz it up, go the pro wrestling "well, since everybody knows it's fake, let's go totally over the top" route?

Bad writing last year. Wiggo is going to lose the Giro to add tension and come back with a futile comeback in the Tour. Which is all that matters in the end. Even if that means backstabbing the Kenyan-born Briton.

 

[BroDeal]

Leon was too obvious from the start, they've done well to stick around long enough persisting with the schtick that people have started to treat them as half-serious.

Leon has to be about the worst attempt to be a troll we have seen. It is trollcraft by a thirteen-year-old or something.

 

[martinvickers]

I disagree with this. One can reference at least 50 years of Grand Tour podiums.

Pre-EPO, the doping was steroids, prior to that, stimulants and pain killers. Even with steroids, the effects were nothing like oxygen vector doping especially in a grand tour.

IMHO, sometime near the end of Lemond's career is a fuzzy line where oxygen vector PEDs define a Grand Tour podium.

A difference of degree, not of quality.

And I say again, we have literally NO Tours we can use as an accepted control of what we can expect of clean riders.

Like, the one rider broadly accepted as Clean in this place won two Tours with a body full of gunshot. So is that the control? Clean riders can win tours with pieces of metal still stuck in their chests?

As I said, these 'never before' arguments are terribly weak.

 

[martinvickers]

This time I didn't use the right word. I agree it's not proof as it cannot be disproven. What it is however is someone posting an observation I have been advocating all along. Sport viewership grows in direct proportion to countrymen and women collecting prestigious wins.

Martin, we know for a fact the UCI did not open a positive case against 2009(?) Armstrong positive samples. Prior to that, he was given an exemption to rejoin the elites just because he was Wonderboy. Why would they do that? Because it attracted viewers.

Why is it so hard to believe it was in the UCI's best interests to have a British podium during the London games? They did it for Armstrong to attract more viewers. What would stop them doing it again in 2012?

1. If they were going to do it, they would have done it for Cavendish. First day of the games, the breathless crowd watching, would have made FAR more impact than Wiggins win, which was really only seen as the cherry on the cake of Le tour.

2. The Lance story is frankly far darker, and more complicated than a simple dash for US TV viewers. Armstrong 2009 was far, far bigger than any single country, even his own.

3. The UK bike watching public simply aren't a big enough fish to justify the domination they've shown in the last few years between track and road. Russia or the Far east would have made a far more sensible destination for such favouritism. Had wiggins failed in the London TT, it would have barely made a dent.

To me, it just doesn't pass the Occam's razor test. It's the classic Sherlock mistake - twisting facts to suit pet theories instead of theories to suit facts.

 

[the sceptic]

To me, it just doesn't pass the Occam's razor test. It's the classic Sherlock mistake - twisting facts to suit pet theories instead of theories to suit facts.

But sky being clean passes your occams razor test. thats funny.

 

[thehog]

But sky being clean passes your occams razor test. thats funny.

Yes and apparently having a corrupt Russia becoming Tour champions is more viable than a UK champion in an home Olympic year!

Golly gosh!

 

[The Hitch]

1. If they were going to do it, they would have done it for Cavendish.
.

Done what for cav?

First day of the games, the breathless crowd watching, would have made FAR more impact than Wiggins win, which was really only seen as the cherry on the cake of Le tour.

Wiggins win was far bigger. by winning the tour wiggins made himself bigger than cav can ever be. And the one thing people love more than a home win is a super famous home win. Just like cathy freeman's win was the big thing in Sydney and how apparently everyone in china wept when liu xiang got injured even though they already had 100 medals by then.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Originally Posted by martinvickers
1. If they were going to do it, they would have done it for Cavendish.

Done what for cav?

Fixed it so that he could win the tour, obviously. They are UCI, they can do anything.

 

[Hugh Januss]

A difference of degree, not of quality.

And I say again, we have literally NO Tours we can use as an accepted control of what we can expect of clean riders.

Like, the one rider broadly accepted as Clean in this place won two Tours with a body full of gunshot. So is that the control? Clean riders can win tours with pieces of metal still stuck in their chests?

As I said, these 'never before' arguments are terribly weak.

If you insist on sticking to the premise that EPO/blood doping was not a game changer for doping in endurance sports, then there is not much you can understand.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I said the sport would be dead in Britain .Most of those countries seem to admire dopers British people don't

I did say Millar whom I don't think should represent his country .Also they aren't known in Britain by more than the hardcore cycling fans

Millar rode the Olympics. You can't discount his example just because you, as a single individual "don't like" him.

Read his book - after he got back from suspension the UK public had written his name on the road when the Tour visited UK. They were cheering his name.

 

[Ripper]

If you love cycling why wont you give Sky the chance .Everything they do says they are clean

Are you trying to catch a big fish with your trolly trolly trolling? This is not even very good. Come on, try to rile people up, or at least put in more effort than a 9 year old.

 

[Ripper]

You are either very trolltastic, or utterly simple.

Orrrrrr both

 

[Hugh Januss]

I cant decide if this Leon guy is for real of if he is just an expert parody but either way i find him very entertaining

You are either very trolltastic, or utterly simple.



Ok, trolltastic it is then.

Orrrrrr both

This one finally tipped it over the edge into obvious trolling IMO.

People doubt the fact of Aliens, Big foot or Nessie yet are convinced the
Trade centre was an inside job .It just proves my point

So your point is that it is nutty to believe the Wigans hype while not believing the Lance story?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

leon7766 == joachim?

 

[martinvickers]

If you insist on sticking to the premise that EPO/blood doping was not a game changer for doping in endurance sports, then there is not much you can understand.

I'm sorry, please point me to where I suggested that. You won't find it.

 

[sittingbison]

Gentle(wo)men, please refrain from accusations of trolling/sockpuppetry etc. If you have a concern report the post

cheers
bison

 

[Hugh Januss]

A difference of degree, not of quality.

And I say again, we have literally NO Tours we can use as an accepted control of what we can expect of clean riders.

Like, the one rider broadly accepted as Clean in this place won two Tours with a body full of gunshot. So is that the control? Clean riders can win tours with pieces of metal still stuck in their chests?

As I said, these 'never before' arguments are terribly weak.

If you insist on sticking to the premise that EPO/blood doping was not a game changer for doping in endurance sports, then there is not much you can understand.

I'm sorry, please point me to where I suggested that. You won't find it.

Right there. Pretending that any other earlier sort of doping is comparable is the exact same thing.

 

[sittingbison]

........if team sky are doping it has nothing to do with nationality.............but corporate greed............demanding success for funding...

I agree completely with this.

It also highlights the dilemma of British Cycling being too closely aligned with the corporate filthy lucre. Same problem with USAC (Johnson, Weisel etc) and USPS, same problem with Green EDGE and Australian Cycling (Matt White).

 

[horsinabout]

I agree completely with this.

It also highlights the dilemma of British Cycling being too closely aligned with the corporate filthy lucre. Same problem with USAC (Johnson, Weisel etc) and USPS, same problem with Green EDGE and Australian Cycling (Matt White).

The British early system WCPP modelled itself on the Aussie model. I remember it well. They looked at how other cousin countries had achieved their success. Just so we did not look too much like GDR.

 

[DirtyWorks]

1. If they were going to do it, they would have done it for Cavendish. First day of the games, the breathless crowd watching, would have made FAR more impact than Wiggins win, which was really only seen as the cherry on the cake of Le tour.

I assume you are talking about the road race. Boy, they sure tried. Sky was dragging everyone around until what, the last 10?, 20K?

2. The Lance story is frankly far darker, and more complicated than a simple dash for US TV viewers. Armstrong 2009 was far, far bigger than any single country, even his own.

I generally agree with what you are saying. I think it got far bigger than they planned. It doesn't invalidate my claim. From the UCI's perspective, what's not to like about more viewers? ASO sold Versus a number of their events! That's Pat's version of growing cycling in a nutshell.

3. The UK bike watching public simply aren't a big enough fish to justify the domination they've shown in the last few years between track and road.

IMHO, the TdF win combined with the London games wins changed that. It made a British champion. And now, ASO's interest in running the Tour of Britain suggests something sure has changed.

Even though I disagree with some of your posts, I enjoy your contributions. We can agree to disagree on some of these issues. As I've posted before, some of my ideas are probably wrong and badly wrong. If we get a clearer picture, I don't care about being wrong. The goal is digging out the truth buried underneath ephemeral twins, enlarged hearts and so on.

 

[ianfra]

Censorship

All of you posters here who go on and on and on at length about Sky have not yet produced a shred of evidence to prove what you are saying is correct. Indeed all you (censored) who make allegations whilst (censored) behind an alias and a computer screen know that you won't get sued (censored) for your (censored), possible lies and allegations. I could accept what you say if you qualified what you said as personal opinion, but you guys (in my humble opinion)have such a monopoly on truth that you appear to post opinion as fact. I think these are very (censored) and unwarranted slurs against good people - worse even than those often unfounded allegations made by (censored) cheap tabloid journalists. (Censored) people should not make these kind of slurs and allegations. Why don't you put up or (censored)? The sad thing I have noticed here is that you are not content with libelling Sky and their riders - you start accusing me of being paid by Sky (I wish!!!!!, I could do with the money) and making other libellous and scandulous allegations about me when you know absolutely nothing. It follows a pattern, doesn't it? You know nothing about Sky, British Cycling, Ian Boswell or Wiggo for that matter, but you post as if you are in possession of facts. Let's see those facts. Let's see the truth. I ask you to kindly put up or (censored).

Indeed, the original was quite an innocuous post but the Accusers who inhabit this Clinic do not like to have the truth pointed out to them and to have people opposing their posts. They want one-way traffic only. What they do is run to the moderators and get people points for 'infractions' and have their posts removed. Most right thinking folk may see this as a somewhat childish game. The Accusers are happy to slander and libel all and sundry and make the most horrendous and hurtful accusations without any proof whatsoever, using 'facts' that are twisted to support their ideas - but at the same time posts that are aimed at trying to rectify their injustices are swiped off the board! I am of the opinion that if the Accusers were to stand in a room full of Sky cyclists (and others from pro teams) and make the same allegations in their presence then they would be faced with a lot of very angry people. The innocent do not like to be accused. This was the point I was making in my original post in a humourous manner - but this was also censored. One way traffic methinks!
-------

 

[BroDeal]

All of you posters here who go on and on and on at length about Sky have not yet produced a shred of evidence to prove what you are saying is correct. Indeed all you (censored) who make allegations whilst (censored) behind an alias and a computer screen know that you won't get sued (censored) for your (censored), possible lies and allegations. I could accept what you say if you qualified what you said as personal opinion, but you guys (in my humble opinion)have such a monopoly on truth that you appear to post opinion as fact. I think these are very (censored) and unwarranted slurs against good people - worse even than those often unfounded allegations made by (censored) cheap tabloid journalists. (Censored) people should not make these kind of slurs and allegations. Why don't you put up or (censored)? The sad thing I have noticed here is that you are not content with libelling Sky and their riders - you start accusing me of being paid by Sky (I wish!!!!!, I could do with the money) and making other libellous and scandulous allegations about me when you know absolutely nothing. It follows a pattern, doesn't it? You know nothing about Sky, British Cycling, Ian Boswell or Wiggo for that matter, but you post as if you are in possession of facts. Let's see those facts. Let's see the truth. I ask you to kindly put up or (censored).

Indeed, the original was quite an innocuous post but the Accusers who inhabit this Clinic do not like to have the truth pointed out to them and to have people opposing their posts. They want one-way traffic only. What they do is run to the moderators and get people points for 'infractions' and have their posts removed. Most right thinking folk may see this as a somewhat childish game. The Accusers are happy to slander and libel all and sundry and make the most horrendous and hurtful accusations without any proof whatsoever, using 'facts' that are twisted to support their ideas - but at the same time posts that are aimed at trying to rectify their injustices are swiped off the board! I am of the opinion that if the Accusers were to stand in a room full of Sky cyclists (and others from pro teams) and make the same allegations in their presence then they would be faced with a lot of very angry people. The innocent do not like to be accused. This was the point I was making in my original post in a humourous manner - but this was also censored. One way traffic methinks!
-------

I have only one thing to say to this. (censored)

 

[Ripper]

Blah blah blah troll babble blah blah blah

Well IF, I'd never label you an employee of Sky. But I do figure you have some issues that suggest you are friends or family with some of the Sky gang. It seems to reallllllly get under your skin. Or you just like to troll for fishes (otherwise why post in the clinic like you do?)

So ... HTFU It's a forum. There's lot's of opinion. That's partly what forums are for ...

 

[the sceptic]

All of you posters here who go on and on and on at length about Sky have not yet produced a shred of evidence to prove what you are saying is correct. Indeed all you (censored) who make allegations whilst (censored) behind an alias and a computer screen know that you won't get sued (censored) for your (censored), possible lies and allegations. I could accept what you say if you qualified what you said as personal opinion, but you guys (in my humble opinion)have such a monopoly on truth that you appear to post opinion as fact. I think these are very (censored) and unwarranted slurs against good people - worse even than those often unfounded allegations made by (censored) cheap tabloid journalists. (Censored) people should not make these kind of slurs and allegations. Why don't you put up or (censored)? The sad thing I have noticed here is that you are not content with libelling Sky and their riders - you start accusing me of being paid by Sky (I wish!!!!!, I could do with the money) and making other libellous and scandulous allegations about me when you know absolutely nothing. It follows a pattern, doesn't it? You know nothing about Sky, British Cycling, Ian Boswell or Wiggo for that matter, but you post as if you are in possession of facts. Let's see those facts. Let's see the truth. I ask you to kindly put up or (censored).

Indeed, the original was quite an innocuous post but the Accusers who inhabit this Clinic do not like to have the truth pointed out to them and to have people opposing their posts. They want one-way traffic only. What they do is run to the moderators and get people points for 'infractions' and have their posts removed. Most right thinking folk may see this as a somewhat childish game. The Accusers are happy to slander and libel all and sundry and make the most horrendous and hurtful accusations without any proof whatsoever, using 'facts' that are twisted to support their ideas - but at the same time posts that are aimed at trying to rectify their injustices are swiped off the board! I am of the opinion that if the Accusers were to stand in a room full of Sky cyclists (and others from pro teams) and make the same allegations in their presence then they would be faced with a lot of very angry people. The innocent do not like to be accused. This was the point I was making in my original post in a humourous manner - but this was also censored. One way traffic methinks!
-------

do you have any evidence to back up these claims? preferably some peer reviewed papers.