Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Netserk]

Direct hard follow-up questions.

 

[Benotti69]

What?

What What?

Fans of individuals or teams by their very nature are going to have a bias - Walsh (or any journo) cannot change that, all he can do is put forth good questions and put forth the facts.

A good journalist, and Walsh is a good journalist, can put forth the facts and the questions in a manner which purport to be what he believes to reveal the truth. Walsh is interested in the truth, his long chase of Armstrong to reveal the truth of his doping proved that. But he appears to have fallen into fandom again with Sky. Even his talk with Dowsett, shows how little research Walsh has done on Sky and their claims of warm downs and attention to detail.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Direct hard follow-up questions.

Questions like - "Netserk, did you read the piece that you are attempting to comment on?".

 

[thehog]

Questions like - "Netserk, did you read the piece that you are attempting to comment on?".

Questions like: "Are you a vortex? Do you post insensately on the one point over and over creating a vortex?"

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What What?

You asked this question:
If that is the case, why doesn't Wiggins ban Walsh like he did Kimmage?

I have no idea what you are on about.

A good journalist, and Walsh is a good journalist, can put forth the facts and the questions in a manner which purport to be what he believes to reveal the truth. Walsh is interested in the truth, his long chase of Armstrong to reveal the truth of his doping proved that. But he appears to have fallen into fandom again with Sky. Even his talk with Dowsett, shows how little research Walsh has done on Sky and their claims of warm downs and attention to detail.

Great - what facts has he against Wiggins?

And it wasn't until 2001 that he had anything solid against LA (the proven link to ferrari), and even that came after his one on one with him.

 

[Benotti69]

You asked this question:
If that is the case, why doesn't Wiggins ban Walsh like he did Kimmage?

I have no idea what you are on about.

Great - what facts has he against Wiggins?

And it wasn't until 2001 that he had anything solid against LA (the proven link to ferrari), and even that came after his one on one with him.

Fact, Wiggins finished 3+ hours down on 2006 TdF winner.
Fact, Wiggins lost weight without a loss to power, in fact he improved his TT ability after weight loss.
Fact, Wiggins said teams with a 1% connection to doping doctors should be thrown out of the sport, he worked with Leinders and had no problems doing it.


There are 3 facts for you to get your pedantic kicks out on.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Questions like: "Are you a vortex? Do you post insensately on the one point over and over creating a vortex?"

"No, the vortex term was used by a poster called Markvw to deflect against answering a simple direct question."

"Now it is used by many others in the same way. They make a claim which I question and rather than answer it or admit they are wrong they will continue to deflect".
"I actually like the term, when people use it I know that they have no clue or facts, and its is fun to watch them run".

 

[Benotti69]

"
"Now it is used by many others in the same way. They make a claim which I question and rather than answer it or admit they are wrong they will continue to deflect".
"I actually like the term, when people use it I know that they have no clue or facts, and its is fun to watch them run".

An almost perfect description of how Sky goes about its business of transparency.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Fact, Wiggins finished 3+ hours down on 2006 TdF winner.
Fact, Wiggins lost weight without a loss to power, in fact he improved his TT ability after weight loss.
Fact, Wiggins said teams with a 1% connection to doping doctors should be thrown out of the sport, he worked with Leinders and had no problems doing it.


There are 3 facts for you to get your pedantic kicks out on.

Nope, they are not.
Fact 1 is indeed a (near) fact - has Bradley denied it or something?
fact 2 - you have no idea about his weight. None.

Fact 3 is better - but its not a fact, its a statement he made - and a reasonable question to ask. But would it be the first question, no?

 

[Granville57]

"No, the vortex term was used by a poster called Markvw to deflect against answering a simple direct question."

What do you suppose the "v" stood for?

 

[Granville57]

As my grandmother used to say "oh you do go on"

Now what in the world would've ever caused her to say such a thing?

 

[Havetts]

That you people still bother.. LOL

 

[Benotti69]

Nope, they are not.
Fact 1 is indeed a (near) fact - has Bradley denied it or something?

He might explain how went from grupetto fodder to winning in Brailsford like detail.

fact 2 - you have no idea about his weight. None

Something for a journalist to establish as it is extremely important to pose the question considering it is something Sky put out there.

Fact 3 is better - but its not a fact, its a statement he made - and a reasonable question to ask. But would it be the first question, no?

A statement of fact and you could question it anytime you want?

maybe the first question to ask and then again as the last after spending a year embedded depending on how the year went.

 

[thehog]

Now what in the world would've ever caused her to say such a thing?

She used to post in the Clinic a lot.

 

[Benotti69]

That you people still bother.. LOL

It keeps the Skybots off the streets and prevents them doing harm to others

It also keeps the good doctors hands on a keyboard instead of in his..........

 

[Granville57]

It also keeps the good doctors hands on a keyboard instead of in his..........

ears?

(An odd resemblance to Contador, no?)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

He might explain how went from grupetto fodder to winning in Brailsford like detail.

It has been covered previously, in many articles and his book.

You want Walsh who is embedded with Sky and has an opportunity to quiz BW on the same questions he has already been asked?

Something for a journalist to establish as it is extremely important an pose the question considering it is something Sky put out there.

No, its not "extremely important" - in fact it would be mindnumblingly boring.

What exactly was Brads weight - see you dont know, so they would give you watts and fluff and you would have zero way of showing if it was true or not.

A statement of fact and you could question it anytime you want?

maybe the first question to ask and then again as the last after spending a year embedded depending on how the year went.

No, it is not a fact - it was a statement, certainly a good point to see if he would still hold that opinion, and how he would reconcile it against Leinders and the failure of Skys ZPT.

 

[Benotti69]

It has been covered previously, in many articles and his book.

You want Walsh who is embedded with Sky and has an opportunity to quiz BW on the same questions he has already been asked?

When the answers have nto been acceptable of course.

No, its not "extremely important" - in fact it would be mindnumblingly boring.

What exactly was Brads weight - see you dont know, so they would give you watts and fluff and you would have zero way of showing if it was true or not.

Only if you accept that. But then you go talk to a sports scientist or for example his ex DS Eric Boyer.

 

[JRTinMA]

When the answers have nto been acceptable of course.



Only if you accept that. But then you go talk to a sports scientist or for example his ex DS Eric Boyer.

You have been beating the doc unmercifully for two days. Surely there must be a mercy rule on the forum.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

When the answers have nto been acceptable of course.

No answer from BW would be acceptable to you unless he confessed to doping.

What facts (your choice of word) do you have that would show that BWs answers are unacceptable.

Only if you accept that. But then you go talk to a sports scientist or for example his ex DS Eric Boyer.

Ok, what was Wiggins starting weight at last years Tour.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You have been beating the doc unmercifully for two days. Surely there must be a mercy rule on the forum.

I have been beating you for 2 years - no mercy rule here.

 

[TANK91]

You think Evans doped?

Did you tell all your super high up friends in the peloton who give you all that super information no one else has access to. What was their response?

So you think Evans is the last clean TDF winner my god if that is the case you can go on ignore, Evans used Dr ferrari for nurishement did he? ha ha ha ha

 

[TANK91]

I did say riders on, meaning current. But Astana as a team has trashed Sky in Gt victories to date.

You dont say ha ha what an obvious post Sky been in Cycling not for long and Astana had the biggest doper in the peleton now who gets dropped on stages by Purito and Froome lol, this thread in the TDF wow oh friggin wow. Contador the cycling saint, beter than sliced bread will be fun too watch in the clean cycling age struggling. The funny thing is you no im correct, because Cycling saint Alberto got caught so surely in this day and age a Sky ride would have been caught, uh computer says NO. I mean cycling legend Contador is bigger than any Sky rider it's a fact if he got caught, why no Sky failed test?. F schleck another one caught, why no failed test at Sky. I know for a fact its harder to cheat like Armstrong did, i mean come on his tests show positive in this day and age no? So i will repeat if Cycling was still corrupt then why would they take Contador down and let Sky have a free pass. Contador is a legend in his results why would they do it to him and give Sky a British team free reign too dope. Not 1 positive my friend.

LOOK CLOSELY, THIS IS THE TRUTH And YOU NO IT.

I repeat i am not trolling Contador is a legend in this day and age his palmares speaks for itself why would he get caught and no Sky rider have failed, i mean come on. F.Schleck failed a test he is a huge name. And not 1 Sky rider.

 

[the sceptic]

Lance....?

 

[ianfra]

Mcquaid - in on it
Verbrugen - in on it/ masterminded the whole thing
Ligget - in on it
David Millar - doper.
Boogerd - doper
Brunyeel - in on it, doper, doping supplier, mastermind
Lance - in on it, doper, doping suplier, mastermind

bradley wiggins- clean?

Vebruggen: possibly paid off by LA, but not a mastermind
Liggett: Naive - loves the sport so much won't hear a word against it, not in on it at all. Phil wouldn't know!
Millar: ex-doper, came clean and open and is a campaigner, just like you; he's on the right side
Brunyeel: You are probably correct
Lance: ditto but the real mastermind as a socio-pathic controller and bully
McQuaid: The least said the better - a rude and awful man in my opinion
Bradley: A clean breath of fresh air