Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Netserk]

Riis, Armstrong, Kohl, Wiggins

That's not really before 1990.

 

[Granville57]

But then if you know exactly what works in a natural world pray do tell.

Well, the word "exactly" is yours. But since you chose to completely ignore what he did say, allow me to translate.

Exceptional talent will usually reveal itself in the early part of an athlete's career, and show a steady and logical progression. There are countless examples of this that you can find all on your own using something called Google.

Again, we are talking about EXCEPTIONAL talent, like what is being displayed by Mr. Froome.

Is that too difficult to understand?

 

[The Hitch]

That's not really before 1990.

Yeah i misread that bit.

 

[pmcg76]

In a natural world success is even more unpredictable. There is no standard, no control, no formula, no matter how much people want there to be, so anyone outside of it can be proclaimed mutant.

And I'm not talking climbing speeds btw.

But then if you know exactly what works in a natural world pray do tell. We can compare and contrast.

Well pre EPO and blood doping was as natural as pro cycling is gonna get yet we are struggling to find a case like Froome from that era. Simply put there is no precedent to go on thus I think it is natural for people to be skeptical of something that has never been witnessed other than in the EPO era.

 

[Netserk]

Yeah i misread that bit.

You are on a roll lately

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Please anyone. Show me one great rider from before 1990 who had a similar progression as Froome. Just one.

I will help save the internet.
There was one rider who had an impressive transformation that took me by surprise, Urs Zimmerman.
So as not to break the internet he finished 3rd in 1986 TdF, prior to that he had only completed 2 GTs, 58th in TdF 84 & 50th in Giro 85.
However, what I was not aware of in 86 was that he had won the Tour de Suisse in his first year in 84 and was a former World Amateur champion.

 

[Escarabajo]

I disagree. There are many factors involved. If you entertain for a moment that Froome is clean, how come so few spotted him?

It doesn't sound easy to me.

This is an interesting topic, but my mind is falling asleep.

I disagree with you. Froome could be talented but not GT winner material. That's why I don't believe he is clean. That is one of the criteria that I use.

There was one guy that gave me hope of regular guy evolving into a contender (I said that on a different thread). His name was Chiappucci. Boy, did I get excited. From that point on there was hope for me for all those riders who wanted to be GT contenders and were regular riders. And I was so wrong when I found out many years later the crude reality. Commentators back in the 80's and 70's always said it. Very talented riders could be seen from a mile away. My hope was gone. It only comes back with oxygen vectors.

For a regular Joe like me or other non-professional athlete there could be big natural jumps in performances. But I don't believe is the case for already trained Professional athletes who are already pre-selected to ride Tours.

 

[gooner]

I do think however there were far better questions Kimmage could ask than about EBH. Its a long winded way of questioning the anglophone miracles, that many won't catch on to.

No, they did not. And anyone I asked on twitter what was it that Kimmage said had no idea and were reacting to Kennaughs tweet.

No, that was up shortly afterwards. With the exception of a couple, the majority on my timeline knew what it was about. I'm catching up now a bit more on this as I was watching the football tonight and initially I wasn't sure if Kimmage was referring to this in a doping way when he was questioning EBH's mentality as a rider. I have just seen the comment where he contrasts EBH and Froome and we know where he was going with it. I agree with Hitch above where it could have been done with a more appropriate line of questioning. He should have been straight up more frank with it than to do it in some coded terminology.

Kimmage just asked a simple question (and has reported the truth)- which he is employed to do, the fact it got under peoples skin is not his fault and very telling on those who are upset.

That's grand but do you think it was OK for him to practically imply EBH was a mercenary afterwards on Norwegian TV?

I thought that was a bit out of order.

In what way is it more telling? Kennaugh could be great friends with EBH for all we know.

 

[hrotha]

But he's a new Mercx!! Surely a new mercs, even clean, shouldn't be crap!!

He's not crap. He just lacks endurance and confidence.

PEDs help immensely with both.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, that was up shortly afterwards. With the exception of a couple, the majority on my timeline knew what it was about. I'm catching up now a bit more on this as I was the football tonight and initially I wasn't sure if Kimmage was referring to this in a doping when he was questioning EBH's mentality as a rider. I have just seen the comment where he contrasts EBH and Froome and we know where he was going with it. I agree with Hitch above where it could have been done with a more appropriate line of questioning. He should have been straight up more frank with it than to do it in some coded terminology.

My timeline and your timeline are not the same - I asked a couple of the people who I read giving out about Kimmage what had he said, they did not know.

That's grand but do you think it was OK for him to practically imply EBH was a mercenary afterwards on Norwegian TV?

I thought that was a bit out of order.

In what way is it more telling? Kennaugh could be great friends with EBH for all we know.

I didnt take PK as implying that EBH was mercenary, I took it that Sky were paying him a lot of money and he has not fulfilled his promise, which IMO is a fair call. Of course what PK was asking DB was to explain why EBH had fulfilled his promise, in contrast to (IMO) less talented riders.

 

[gooner]

My timeline and your timeline are not the same - I asked a couple of the people who I read giving out about Kimmage what had he said, they did not know.


I didnt take PK as implying that EBH was mercenary, I took it that Sky were paying him a lot of money and he has not fulfilled his promise, which IMO is a fair call. Of course what PK was asking DB was to explain why EBH had fulfilled his promise, in contrast to (IMO) less talented riders.

That would be a fair call if he said that.

But PK said this from the google translation.

I'm surprised he's been in Sky so long. I do not know what they are paying him, but there must be serious amounts of money.

 

[MatParker117]

That was a dumb comment from Kimmage and the way Kennaugh reacted was more than fair.

 

[melkemugg]

Kimmage should stop letting his anger decide everything he says. He is waay too bitter to be doing this at this level. He will hurt anti doping more than help it, if he cant get his **** together.

 

[the sceptic]

Kimmage should stop letting his anger decide everything he says. He is waay too bitter to be doing this at this level. He will hurt anti doping more than help it, if he cant get his **** together.

Yeah this is an unconstitutional witch hunt against sky.

 

[melkemugg]

Yeah this is an unconstitutional witch hunt against sky.

No. Sky should have gotten harsher, as in SMARTER, -questions unleashed against them.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That would be a fair call if he said that.

But PK said this from the google translation.

Even reading it again I still take it as Sky are paying him a lot of money, not EBH being a mercenary.
And in particular when it is done through google translate, because the next line makes no sense and is opposite to what he suggests:

I'm surprised he's been in Sky so long. I do not know what they are paying him, but there must be serious amounts of money. He has not got the potential. He should have been leader of a team. For me he should have been one of those who came to the Tour as one of the favorites to win. ...

Some final points - I can certainly understand if EBH is peed off with what was said, and while I thought Kennaugh was a bit OTT, again it is understandable.
More importantly - for all the Sky fans who are upset about PKs actions - it would not have been known about had Kennaugh not sent the tweet.

 

[Ferminal]

There are no facts, only interpretations. Nietzsche

Quality work from Zam, need to remember that one

This is yours Jimmy!

@NietzscheQuotes 24m

Not when truth is dirty, but when it is shallow, does the enlightened man dislike to wade into its waters. #Nietzsche

 

[gooner]

Even reading it again I still take it as Sky are paying him a lot of money, not EBH being a mercenary.

I had a conversation on twitter today with a Norwegian person about this and I brought this up. It was said back to me that Kimmage meant money was the reason for him staying there.

 

[martinvickers]

The people I read and asked had no idea what Kimmage had said, none. They reacted solely to Kennaughs tweet.
How many minutes did it take for you to see it?

Less than 10. and I wasn't trying all that hard, because i was actually looking up whether Brian Gregan was running tonight.

A simple News google for, if memory serves kimmage+sky+press and a past hour filter did the trick instantly. The main hit was a norwegian news site which had a rather mournful picture of Eddy, Kimmage and the header : kimmage : Sky ruined Eddy. Google translate did the needful.

 

[martinvickers]

Superdope? What Superdope - oh, your making up a strawman.
But since you ask - Thomas and Kennaugh are both talented, but neither is a pure GT rider nor a superdom. Porte certainly is and could even be a GT leader on a different team.

But you don't need to BE a superdom. when you can MAKE superdoms. See Froome, Chris, 2011-2012. Because he's a donkey turned racehorse, no? So if Thomas and Kennaugh are NOT donkey's all the easier to make them into superdoms, like US Postal.

So if the point is to create British winners and stars, AND you have the doping means to do it, AND you can allegedly turn British donkey's into racehorses (wiggins, froome), AND you have a batch of tame british riders on site, already with some talent, why stick in a 'natural' Aussie in Porte as superdom, and then 'ruin' another natural, a 'new Mercx' in Norwegian Eddy? It don't make no sense...

By the way , can we just pin this down now before people start rewrting later.

Is Porte a natural potential GC contendor or not? Because according to you here, he is - unlike wiggins and froome, presumably - ...and I wouldn't like to think you'd then throw him on the doping, donkey to racehorse, he was never all that, pile later....

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But you don't need to BE a superdom. when you can MAKE superdoms. See Froome, Chris, 2011-2012. Because he's a donkey turned racehorse, no? So if Thomas and Kennaugh are NOT donkey's all the easier to make them into superdoms, like US Postal.

Did I ever say that? No.
Save the straw for someone else.
As for Thomas & Kennaugh - again they are not GT specialists, real simple.
But I do expect them both very good at the roles they will do.

So if the point is to create British winners and stars, AND you have the doping means to do it, AND you can allegedly turn British donkey's into racehorses (wiggins, froome), AND you have a batch of tame british riders on site, already with some talent, why stick in a 'natural' Aussie in Porte as superdom, and then 'ruin' another natural, a 'new Mercx' in Norwegian Eddy? It don't make no sense...

By the way , can we just pin this down now before people start rewrting later.

We can pin it down right this second.
You are making up a lot of stuff that I don't agree with and have never said.

Is Porte a natural potential GC contendor or not? Because according to you here, he is - unlike wiggins and froome, presumably - ..and I wouldn't like to think you'd then throw him on the doping, donkey to racehorse, he was never all that, pile later....

"Natural" - hmm didn't think I said that, oh wait I didn't.

But out of Porte, Froome, Wiggins - his progression is what I would expect.
And on his 2013 form (which could indeed be argued as to how he got there) he could be a GT leader on a different team.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Less than 10. and I wasn't trying all that hard, because i was actually looking up whether Brian Gregan was running tonight.

A simple News google for, if memory serves kimmage+sky+press and a past hour filter did the trick instantly. The main hit was a norwegian news site which had a rather mournful picture of Eddy, Kimmage and the header : kimmage : Sky ruined Eddy. Google translate did the needful.

Firstly - you are not me, you are not on my timeline, so you have no idea (and some cheek) to suggest what I read and followed on my timeline.

Furthermore - it was more than 10 minutes,Kennaughs tweet was at 17:12 CET, Tv2 piece was not posted until 17:32 (assuming CET) is 20 minutes.

 

[Escarabajo]

...

By the way , can we just pin this down now before people start rewrting later.

Is Porte a natural potential GC contendor or not? Because according to you here, he is - unlike wiggins and froome, presumably - ...and I wouldn't like to think you'd then throw him on the doping, donkey to racehorse, he was never all that, pile later....

Good question to ask Contador in the next press conference.

Under today's Sky program he is a GT Contender.

 

[northstar]

That was a dumb comment from Kimmage and the way Kennaugh reacted was more than fair.

Disagree. A professional athlete calling a journalist a disrespectful loser is an immature biased comment. Brailsford dropped the ball on Kimmage’s question. He could have easily deflected it. Sky is a PR disaster.

 

[BroDeal]

Disagree. A professional athlete calling a journalist a disrespectful loser is an immature biased comment. Brailsford dropped the ball on Kimmage’s question. He could have easily deflected it. Sky is a PR disaster.

Bruyneelsford is so used to being fawned over by the Brits that he gets dumbfounded by simple, legit questions.