Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[BroDeal]

Where is your constant criticism of Horner's Armstrong comments in the Horner thread? Or the Chris Squared on. The latter thread completely back fired on you. You were clearly hoping that some people would come out and back Froome as being clean and Horner as doping but only one person did. But then people started showing support for Horner and you were stuck between a rock and a hard place.

That is the point, pud, and it worked great. The Froome and Wiggins hypocrites have been hiding under rocks when it comes to Horner because their naivete about this being a new and clean era when testing limits the effectiveness of doping and clean riders can finally win has been shown for the idiocy it is. It is hilarious how they avid discussing it or misinterpret what others are posting. When are you and the rest of the muppets going to explain Horner's rise to GT contender in the same way you have rationalized Wiggins and Froome? They won't give a go because it will bring uncomfortable comparisons with Froome.

The funny thing about muppets is that they not are self aware enough to detect sarcasm, mockery, and parody.

Horner is the ultimate slap in the face for anyone dumb enough to believe in Froome, or Wiggins for that matter, so the usual suspects like little Jimmy see any drawing of a comparison as trolling.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

That is the point, pud, and it worked great. The Froome and Wiggins hypocrites have been hiding under rocks when it comes to Horner because their naivete about this being a new and clean era when testing limits the effectiveness of doping and clean riders can finally win has been shown for the idiocy it is. It is hilarious how they avid discussing it or misinterpret what others are posting. When are you and the rest of the muppets going to explain Horner's rise to GT contender in the same way you have rationalized Wiggins and Froome? Not going to give a go because it will bring uncomfortable comparisons with Froome.

The funny thing about muppets is that they not self aware enough to detect sarcasm, mockery, and parody.

Horner is the ultimate slap in the face for anyone dumb enough to believe in Froome, or Wiggins for that matter, so the usual suspects like little Jimmy see any drawing of a comparison as trolling.

My position is clear.

*I have rationalised nothing with Froome.

*Wiggins is also simple. If he was clean when he was riding in 2009 then there is a good chance that his climbing could improve to the levels in 2012. However, it is hard to explain away his TTing improving.

Horner. I have no idea about. Was he talented before? I have no real baseline other than he was talented when racing in America. That in itself is not enough for me to form an opinion. I find it funny that people use that for Horner and you say nothing. People say that for Wiggins and you go off into a rant. Double standards.

I actually feel sorry for you. Rather than try and have a civil conversation, even now, you just can't help yourself calling people muppets to get a rise out of them.

I stick with what I said before. You were clearly a huge fan of a rider that got pinged. Could be Armstrong. Could be Landis, Rasmussen, whoever... You now feel cheated and angry with yourself but take it out on other people. Seems like classic anger displacement.

Keep at it though as I am sure it makes you feel better.

* Feel free to prove me wrong with evidence to the contrary.

 

[del1962]

That is the point, pud, and it worked great. The Froome and Wiggins hypocrites have been hiding under rocks when it comes to Horner because their naivete about this being a new and clean era when testing limits the effectiveness of doping and clean riders can finally win has been shown for the idiocy it is. It is hilarious how they avid discussing it or misinterpret what others are posting. When are you and the rest of the muppets going to explain Horner's rise to GT contender in the same way you have rationalized Wiggins and Froome? They won't give a go because it will bring uncomfortable comparisons with Froome.

The funny thing about muppets is that they not are self aware enough to detect sarcasm, mockery, and parody.

Horner is the ultimate slap in the face for anyone dumb enough to believe in Froome, or Wiggins for that matter, so the usual suspects like little Jimmy see any drawing of a comparison as trolling.

I think the evidence against Horner for past doping is fairly strong though, such as Levi's testimony, this is why he is considered more suspicious.

Of course Lemond and Walsh have seen nothing untoward in Wiggins and Froome so they must both be muppets by your logic.

Of course we know the likes of you and Moose are being sarcastic as you attempt to bait, but such stuff is a poor substitute for debate, even if you do manage to wind some ppl up.

 

[MatParker117]

My position is clear.

*I have rationalised nothing with Froome.

*Wiggins is also simple. If he was clean when he was riding in 2009 then there is a good chance that his climbing could improve to the levels in 2012. However, it is hard to explain away his TTing improving.

Horner. I have no idea about. Was he talented before? I have no real baseline other than he was talented when racing in America. That in itself is not enough for me to form an opinion. I find it funny that people use that for Horner and you say nothing. People say that for Wiggins and you go off into a rant. Double standards.

I actually feel sorry for you. Rather than try and have a civil conversation, even now, you just can't help yourself calling people muppets to get a rise out of them.

I stick with what I said before. You were clearly a huge fan of a rider that got pinged. Could be Armstrong. Could be Landis, Rasmussen, whoever... You now feel cheated and angry with yourself but take it out on other people. Seems like classic anger displacement.

Keep at it though as I am sure it makes you feel better.

* Feel free to prove me wrong with evidence to the contrary.

His bike position has come on leaps and bounds for one:
2009:

2012:

He also adjusted his gearing and cadance after the 2011 worlds.

 

[US Patent Exploding Cyclist]

It's the helmet! We figured it out.

 

[the sceptic]

Its the loss of weight. Everyone knows that is the key to becoming better at ITTs.

 

[BroDeal]

His bike position has come on leaps and bounds for one:

LOL. How many pics before 2012 did you ignore to find that one Garmin pic?

 

[del1962]

His bike position has come on leaps and bounds for one:
2009:

2012:

He also adjusted his gearing and cadance after the 2011 worlds.

First cofidis picture I found

 

[greenedge]

I realise it was going out on a limb. But watching him get 3rd in the national TT this year and 3rd in the Tour Down Under in 2011 just made me believe he's doping. I don't think he's any good, and don't think he should have really achieved half of what he has (which i realise isn't large amounts).

Goss came 2nd that year- there was a reduced sprint after Wilunga/ a breakaway that decided the GC.

 

[red_flanders]

*Wiggins is also simple. If he was clean when he was riding in 2009 then there is a good chance that his climbing could improve to the levels in 2012. However, it is hard to explain away his TTing improving.

Sorry to poke in here, but I think a lot of people are more suspicious of his transformation from grupetto fodder to Tour contender in 2009 than they are of his subsequent marginal gains. And I say that last bit somewhat tongue in cheek but it does describe his improvement after 2009 pretty well.

In other words, for me and a lot of others it's not his change from '09 to '12 that seems unbelievable.

 

[sniper]

In an ideal world, McQuaid soon loses the elections, faces jailtime for all sorts of fraud, and decides to throw the whole of Brittish Cycling under the bus.

 

[ferryman]

Just a wee reminder folks to keep personal insults out of it. They just derail and make it tedious and off putting for other posters. If you must, take it offline.

 

[JimmyFingers]

They won more stage races than any other team. I should have wrote dominated some instead of almost, my bad.
Giro is not a "normal" stage race, now is it?



Yeah, Porte was no help at the Tour...



Fact is they dominated some of the early stage races.



They have more points at this time than they had last year, and you claimed they looked "human" this year. Go figure.

Just to point out the back pedalling from 'almost' all the early stage race to just 'some' of them. And it has been already pointed out just how many points have been contributed by two riders.

Given the predictions of dominance, things haven't worked out that way really this season.

 

[BroDeal]

First cofidis picture I found

Where is the big leap in position? The Cofidis looks better than the Sky pic; and the Garmin pic has him pulled forward so he is on the nose of the saddle, arching his back a bit, but that can be a temporary thing to get on top of the gear.

 

[JimmyFingers]

luckily Jimmy thinks Katusha and Movistar are clean too, otherwise it would be hard to explain how Sky are so much better than everyone

Except they're not 'so much' better than everyone else, really.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Haha. What year is this again? It feels like 2004. Never tested positive is a reliable data point now?

Really really helps if you read what i write, understand it and then not just make up a completely different meaning and misrepresent me. Just saying

 

[DirtyWorks]

Except they're not 'so much' better than everyone else, really.

They were indeed so much better. A Tour de France podium, many, many stage wins in a number of races, and UCI's highest ranked team but apparently this doesn't reflect Sky's GT dominance????

So, I'm just supposed to accept your assertion that Sky wasn't so much better than the rest? What else do I have wrong? Please be specific.

 

[red_flanders]

Except they're not 'so much' better than everyone else, really.

Totally subjective statement and completely disingenuous IMO. They absolutely dominated the Tour for the last two years, and every warm-up race they wanted to win, they won.

Total dominance from the #1 team in the world by a wide margin.

Come on.

 

[EnacheV]

Totally subjective statement and completely disingenuous IMO. They absolutely dominated the Tour for the last two years, and every warm-up race they wanted to win, they won.

Total dominance from the #1 team in the world by a wide margin.

Come on.

He said "not much better"

they were indeed better

much better would be winning all 3 GT's

looking at CQ, no of wins, etc, they are just "better" not "much better"

and someone has to be the best

 

[hrotha]

He said "not much better"

they were indeed better

much better would be winning all 3 GT's

looking at CQ, no of wins, etc, they are just "better" not "much better"

and someone has to be the best

Wow. Just... wow.
No wonder some people are never suspicious.

 

[LaFlorecita]

In an ideal world, McQuaid soon loses the elections, faces jailtime for all sorts of fraud, and decides to throw the whole of Brittish Cycling under the bus.

That would be great

 

[burning]

Wow. Just... wow.
No wonder some people are never suspicious.

If they will win all GT's and monuments, they would be a little bit suspicious

 

[del1962]

In an ideal world, McQuaid soon loses the elections, faces jailtime for all sorts of fraud, and decides to throw the whole of Brittish Cycling under the bus.

Ermm, no

In an ideal world all cheating and corruption would be exposed everwhere, world peace would breakout etc, etc and sniper would get his fluffy bunny

However back in the real world, if McQuaid had some dirt on BC, then I would expect that it would leak out in the run up to the election

 

[hrotha]

How would that work? "Cookson is a crook! See how he got me to cover BC's ****!"

 

[sniper]

Ermm, no

In an ideal world all cheating and corruption would be exposed everwhere, world peace would breakout etc, etc and sniper would get his fluffy bunny

However back in the real world, if McQuaid had some dirt on BC, then I would expect that it would leak out in the run up to the election

How would that work? "Cookson is a crook! See how he got me to cover BC's ****!"

just saying, there's a chance that Sky said "where shall we transfer the money to?", where Katusha apparently said "no thank you".
If that's the case, then yes, Pat has dirt on them. But it would also (and even more so) be a lot of dirt on Pat himself, so he won't ever spill those beans unless he's, say, facing jailtime, or something.


now gimme that fluffy bunny