Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[gooner]

I've followed this thread quite closely and I don't remember you bringing this up (not saying you haven't but I'd be surprised if you've mentioned it on a dozen occasions). It doesn't help that the Times' articles are behind a pay wall of course.

Just some of the times I have referenced it before today. You might have missed it in the Walsh thread. The paywall is a big hindrance.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1354918&postcount=1209
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1354258&postcount=1127
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1349695&postcount=836
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1349599&postcount=815
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1314582&postcount=20

 

[JRanton]

Do you understand the words I'm saying? I'm saying it's unsubstantiated, I wasn't privy to the conversation, so far I've heard about it from someone quoting a tweet from journalist on an internet forum. Clearly your sources are better.

My sources? The Times Chief Sports reporter has just confirmed it on his twitter feed. That's my source right there. Go and take a look for yourself Jimmy.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

I do. I've managed to obtain the medical records from every hospital in Britian.

And there's never been a hospital room incident.

I'll upload it to pastebin.

you did good during your ban, cycling around britannia hospitals .

 

[JRanton]

Do you need to say that every post? And haven't they removed all of these characters? This was all discussed a year ago, seriously.

Oh well that's ok then. This from the same team who initially said they'd never hire doctors who'd previously worked in the sport, only to then hire a doctor who not only had previously worked in the sport but one who'd run a doping programme for over a decade. And of course they also said they wouldn't hire people who had been involved in doping only to then go and hire a bunch of people who had been involved in doping.

I can't imagine why people struggle to take the things this team says on doping seriously.

 

[JRanton]

Just some of the times I have referenced it before today. You might have missed it in the Walsh thread. The paywall is a big hindrance.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1354918&postcount=1209
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1354258&postcount=1127
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1349695&postcount=836
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1349599&postcount=815
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1314582&postcount=20

Thanks. You're right I'm a bit behind in the Walsh thread.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Oh well that's ok then. This from the same team who initially said they'd never hire doctors who'd previously worked in the sport, only to then hire a doctor who not only had previously worked in the sport but one who'd run a doping programme for over a decade. And of course they also said they wouldn't hire people who had been involved in doping only to then go and hire a bunch of people who had been involved in doping.

I can't imagine why people struggle to take the things this team says on doping seriously.

Seriously, go back and read this thread from the start, this has been covered ad infinitum. Applause is due for you coming to these conclusions finally though, thank god for the The Times' Chief Sports writer's Twitter feed.

 

[thehog]

Seriously, go back and read this thread from the start, this has been covered ad infinitum. Applause is due for you coming to these conclusions finally though, thank god for the The Times' Chief Sports writer's Twitter feed.

ad infinitum?

Ummm, did you know what that actually means?

 

[thehog]

you did good during your ban, cycling around britannia hospitals .

Man, 1000km on the bike. Some of the best weather as well.

Can almost see my rib cage through my skin.

I'm proud. And I'm cleans.

 

[JimmyFingers]

ad infinitum?

Ummm, did you know what that actually means?

Yes I do....

 

[thehog]

Yes I do....

Good. So why use it in this context? It doesn't make sense...

 

[JimmyFingers]

Seriously, go back and read this thread from the start, this has been covered endlessly/without end/to infinity and beyond. Applause is due for you coming to these conclusions finally though, thank god for the The Times' Chief Sports writer's Twitter feed.

All dictionary definitions, although I added 'and beyond'. Clear things up for you?

 

[martinvickers]

Good. So why use it in this context? It doesn't make sense...

Topic, gentlemen. Grammar and Latin; neither are the topic.

 

[Benotti69]

All dictionary definitions, although I added 'and beyond'. Clear things up for you?

quoting Buzz Lightyear, how apt

 

[JimmyFingers]

I try to keep the cultural references to a level I think people here will understand....

 

[JRanton]

Seriously, go back and read this thread from the start, this has been covered ad infinitum. Applause is due for you coming to these conclusions finally though, thank god for the The Times' Chief Sports writer's Twitter feed.

And you're perfectly fine with Sky's recruitment choices? You can't see why people would be sceptical of the team due to those choices?

 

[Ferminal]

Leave Unzue alone...

 

[MatParker117]

And you're perfectly fine with Sky's recruitment choices? You can't see why people would be sceptical of the team due to those choices?

I can and I also think Sky have been at worst caught out by trusting the wrong people (Leinders and Motoman both being recommended to the team by DS's we now know are dodgy).

 

[thehog]

I can and I also think Sky have been at worst caught out by trusting the wrong people (Leinders and Motoman both being recommended to the team by DS's we now know are dodgy).

Poor Sky. Can you believe it? These people just using them to get jobs and not telling them they were drug mules for Armstrong and ran a sophisticated drugs program at Rabobank.

Sky should sue them...

 

[JimmyFingers]

And you're perfectly fine with Sky's recruitment choices? You can't see why people would be sceptical of the team due to those choices?

It's just that if we're discussing Julich, Yates, Leinders and Motoman I feel like I've just walked through a time warp.

Sky are a cycling team. They've had some dodgy people working for them. Like every other cycling team. Unlike every other cycling team they fired them. But still they are at fault for not being more forgiving of ex-dopers, although they should have never hired them in the first place because of their ztp.

So they're wrong for having a ztp and trying to be demonstrably clean, they're wrong for hiring controversial figures from within cycling who have been associated with doping, they're wrong for sticking with the ztp and firing them although they would be under even greater suspicion if they were all still working there, although firing them promotes omerta but also increases the innuendo surrounding the team.

Pointing out someone with a murky past in the pro-peloton is like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[thehog]

It's just that if we're discussing Julich, Yates, Leinders and Motoman I feel like I've just walked through a time warp.

Sky are a cycling team. They've had some dodgy people working for them. Like every other cycling team. Unlike every other cycling team they fired them. But still they are at fault for not being more forgiving of ex-dopers, although they should have never hired them in the first place because of their ztp.

So they're wrong for having a ztp and trying to be demonstrably clean, they're wrong for hiring controversial figures from within cycling who have been associated with doping, they're wrong for sticking with the ztp and firing them although they would be under even greater suspicion if they were all still working there, although firing them promotes omerta but also increases the innuendo surrounding the team.

Pointing out someone with a murky past in the pro-peloton is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Once maybe. Twice? Three times?

They just keep hiring them didn't they?

What might be passed off as a mistake just once becomes much more the 2nd and 3rd, 4th times.

Bet you couldn't name dodgy employees at FDJ, Eurpoacar and RadioShack?

It's not all Jimmy. Not all.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Who have they hired 4 times exactly?

 

[thehog]

Who have they hired 4 times exactly?

Different peoples Jim. All with a nice juicy past.

Ad infinitum.

They got the doc, the transport/logistics guy, the coach, the DS.

The usual suspects in a teamwide doping program.

You know the drill.

Oh and they got Sally Walsh, I mean David Jenkins

 

[JimmyFingers]

Usual suspects, I'd say in your case it's the usual non-information. Good to know that FDJ, Europcar and Radioshack have thehog seal of approval though.

 

[the sceptic]

Poor Sky. Can you believe it? These people just using them to get jobs and not telling them they were drug mules for Armstrong and ran a sophisticated drugs program at Rabobank.

Sky should sue them...

If you buy the Froome fairytale then this is a piece of cake. Leinders conned himself into a job at sky, because all he ever wanted to do was to treat saddle sores at the greatest cycling team in the world for 80 days.

 

[Benotti69]

I try to keep the cultural references to a level I think people here will understand....

or do you think Sky are just like Disney