Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[stampedingviking]

No, he means people like you. Didn't you get it or are you going to come back and counter the points he made about people like you?

People like me? Does he know me?

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Barry Glendenning who does the 'minute by minute' on the guardian is calling something similar to Kimmage in his reports.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/12/tour-de-france-stage-11-live



some examples of his

Barry Glendenning ‏@bglendenning
Mouth-foaming Sky fanboy bike fans keep identifying themselves by sending emails that begin 'I'm not a sky fan boy but ...'

Sounds like our lancey boys.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I repeat what I said in the power estimates thread. The riders that are actually releasing their data are showing some of the lowest power numbers we've ever seen for final climbs in the Tour. You guys are crazy with Sky hate and ignoring reality. The stage was done at a slow pace. The power numbers are low. Where's the evidence of doping?? If sky turned up with this kind of form a few years ago they'd all get slaughtered on the first climb!

For me, one of your crazies, it's contextual. Riders don't have to wear HRM's to bed to stay alive with the doping. That era is done. So, what you have is a firm upper boundary of various blood values and your more reasonable performances. But they (not just sky) are still not doing this race on beet root juice alone.

I also think Sky is playing it smart and trying not to 'break the script' like Froome did today. I think 3-10 places will still shuffle, but Wiggo and Froome won't lose meaningful time to anyone, won't look like they are under much pressure for the climbs unlike their competitors and then clobber everyone on the last TT with a ridiculous performance.

To put it as simply as possible, these guys are coming out of nowhere with fantastic (as in fantasy) performances and then vanishing. We have seen exactly this kind of scenario from many dopers. Couple this with the "cleanest peloton ever" version 2012, and it seems like the preview to the next doping scandal, just like the last few.

Again, thanks for working the power output thread. I follow it closely and find it helpful.

 

[Fergoose]

You cant. This GT team has been training and racing together for how long now? Since La Vuelta last year? If Froome was working with someone else Sky would know about it.

Froome’s own blog indicates he was out of action from mid-February until the start of April while he overcame a viral infection and underwent treatment for his recurring blood disease. Prior to that he’d been in Africa, presumably without his team. This would in theory give him a couple of windows of opportunity to go rogue from the team? I’ve no idea about the time frames of the medical benefits of the PEDs doing the rounds, but I’d imagine he could undergo treatments in April that would benefit him in July? That way the team being together in Tenerife becomes less damning.

Wiggins is the long term project, the trusted name, Froome, concened about potentially losing his contract at the end of the season, tries somehing new at the Vuelta, and turns into Ricco. Naive fans are impressed at the awakening of this sleeping giant, and he becomes a big name. Sky obviously have to maintain he's clean, and he has forced his way into their plans.

But Wiggins only has a couple of years left in him and probably won’t get a better opportunity (competitors, ITT miles) to win the tour. So hypothetically, why, as team management, would you leave him in markedly inferior condition to Froome – particularly if Froome proved whatever he did to ace the Vuelta hasn’t been detected? If you can turn Froome into a consistent GT podium (and arguably by far the best GT rider of the past 9 months), you can definitely take the Wiggins you inherited from Garmin and make him better than Froome.

My personal opinion is Froome is doping. I am not daft enough to close the door to the possibility that any teams (e.g. Sky) are doping. I just can’t rationalise it in my head. If Froome hadn’t had his mechanical he’d be less than a minute behind Wiggins and giving the stated Sky project of a “British” winner (i.e. Bradley) the mother of all headaches.

 

[neineinei]

What utter tosh...a quick Google would have told him this :"Brailsford revealed that Team Sky are investigating Leinders' past and acknowledged that there may be a "reputational risk".
And then this: "Brailsford and Team Sky reconsidered their medical policy – initially no practitioners with a background in cycling were to be hired – after the death of the carer Txema González following a bacterial infection contracted during the 2010 Vuelta a España, citing the need for specialist knowledge to put the riders first."

Txema was NOT a rider but support staff and this is just downright insulting to even bring up let alone use to justify the hiring of Leinders.
Brailfords clutching at straws here and taking the **** out of anyone who knows the game.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/11/dave-brailsford-team-sky?newsfeed=true

And then he tells us Gert ISNT at the tour!..go figure.
PS... I,d bet a large part of my insignificant fortune( that Gert was at the Tennerife training camp. Wonder if any one could confirm or was it total media lock down?

Soigneur Txema González died from blood poisoning and then they needed a dodgy cycling doctor to put the riders first?

I am offended! Firstly because Brailsford is using the untimely and tragic death of Txema González. Secondly because it was all a bit unclear in 2010 if González illness and death was connected to the illness of the rest of the Sky Vuelta team, which was said to come from food poisoning. Brailsford now saying this changes the food poisoning to a possible "food poisoning" in my mind. Why did he need "a cycling specialist" to avoid food poisonings and fix bacterial infections?

 

[Parrot23]

Barry Glendenning ‏@bglendenning
Mouth-foaming Sky fanboy bike fans keep identifying themselves by sending emails that begin 'I'm not a sky fan boy but ...'

Sounds like our lancey boys.

LOL, sounds like people with too much time on their hands to me to have a real life outside of cyberspace.

 

[The Cobra]

For me, one of your crazies, it's contextual. Riders don't have to wear HRM's to bed to stay alive with the doping. That era is done. So, what you have is a firm upper boundary of various blood values and your more reasonable performances. But they (not just sky) are still not doing this race on beet root juice alone.

I also think Sky is playing it smart and trying not to 'break the script' like Froome did today. I think 3-10 places will still shuffle, but Wiggo and Froome won't lose meaningful time to anyone, won't look like they are under much pressure for the climbs unlike their competitors and then clobber everyone on the last TT with a ridiculous performance.

To put it as simply as possible, these guys are coming out of nowhere with fantastic (as in fantasy) performances and then vanishing. We have seen exactly this kind of scenario from many dopers. Couple this with the "cleanest peloton ever" version 2012, and it seems like the preview to the next doping scandal, just like the last few.

Again, thanks for working the power output thread. I follow it closely and find it helpful.

I don't deny that Sky appear very dodgy. At first glance this looks like textbook team doping. But when you look at the numbers, you look at the competition, you see the best riders of this generation are missing and I say really, where is the evidence? I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if someone from Sky did pop a postive, however I most certainly haven't seen anything to confirm beyond doubt that they are all juiced up to the eyeballs.

 

[131313]

This would carry more weight if those condemning Sky relentlessly in fast proliferating threads on this site offered any evidence for their view, attempted to contextualize Sky's performance in this year's field, and offered any way to square their views with the power data thread.

"evidence" at this point is hard to come by, but given the sport's history it's ridiculous not to be highly suspicious of anyone winning a grand tour.

In other words, Sky are dominating a weak field, weakened by the fact that the top 2 contenders are absent, other teams have lost their GC riders due to crashes, and even a route that was intentionally designed not to give climbers an advantage.

There is no such thing as "weak field" at the TDF. This was a rationale for LA's first win. Landis as well. We see how that worked out.

Froome is climbing well by pre-EPO standards, but markedly slower than 90s standards. So, the claim is that they are doping but with some agents that appear not to have much effect on performance. So, the claim is then that they are average riders who need this agent to perform at pre-EPO standards. Froome, Porte, Rogers - no palmares there!

In other words, their performance is not distinguishable from the null hypothesis that they are not doping or at least not using anything that isn't widely available to the rest of the peloton.

Really? Froome is putting out more power than LeMond, Fignon or Hinault...on his time trial bike, than those guys could put out on a sustained climb. I'm not saying it's impossible, but considering that he's not brand new to cycling, you'd have to be an absolute moron to at least not be suspicious and ask questions. No, that's not "proof", but any means, and there could be legitimate reasons as to why he's underperformed, but the question still needs to be asked, and any skepticism is warranted. Yes, they're performing at a level less than the peak of top-fuel racing, but so what? We don't really even have a good understanding of how power degrades over a 3 week bike race, since accurately measuring power also coincided with the EPO era. So, all we "know" is that guys are slower than they were during the peak of blood boosting.

As for Froome's attack today, Pinot jumped on it - he's the youngest rider in the Tour, and he beat Froom at the line. Does he get a pass? That attack put Wiggins into trouble (he can thank the organizers for not including an HC finish this year). Think what Contador or A. Schleck would have done to Wiggins today. Look at the GC after this stage - riders like Zubeldia whose recent finishes were 45th, 27th and 16th is in 6th.

has Zubeldia ever been in the team leader position?

Doping agents have always had a random distribution in the peloton - no one team has had access to some secret agent, so how exactly is Sky dominating (albeit with a diluted agent that only makes you a good pro)?

This, of course, is not true. There are numerous examples of teams having a competitive advantage via better doping methods: Gewiss and Postal being among the most notable. I don't know if Sky have some "secret weapon", but to suggest it's not out there flies in the face of history. I realize that goes against the mantra of "it's a level playing field, they're all doing it", but that's reality.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

LOL, sounds like people with too much time on their hands to me to have a real life outside of cyberspace.

So you are saying "What am I on? I'm on my bike busting my *** six hours a day. What are you on?"

 

[mastersracer]

For me, one of your crazies, it's contextual. Riders don't have to wear HRM's to bed to stay alive with the doping. That era is done. So, what you have is a firm upper boundary of various blood values and your more reasonable performances. But they (not just sky) are still not doing this race on beet root juice alone.

I also think Sky is playing it smart and trying not to 'break the script' like Froome did today. I think 3-10 places will still shuffle, but Wiggo and Froome won't lose meaningful time to anyone, won't look like they are under much pressure for the climbs unlike their competitors and then clobber everyone on the last TT with a ridiculous performance.

To put it as simply as possible, these guys are coming out of nowhere with fantastic (as in fantasy) performances and then vanishing. We have seen exactly this kind of scenario from many dopers. Couple this with the "cleanest peloton ever" version 2012, and it seems like the preview to the next doping scandal, just like the last few.

Again, thanks for working the power output thread. I follow it closely and find it helpful.

Then explain Pinot. He's 22, his first Tour. Was 3rd last year in the Tour of Turkey. On a French team supposedly with a strong anti-doping stance. He was able to match Froome's attack today and then attacked when Froome let up. He then beat Froome at the line. Not to mention his solo win in stage 8. The 'logic' of this thread would be to say he's doping. Do the Sky haters think that?

 

[Benotti69]

Froome’s own blog indicates he was out of action from mid-February until the start of April while he overcame a viral infection and underwent treatment for his recurring blood disease. Prior to that he’d been in Africa, presumably without his team. This would in theory give him a couple of windows of opportunity to go rogue from the team? I’ve no idea about the time frames of the medical benefits of the PEDs doing the rounds, but I’d imagine he could undergo treatments in April that would benefit him in July? That way the team being together in Tenerife becomes less damning.

So you are suggesting that Froome was doping in the supposed sickness window? How do you imagine doping in April benefits him in July. Obviously blood doping. So who is putting the doped blood back into him before the race and on rest days, as is the standard norm? Leinders?

Also since Leinders was hired due to a Soigneur's death of a viral infection then Leinders must have been monitoring Froome. So they would be completely aware of Froome throughout the year.

But Wiggins only has a couple of years left in him and probably won’t get a better opportunity (competitors, ITT miles) to win the tour. So hypothetically, why, as team management, would you leave him in markedly inferior condition to Froome – particularly if Froome proved whatever he did to ace the Vuelta hasn’t been detected? If you can turn Froome into a consistent GT podium (and arguably by far the best GT rider of the past 9 months), you can definitely take the Wiggins you inherited from Garmin and make him better than Froome.

Considering where Froome came from making Froome a GT contender is done by doping. So the same is for Wiggins.

My personal opinion is Froome is doping. I am not daft enough to close the door to the possibility that any teams (e.g. Sky) are doping. I just can’t rationalise it in my head. If Froome hadn’t had his mechanical he’d be less than a minute behind Wiggins and giving the stated Sky project of a “British” winner (i.e. Bradley) the mother of all headaches.

It all comes back to the transparency we were promised. It has disappeared when they are winning the biggest race in the sport which is the very moment it is needed.

Wiggins has called himself a climber, then a TT, when he could do neither to win before.

That teams like RSNT are well known for the preparation, Katusha, Astana, Movistar, OPQS, BMC, Lampre, Liquigas and Lotto are not teams of squeaky cleanliness, yet Sky are making them look ordinary.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Then explain Pinot. He's 22, his first Tour. Was 3rd last year in the Tour of Turkey. On a French team supposedly with a strong anti-doping stance. He was able to match Froome's attack today and then attacked when Froome let up. He then beat Froome at the line. Not to mention his solo win in stage 8. The 'logic' of this thread would be to say he's doping. Do the Sky haters think that?

Wow - the logic would be that he Pinot is one rider, not a team.
Also, if you look at Pinot he has been a pro 2 years and has won mountain classifications before.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I don't deny that Sky appear very dodgy. At first glance this looks like textbook team doping. But when you look at the numbers, you look at the competition, you see the best riders of this generation are missing and I say really, where is the evidence? I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if someone from Sky did pop a postive, however I most certainly haven't seen anything to confirm beyond doubt that they are all juiced up to the eyeballs.

The problem is, this isn't 2008, the biopassport is in effect, and we have seen the amount of doping decrease significantly. But as a result of that, the kind of doping that would have turned you into a mediocre rider in 2006 could be the kind of doping that turns you into an unstoppable behemoth in 2012. You don't need to dope up like your namesake to be noticeably better than the competition today.

If it was just Wiggins, or was Wiggins and Froome, or even if it was all four, but Wiggins was the only one there every day, and it was a different 'other' with him each day as the others lost time, it wouldn't look so bad. But when guys like Mick Rogers are shelling guys like Cadel Evans, and still having two other domestiques behind him, it's just a bit too hard to handle for cycling fans who've seen this too often.

This isn't Saunier Duval 2008 or CSF-Navigare, where you could practically smell the dope coming off them as they dropped time then flew around the mountains. But it is LA-MSS spewing the whole péloton bar Garzelli out the back; it is Liberty Seguros in 2009, it is the US Postal train. It is the HTC train adapted for the mountains. You have the leader that wins then says stupid things in the interviews afterwards, disrespecting the fans, the competition or both; you have a no-nonsense Aussie leadout (though they need to get more violent); you have a Germanic guide who will sit through the early parts of the stage and pace the péloton... but here you have two leaders at the end, a two-headed hydra called Wime, or Froogins.

 

[131313]

I don't deny that Sky appear very dodgy. At first glance this looks like textbook team doping. But when you look at the numbers, you look at the competition, you see the best riders of this generation are missing and I say really, where is the evidence? I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if someone from Sky did pop a postive, however I most certainly haven't seen anything to confirm beyond doubt that they are all juiced up to the eyeballs.

One problem with this line of argument is that we have absolutely not idea who "the best riders" really are? A product of Saiz/Bruyneel who's currently out on suspension? One of the Chemical Brothers? Levi, Menchov, Basso and Valverde are all there, along with Evans. How many GT podiums do they have among them? Of course, many of those guys seem to be shells of their former selves. So, arguing that "the competition is weak" is just a lame argument. There is no such thing as an easy field in the TDF.

As I said in my response above, I really don't think we have a good handle on what "clean numbers look like", at least in a 3 week bike race.

 

[The Hitch]

Im a big froome fan. But a point that had been missed in this thread due to his great vuelta performance is how much he has improved even since then. I mean can you imagine cobo who was with him on pc dropping Evans like that ?

 

[Benotti69]

Then explain Pinot. He's 22, his first Tour. Was 3rd last year in the Tour of Turkey. On a French team supposedly with a strong anti-doping stance. He was able to match Froome's attack today and then attacked when Froome let up. He then beat Froome at the line. Not to mention his solo win in stage 8. The 'logic' of this thread would be to say he's doping. Do the Sky haters think that?

Give over with the 'haters'.

Pro cycling is what we are talking about. not the egg and spoon race at kindergarten school. This sport has a history that has repeated itself too often for fans to roll over and ask for there stomachs to be rubbed just because the team that proclaimed it was going to do it clean is winning.

If Pinot continues in the same manner no doubt there will be questions that he must answer.

Read the whole of the Clinic. You will see there is thread for Voeckler. People have doubted Rolland.

Sky are not the only one's who are questioned. They know this hence their proclaimations about no doping, no one with a history of doping etc etc.

But they broke that. They also broke the transparency they promised.

Now if i was a fan of Sky I would be asking them why and not in here labelling people asking these questions on here as haters.

Sky have a lot of transparency to find for this one.

 

[red_flanders]

2 things to note.

• Insulting other members is not acceptable.
• Not everyone with whom you disagree is a troll. Calling people trolls is also, not shockingly, insulting other members. If you think someone is trolling report it.

Sanctions forthcoming. Please discuss with passion, please refrain from insult.

 

[The Hitch]

I repeat what I said in the power estimates thread. The riders that are actually releasing their data are showing some of the lowest power numbers we've ever seen for final climbs in the Tour. You guys are crazy with Sky hate and ignoring reality. The stage was done at a slow pace. The power numbers are low. Where's the evidence of doping?? If sky turned up with this kind of form a few years ago they'd all get slaughtered on the first climb!

The Sky train know they don't have to ride till the end so they can bury themselves then sit up when other riders are trying to keep something back for later on in the stage. The biggest thing here is the level of competition they are facing. This year has been very poor no doubt. If Contador was here in top shape or Andy Schleck this thread wouldn't even exist. I have seen nothing to suggest rampant team doping so far based on reality not irrational sky hatred.

Those numbers.might look weak for pantani or Armstrong but.for someone like wiggins its like a 36 minute alpe

 

[Parrot23]

So you are saying "What am I on? I'm on my bike busting my *** six hours a day. What are you on?"

I'm on a drip ingesting B vits and glucose. Trying to find a supply of ozone too (or was that greenhouse gases?).

Club riders better beware tomorrow

 

[131313]

Do the Sky haters think that?

Benotti already mentioned this, but it bears repeating: denigrating everyone who dares to raises suspicion as "haters" is the classic obfuscation. People question cycling because of the simple fact that since the advent of the blood-boosting era, the entire sport has made the WWF look credible. Sky are hardly the only ones being questioned.

That said, an individual result is always going to be looked at a little differently than world domination, which is what Sky has been doing in stage races since last year's Vuelta.

 

[thehog]

The problem is, this isn't 2008, the biopassport is in effect, and we have seen the amount of doping decrease significantly. But as a result of that, the kind of doping that would have turned you into a mediocre rider in 2006 could be the kind of doping that turns you into an unstoppable behemoth in 2012. You don't need to dope up like your namesake to be noticeably better than the competition today.

If it was just Wiggins, or was Wiggins and Froome, or even if it was all four, but Wiggins was the only one there every day, and it was a different 'other' with him each day as the others lost time, it wouldn't look so bad. But when guys like Mick Rogers are shelling guys like Cadel Evans, and still having two other domestiques behind him, it's just a bit too hard to handle for cycling fans who've seen this too often.

This isn't Saunier Duval 2008 or CSF-Navigare, where you could practically smell the dope coming off them as they dropped time then flew around the mountains. But it is LA-MSS spewing the whole péloton bar Garzelli out the back; it is Liberty Seguros in 2009, it is the US Postal train. It is the HTC train adapted for the mountains. You have the leader that wins then says stupid things in the interviews afterwards, disrespecting the fans, the competition or both; you have a no-nonsense Aussie leadout (though they need to get more violent); you have a Germanic guide who will sit through the early parts of the stage and pace the péloton... but here you have two leaders at the end, a two-headed hydra called Wime, or Froogins.

I'm 100% with you. You don't need a dope test for what we're seeing. You just need you're own eyes. You just need to trust in what we're seeing. Everyone on this forum even the British fans are smart enough to know what's going on.

Doesn't matter what countries the cyclists come from. What we're seeing is pure unadulterated doping at a team level.

You just need to watch Chris Froome in the last 9km. He was cycling at will. Whatever he needed to do he could do and still speak with the DS on his radio. All that whilst climbing at racing speed up 14% gradient mountains. This is while last years winner was struggling just to maintain rhythm 2 minutes off the back. Froome could pace on the front to chase Nibili, then attack, to stop and then pace at race sped to the finish.

You don't need a dope test for all of this. It doesn't pass the straight face test. Its just absurd.

Minus Wiggins and Froome in the Tour it would actually be a very good race.

You've all been robbed at seeing a really good contest. Its simply become a joke.

 

[mastersracer]

"evidence" at this point is hard to come by, but given the sport's history it's ridiculous not to be highly suspicious of anyone winning a grand tour.

This, of course, is not true. There are numerous examples of teams having a competitive advantage via better doping methods: Gewiss and Postal being among the most notable. I don't know if Sky have some "secret weapon", but to suggest it's not out there flies in the face of history. I realize that goes against the mantra of "it's a level playing field, they're all doing it", but that's reality.

It's fine if people want to flag Froome's performance as suspicious, but the line in this thread is that their team performance - mostly Froome - is sufficient to infer a systematic team doping program (with some science fiction agent X). Froome's performance is not better than his Vuelta TT or climbing performances (the climbing actually looks lower). I called them haters because they infer a giant conspiracy from Froome.

The drugs of choice - EPO, HGH, and testosterone - rapidly diffused across the peloton. I believe EPO was first used in Belgium, and a number of lower-tier riders were early adopters. There may be differences in terms of knowledge, but the agents themselves (or functional equivalents) were not exclusive for very long. These days, just about any agent a pro would use can be found on the Internet.

 

[red_flanders]

It's fine if people want to flag Froome's performance as suspicious, but the line in this thread is that their team performance - mostly Froome - is sufficient to infer a systematic team doping program (with some science fiction agent X). Froome's performance is not better than his Vuelta TT or climbing performances (the climbing actually looks lower). I called them haters because they infer a giant conspiracy from Froome.

The drugs of choice - EPO, HGH, and testosterone - rapidly diffused across the peloton. I believe EPO was first used in Belgium, and a number of lower-tier riders were early adopters. There may be differences in terms of knowledge, but the agents themselves (or functional equivalents) were not exclusive for very long. These days, just about any agent a pro would use can be found on the Internet.

Mod mode: Probably worth backing off the "haters" line, it's old, tired and bound to start flame wars.

Member mode: How did Froome get to his Vuelta level? How has he been at such a high level all year?

 

[131313]

The drugs of choice - EPO, HGH, and testosterone - rapidly diffused across the peloton. I believe EPO was first used in Belgium, and a number of lower-tier riders were early adopters. There may be differences in terms of knowledge, but the agents themselves (or functional equivalents) were not exclusive for very long. These days, just about any agent a pro would use can be found on the Internet.

we *still* don't know the most effective methods to use these drugs. Yes, they're available for all to use,most of them anyway. But there's a reason why Conconi and his disciples were able to charge the premium they were, and that's because that had very large research money behind them, which they used to devise the most effective methods of how to use these drugs for performance enhancement (money which ironically was supposed to go into devising a test for EPO...). It's not like there are off-label indications which tell you how to use these drugs to ride a bike faster.

Also, don't exclude the possibility of an experimental drug being sold to the highest bidder. Before you disregard this as tinfoil hat stuff, keep in mind that's exactly what happened with EPO in the late 80's, at least according to the Donati report. Drug companies approached sports doctors with the specific intent to sell the stuff on the black market. So, that's a scenario that's entirely plausible.

And again, "plausibility" is not "proof", and I'm not claiming otherwise. I'd love to believe, just as much as the next guy.

 

[Benotti69]

It's fine if people want to flag Froome's performance as suspicious, but the line in this thread is that their team performance - mostly Froome - is sufficient to infer a systematic team doping program (with some science fiction agent X). Froome's performance is not better than his Vuelta TT or climbing performances (the climbing actually looks lower). I called them haters because they infer a giant conspiracy from Froome.

The drugs of choice - EPO, HGH, and testosterone - rapidly diffused across the peloton. I believe EPO was first used in Belgium, and a number of lower-tier riders were early adopters. There may be differences in terms of knowledge, but the agents themselves (or functional equivalents) were not exclusive for very long. These days, just about any agent a pro would use can be found on the Internet.

EPO uses in cycling was developed in Italy. See Dr Conconi.

Who knows what today's drugs of choice are. It took along time for them to catch up with a test for EPO. They had to draw a line at 50% HCT to prevent over doping with it.

People are infering the lack of transparency and the ability of domestiques to out perform other GC contenders. Simple questions that require answers.

Sky promised to be transparent. It aint happening. Not hate. Lots of other things but not hate. Anger, resentment, sadness, frustration etc etc but not hate.