Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Libertine Seguros]

You know, the more time goes by, the more I come to appreciate Juan José Cobo's Vuelta win.

What do we have to suggest that Juan José Cobo dopes?
- history of performing well in suspect teams (see: Mick Rogers)
- came from seemingly nowhere (see: Richie Porte, Chris Froome)
- had been nowhere for a couple of years then was suddenly dropping top level climbers (see: Chris Froome, Bradley Wiggins, Mick Rogers)
- had been absolutely rotten the previous year despite expectations based on a GT top 10 the year before that (see: Richie Porte)
- had raced for a team with shady medical past (see: Geert Leinders)
- had a guy implicated in a scandal super-domestiquing for him in Menchov - Humanplasma (see: Mick Rogers - Freiburg)
- had DSes and team staff with dubious history (see: Sean Yates)

And the Cobo thread never got to be as long as this. Not nearly. People looked at his suspicious performances threw out the accusation that Cobo was doping, and most people thought "yea, probably," and left it at that.

Nobody went to 300 pages' length of posting up to the character limit to defend Juanjo Cobo. Where's Cobo's army of fans massing to defend his name? Where's the legions of El Bisonte's loyal followers regaling us with page upon page of deflection and thinly-veiled accusations at other riders to clear his good name? El Bisonte de la Pesa has nothing against his name. He's never tested positive, never been flagged on the bio-passport, never been named in any scandals.

Where's the love for our last guaranteed clean Vuelta winner, huh?

 

[Zam_Olyas]

You know, the more time goes by, the more I come to appreciate Juan José Cobo's Vuelta win.

What do we have to suggest that Juan José Cobo dopes?
- history of performing well in suspect teams (see: Mick Rogers)
- came from seemingly nowhere (see: Richie Porte, Chris Froome)
- had been nowhere for a couple of years then was suddenly dropping top level climbers (see: Chris Froome, Bradley Wiggins, Mick Rogers)
- had been absolutely rotten the previous year despite expectations based on a GT top 10 the year before that (see: Richie Porte)
- had raced for a team with shady medical past (see: Geert Leinders)
- had a guy implicated in a scandal super-domestiquing for him in Menchov - Humanplasma (see: Mick Rogers - Freiburg)
- had DSes and team staff with dubious history (see: Sean Yates)

And the Cobo thread never got to be as long as this. Not nearly. People looked at his suspicious performances threw out the accusation that Cobo was doping, and most people thought "yea, probably," and left it at that.

Nobody went to 300 pages' length of posting up to the character limit to defend Juanjo Cobo. Where's Cobo's army of fans massing to defend his name? Where's the legions of El Bisonte's loyal followers regaling us with page upon page of deflection and thinly-veiled accusations at other riders to clear his good name? El Bisonte de la Pesa has nothing against his name. He's never tested positive, never been flagged on the bio-passport, never been named in any scandals.

Where's the love for our last guaranteed clean Vuelta winner, huh?

Good post.Libertine.

 

[Parrulo]

So all the Brits who havnt been caught doping are dopers but all the Spanish and Italians who have been caught doping are better and clean? Did you see the non doping Italian team at the worlds, see the quality there did you?

All the brits arnt better but they are there and havnt been caught. Where was bertie in July?

let's see italy's selection for this year's worlds:

Italy (11 pre-selected, 9 to start)
Vincenzo Nibali (Liquigas)
Moreno Moser (Liquigas)
Diego Ulissi (Lampre)
Oscar Gatto (Farnese)
Rinaldo Nocentini (AG2R)
Dario Cataldo (OPQS)
Marco Marcato (Vacansoleil)
Luca Paolini (Katusha)
Matteo Trentin (OPQS)

i see more talent there then anything any anglo country has to offer. moser ulissi and trentin are enormous talents who, since italy decided to side line those with a doping history had to step up to the big league while still under 23. so your argument is obviously flawed( as i assume you are talking about lack of quality in the team) there is obviously a lot of quality there they simply are too young to perform.

also notice that i didn't even have to use 27 year old's nibali and gatto who both are very nice talents in their own right.

 

[hrotha]

Nice job reminding us that dirty Italy sidelined their convicted dopers while Millar did a tremendous job at the Olympics RR.

 

[uphillstruggle]

Where's the love for our last guaranteed clean Vuelta winner, huh?

Anyone who wears cycling socks that long is not to be trusted and obviously doesn't have the moral fibre to not to dope.

 

[sittingbison]

Anyone who wears cycling socks that long is not to be trusted and obviously doesn't have the moral fibre to not to dope.

...and they are BLACK

 

[Ferminal]

I think as long as they aren't grey, he's clean.

 

[simo1733]

Nice job reminding us that dirty Italy sidelined their convicted dopers while Millar did a tremendous job at the Olympics RR.

To be fair,Millar was given a lifetime olympic ban but WADA challenged it.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Re the lack of verbiage relating to Cobo vs that relating to Wiggo, it's most likely because he's a low profile rider, with no fan base, and only his Mum really cares. (He might generate more gigabytes on a Spanish forum.)

The volume of threads relating to Lance, Ullrich and Berto - both pro and anti - suggest that it's the profile of the rider that generates the volume of postings rather than the rights or wrongs of the rider in question's case.

Cobo did generate some controversy last year on several forums, but this was lost in the greater controversy of Froome's performances and, of course, the delight generated in the anti-Sky faction by Sky's support of Wiggins early on ultimately (probably) costing Froome top spot on the podium.

 

[ebandit]

remember?

Nice job reminding us that dirty Italy sidelined their convicted dopers while Millar did a tremendous job at the Olympics RR.

remember the boc did everything they could to disallow millar from competing in the olympics

boc lifetime ban on sanctioned riders performing at the olympics was only lifted by cas

guilty sky riders would have been dealt with just as fairly?

 

[RownhamHill]

You know, the more time goes by, the more I come to appreciate Juan José Cobo's Vuelta win.

What do we have to suggest that Juan José Cobo dopes?
- history of performing well in suspect teams (see: Mick Rogers)
- came from seemingly nowhere (see: Richie Porte, Chris Froome)
- had been nowhere for a couple of years then was suddenly dropping top level climbers (see: Chris Froome, Bradley Wiggins, Mick Rogers)
- had been absolutely rotten the previous year despite expectations based on a GT top 10 the year before that (see: Richie Porte)
- had raced for a team with shady medical past (see: Geert Leinders)
- had a guy implicated in a scandal super-domestiquing for him in Menchov - Humanplasma (see: Mick Rogers - Freiburg)
- had DSes and team staff with dubious history (see: Sean Yates)

And the Cobo thread never got to be as long as this. Not nearly. People looked at his suspicious performances threw out the accusation that Cobo was doping, and most people thought "yea, probably," and left it at that.

Nobody went to 300 pages' length of posting up to the character limit to defend Juanjo Cobo. Where's Cobo's army of fans massing to defend his name? Where's the legions of El Bisonte's loyal followers regaling us with page upon page of deflection and thinly-veiled accusations at other riders to clear his good name? El Bisonte de la Pesa has nothing against his name. He's never tested positive, never been flagged on the bio-passport, never been named in any scandals.

Where's the love for our last guaranteed clean Vuelta winner, huh?

This is superficially an interesting post, but then on reflection, I don't really see what your point is.

Looking back at the Cobo thread, there's a few of the usual suspects accusing Cobo (yourself included it has to be said), and yeah no one really defending him. But so what? Does that automatically mean that everyone else thinks he's doping? I don't think so.

I guess lots of people on this forum aren't as knowledgeable as some others - the main reason I follow the Clinic is that posters like yourself share a lot of knowledge I don't know. I don't mind saying I've only really 'got' road cycling in the last few years (since 2009 tour) and when it comes to Cobo, frankly I'd never heard of him before the Vuelta last year (and to be honest haven't heard much of him since. . .). I have no idea about him as rider, his background, his history, his personality - nada. So if someone says 'he's doping', I sigh to myself, think 'that's interesting, I hope/wish it's not true' and then move on - there is nothing for me to add to that conversation.

On the other hand, as a general UK sports fan, I've been aware of Wiggins the athlete since he got an Olympic bronze in 2000. I can sketch the outline of his career since then from the top of my head (in the same way I can sketch, say Justin Rose's career, or Lewis Hamilton's, or Andy Murray's or whomever). I've read dozens of interviews/columns about him/British Cycling over the last 12 years. In short my level of knowledge and emotional investment in him is magnitudes higher than Cobo, and as such I'm more likely to contribute on a thread about him. And I would think - given this is an English speaking forum, on a website of an English language publication, produced in England - that many other readers share that 'bias'.

So does this mean I think Cobo doped and Wiggins didn't? Not at all. I think it's possible both have doped, and equally I'd like to hope that neither did - so for now, in the absence of any decent evidence to the contrary I give both the benefit of my doubt. But it just so happens I can outline more reasons why I think Wiggins might not have doped than I can Cobo - it doesn't mean such reasons don't exist for Cobo, it's just I don't know either way.

So, really, what your post is saying to me is that some people in the Clinic like to throw out circumstantial accusations against riders, mainly based on them winning, and that others in the Clinic happen to have more knowledge/interest/motivation in defending some riders over others, based on their own personal backgrounds. In other news, it was raining this morning when I cycled into work. So I got wet.

 

[Benotti69]

This is superficially an interesting post, but then on reflection, I don't really see what your point is.

Looking back at the Cobo thread, there's a few of the usual suspects accusing Cobo (yourself included it has to be said), and yeah no one really defending him. But so what? Does that automatically mean that everyone else thinks he's doping? I don't think so.

I guess lots of people on this forum aren't as knowledgeable as some others - the main reason I follow the Clinic is that posters like yourself share a lot of knowledge I don't know. I don't mind saying I've only really 'got' road cycling in the last few years (since 2009 tour) and when it comes to Cobo, frankly I'd never heard of him before the Vuelta last year (and to be honest haven't heard much of him since. . .). I have no idea about him as rider, his background, his history, his personality - nada. So if someone says 'he's doping', I sigh to myself, think 'that's interesting, I hope/wish it's not true' and then move on - there is nothing for me to add to that conversation.

On the other hand, as a general UK sports fan, I've been aware of Wiggins the athlete since he got an Olympic bronze in 2000. I can sketch the outline of his career since then from the top of my head (in the same way I can sketch, say Justin Rose's career, or Lewis Hamilton's, or Andy Murray's or whomever). I've read dozens of interviews/columns about him/British Cycling over the last 12 years. In short my level of knowledge and emotional investment in him is magnitudes higher than Cobo, and as such I'm more likely to contribute on a thread about him. And I would think - given this is an English speaking forum, on a website of an English language publication, produced in England - that many other readers share that 'bias'.

So does this mean I think Cobo doped and Wiggins didn't? Not at all. I think it's possible both have doped, and equally I'd like to hope that neither did - so for now, in the absence of any decent evidence to the contrary I give both the benefit of my doubt. But it just so happens I can outline more reasons why I think Wiggins might not have doped than I can Cobo - it doesn't mean such reasons don't exist for Cobo, it's just I don't know either way.

So, really, what your post is saying to me is that some people in the Clinic like to throw out circumstantial accusations against riders, mainly based on them winning, and that others in the Clinic happen to have more knowledge/interest/motivation in defending some riders over others, based on their own personal backgrounds. In other news, it was raining this morning when I cycled into work. So I got wet.

The point of the post was to illustrate the blindness and bias of fanboys.

If they were cycling fans who believed that cycling was cleaner the same arguments they put forward for Wiggins being clean would have been made for Cobo.

But very fiew of those in the Sky thread proclaiming that cycling is cleaner, due to Sky winning the TdF were not defending Cobo's win at LaVuelta as a victory for clean cycling.

Nor have they been in the Contador thread stating that the victory of Contador's La Vuelta is another victory for clean cycling. He has returned in the mold of David Millar reborn renewed and due to the sport being clean winning without PEDs.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The point of the post was to illustrate the blindness and bias of fanboys.

If they were cycling fans who believed that cycling was cleaner the same arguments they put forward for Wiggins being clean would have been made for Cobo.

But very fiew of those in the Sky thread proclaiming that cycling is cleaner, due to Sky winning the TdF were not defending Cobo's win at LaVuelta as a victory for clean cycling.

Nor have they been in the Contador thread stating that the victory of Contador's La Vuelta is another victory for clean cycling. He has returned in the mold of David Millar reborn renewed and due to the sport being clean winning without PEDs.

Particularly when it's self-proclaimed "scientists", seeking only to defend truth and science, who "aren't actually fans of Wiggins" or better still, "dislike Sky", yet only post in the Sky/Wiggins/BS threads, and only correct, insult or disagree with people claiming Wiggins et al are doped.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

But very few of those in the Sky thread proclaiming that cycling is cleaner, due to Sky winning the TdF were not defending Cobo's win at LaVuelta as a victory for clean cycling.

This is true, but the volume of posts pro Wiggo is motivated by accusations of Wiggo doping, not accusations that cycling isn't clean.

Any anti-Cobo sentiments are of little interest to anyone who supports a particular rider who isn't Cobo. Anti-Cobo sentiments are only really of interest to his narrow fanbase or the idealists who yearn for clean cycling rather than supporting a particular rider.

 

[Benotti69]

This is true, but the volume of posts pro Wiggo is motivated by accusations of Wiggo doping, not accusations that cycling isn't clean.

Any anti-Cobo sentiments are of little interest to anyone who supports a particular rider who isn't Cobo. Anti-Cobo sentiments are only really of interest to his narrow fanbase or the idealists who yearn for clean cycling rather than supporting a particular rider.

It would appear that Sky fans proclaim clean cycling by default stating that Wiggins is clean or did he do an Armstrong and beat all the dopers?.

To bang on about Wiggins being clean and ignore other riders with a similar achievements undermines their argument, when those other riders perfromances are being questioned. They are either fans of cycling and Wiggins being there no.1 rider or they are Wiggins fans similar to Armstrong fans who care little for the sport without their 'hero'.

 

[RichWalk]

They are either fans of cycling and Wiggins being there no.1 rider or they are Wiggins fans similar to Armstrong fans who care little for the sport without their 'hero'.

theres a mix of both here in the UK, but the majority fall into your second statement.
What concerns me is the number of guys I know who do ride/ run/do triathons etc who vehmently believe, unquestioningly that Wiigo/Sky are clean despite having decent knowledge of whats been going on in cycling in the last 20 yrs or so. This baffles me............

 

[enrecul]

It's pretty telling when one of the most outspoken guys in the peloton on doping in the past, clams up when he becomes chums with LA post 09 (remember the 'I really respect lance' stuff?) and then when he is in prime position to make an impact on anti doping as the 'king of the road' he clams up even further.
I want to believe wiggins, I actually like him, but totally suspicious of and unimpressed by his silence in the current doping melee.

I hope he makes a statement when the evidence is released

 

[RichWalk]

It's pretty telling when one of the most outspoken guys in the peloton on doping in the past, clams up when he becomes chums with LA post 09 (remember the 'I really respect lance' stuff?) and then when he is in prime position to make an impact on anti doping as the 'king of the road' he clams up even further.
I want to believe wiggins, I actually like him, but totally suspicious of and unimpressed by his silence in the current doping melee.

I hope he makes a statement when the evidence is released

yep, what's the most he has muttered so far, something along the lines of 'if its true its bad for cycling', have Sky cut both his b*lls off?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

It would appear that Sky fans proclaim clean cycling by default stating that Wiggins is clean or did he do an Armstrong and beat all the dopers?.

To bang on about Wiggins being clean and ignore other riders with a similar achievements undermines their argument, when those other riders perfromances are being questioned. They are either fans of cycling and Wiggins being there no.1 rider or they are Wiggins fans similar to Armstrong fans who care little for the sport without their 'hero'.

There's a third category of Wiggo supporters, into which most of his supporters fall, I would imagine: People who follow a variety of sports and are aware of the likely goings on in cycling, just as they are with football, tennis etc. They are accepting of all these unsavouring goings on as life is short, there are jobs to be done, exams to be sat, kids to be dealt with etc. and following sport provides a bit of welcome relief from these mundanities.

They may well argue passionately in his favour when they find the time to visit this Forum, but ultimately, they are not really that bothered, as there are other sports and other things in life to concern them. They give Wiggo the benefit of the doubt, as this is what fans traditionally do. There is no point supporting an individual or a team if you're going to then agree with accusations of heinous deeds made by others.

As the careers of individuals in cycling and the lifespan of teams is limited, you don't see the lifetime loyalty that you see from followers of traditional team sports, but it's the same concept. You either support a rider/team or you don't. And if you do, then you defend their honour when the naysayers get too loud, even if you suspect they may really be yeahsayers, but ultimately, it's just sport and therefore not that important except to the participants themselves.

If, as I have, you have supported Leicester City at football for nearly 40 years, covering lengthy periods of ineptitude, embarrassing stadium names, dodgy managers and the odd financial irregularity, then you can easily put up with some suspect performances from your chosen man in the peloton.

The Brits, as a nation, are remarkably tolerant, even of the various misdeeds commited by citizens of our former colonies. It's what make Britain great, though unfortunately, it does also mean we keep voting for proven incompetents.

 

[RownhamHill]

The point of the post was to illustrate the blindness and bias of fanboys.

If they were cycling fans who believed that cycling was cleaner the same arguments they put forward for Wiggins being clean would have been made for Cobo.

But very fiew of those in the Sky thread proclaiming that cycling is cleaner, due to Sky winning the TdF were not defending Cobo's win at LaVuelta as a victory for clean cycling.

Nor have they been in the Contador thread stating that the victory of Contador's La Vuelta is another victory for clean cycling. He has returned in the mold of David Millar reborn renewed and due to the sport being clean winning without PEDs.

I understand the point, it's just I think it's not a very interesting point. 'Fans of rider x displaying behaviour of fans shock.'

But there's a deeper point here as well. It's hard to defend (or attack) someone if you don't know anything about them. Maybe 'defenders of clean cycling', whoever they are, are less likely to apply a pre-ordained worldview to every single case and are more likely to stick to subjects they might know something about. After all, it was you who ordained Cobo was doping in the first place -despite the lack of anything one might consider proof. So I suppose the case is closed as far as you're concerned?

 

[Benotti69]

There's a third category of Wiggo supporters, into which most of his supporters fall, I would imagine: People who follow a variety of sports and are aware of the likely goings on in cycling, just as they are with football, tennis etc. They are accepting of all these unsavouring goings on as life is short, there are jobs to be done, exams to be sat, kids to be dealt with etc. and following sport provides a bit of welcome relief from these mundanities.

Nah i disagree with this. There is no real cycling reporting happening in mainstream media. It is a minority sport and only lately have they started taking a bigger interest in cycling, but i bet you didn't read who won the last monument of the season in a broadsheet or red top.

There are cycling fans who like wiggo as number 1, then the wiggos fans who know very little about the sport apart from what they learn following wiggo.

They may well argue passionately in his favour when they find the time to visit this Forum, but ultimately, they are not really that bothered, as there are other sports and other things in life to concern them. They give Wiggo the benefit of the doubt, as this is what fans traditionally do. There is no point supporting an individual or a team if you're going to then agree with accusations of heinous deeds made by others.

As the careers of individuals in cycling and the lifespan of teams is limited, you don't see the lifetime loyalty that you see from followers of traditional team sports, but it's the same concept. You either support a rider/team or you don't. And if you do, then you defend their honour when the naysayers get too loud, even if you suspect they may really be yeahsayers, but ultimately, it's just sport and therefore not that important except to the participants themselves.

Not all teams have limited life spans. Lots of them morph into new teams under new sponsors. Movistar is going over 30 years. Lampre over 20 years to name 2. But cyclists do not tend to have life careers at the sames teams and move for better money. But that is the teams/UCI's fault for not establishing team/club longevity to keep fans in the sport and support a 'club'. But the Dutch, Basque and Belgians do follow their teams in a manner similar to football.

If, as I have, you have supported Leicester City at football for nearly 40 years, covering lengthy periods of ineptitude, embarrassing stadium names, dodgy managers and the odd financial irregularity, then you can easily put up with some suspect performances from your chosen man in the peloton.

apples and oranges, you can attend a home game every 2nd week. you cannot attend a bike race in a similar manner, unless you following club cycling.

The Brits, as a nation, are remarkably tolerant, even of the various misdeeds commited by citizens of our former colonies. It's what make Britain great, though unfortunately, it does also mean we keep voting for proven incompetents.

More myth, Brits are not any more tolerant than others.

I dont believe in the so called 'great' of great Britain. It was never meant as great in the real undertanding of the word. It was meant as the greater area of the Britains, ie size.

The history of Britain is as blood stained as any former empire and nothing to be proud of.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

More myth, Brits are not any more tolerant than others.

I dont believe in the so called 'great' of great Britain. It was never meant as great in the real undertanding of the word. It was meant as the greater area of the Britains, ie size.

The history of Britain is as blood stained as any former empire and nothing to be proud of.

Sorry - I forgot the "Don't take this bit too seriously" emoticon!

 

[Benotti69]

Sorry - I forgot the "Don't take this bit too seriously" emoticon!

With some GB sports fans from this summer an emoticon would definitely be a requirement.

 

[Caruut]

With some GB sports fans fromm this summer an emoticon would definitely be a requirement.

Some of the stuff said in apparent seriousness was just astounding.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Some of the stuff said in apparent seriousness was just astounding.

In the interests of balance, it should be noted that to a normal person, being astounded is probably an understated description of their experience on first visiting this forum. It's not known as "The Asylum" on other forums without very good reason!