Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[hrotha]

GB did until WADA took the BOA to CAS as the olympic ban apparently goes against there code.

No one forced them to select Millar though.

 

[The Hitch]

As for the lance wiggins comparison, the one similarity i see is that they are both bullies.

Lance is obvious, wiggins less so as he is nowhere near as big, but everything ive seen about him (tv, interviews, other peoples comments, even when i saw him in person) points to him being a total w***er, and ive heard other people say as much too.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Now, in return, can you comment on the USADA evidence, in which Michele Ferrarri was surreptitiously recorded in 2010 telling an Italian rider explicitly not to travel to Tenerife and train on the Teide because it was known and monitored by anti-doping authorities. In the same call he also said - in 2010 - you'd have to be crazy to take EPO. Specifically how does this evidence fit with the suggestions made in this thread that Wiggins started to train on Tenerife in 2011 because he was working with Ferrari and being at altitude would help beat the EPO test? So was Ferrari lying to his client in 2010 (if so, why?), or do you think his advice changed between 2010 and 2011 (if so why?), or do you think there is any other explanation that one could entertain?

Rownham I did not ignore this. I started constructing a response a week ago but I found a few more pieces of info regarding altitude training (studies and reviews of studies), and mid-way through the response threw my hands up as I realised Kerrison had pulled another swifty on us. (ie explained reasons for Sky training at altitude based on a phenomenon that was worded to indicate peculiarity to Sky riders, when in fact it's ubiquitous to humans.)

My response as to Ferrari's reasons are all speculative, but I hope to respond this week some time. I'll stick it in the Tenerife thread.

 

[thehog]

I'd love to, but I don't speak Italian, so I can't. My version is taken from the translations provided by the lovely clinic poster (Slyvester I think) who does, posted in the other thread about the affadavit with the recording of the phone-call - here. And if it's written by a poster in the clinic it must be true, right?

Of course, if it isn't true it would be lovely to hear more about what he really did say. Yet no one seems to want to discuss that bit of the USADA case, or clear up the confusion. Can you explain what Ferrari was advising?

Whilst I appreciate your enthusiasm because you think you've unlocked the secret of Ferrari and Tenerife that its no longer the mystical island of doping I'll ask you to take two steps back.

All the way through the Reason Decision Ferrari has taken all of his riders in question to Tenerife for training and specifically (and I quote):

Dr. Ferrari advised the use of hypoxic chambers to reduce the effectiveness of the EPO test in detecting the use of synthetic EPO.777 Regular training at altitude (such as at St. Moritz, Tenerife or Aspen) would achieve a similar result.

The entire document is littered with examples that high altitude regardless of where it is performs a specific function in a doping program.

Ferrari has never said go to Tenerife and dope all you want. The location has a specific purposes in the training program. A) it provides high altitude to mask the use of EPO even when taken prior to the training camp and b) its location was always hard to get to for testers - meaning you'd have a fair idea when they arrived and on what plane. None of this has changed.

Whilst the translation is fairly accurate it lacks context. What Ferrari meant was "be careful of Tenerife" as its "scolded". What he meant was "everyone" is going there and its become too common. He never said it was "monitored". That does not appear in the text.

I think what you're trying to do is take one statement from Ferrari tossing away everything else he has done in his entire career and tried to apply it to Sky and say "look no doping!".

Tenerife has a long history of a training venue for cyclists who train with Ferrari and whom are on sophisticated blood boosting drug programs. Period. That has been the base for a good 20 years.

Nothing has changed. Its a training ground for athletes masking their oxygen drug use.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

As for the lance wiggins comparison, the one similarity i see is that they are both bullies.

Lance is obvious, wiggins less so as he is nowhere near as big, but everything ive seen about him (tv, interviews, other peoples comments, even when i saw him in person) points to him being a total w***er, and ive heard other people say as much too.

Hmm, interesting, but no.
BW can be a w**ker, moody and an insufferable pain in the a*s, but that is mainly as he does not deal with pressure or being a leader well. But he is not really a bully.
Regardless of doping or not, getting in to his mind is the key.

Thats the opposite of LA - who when you meet him can be very engaging and even charming, but there is a ruthless vindictive shallow person just under the surface.

I'd rather get a Foff from Brad, then a stare from LA

 

[JimmyFingers]

Hi Jimmy,
You need to check your own post I quoted for you - you didn't just mention "cultural" but also "They are distinct people, separated not only nationality but by generation."

i.e. Lance and Bradley. Again, your point?

 

[JimmyFingers]

Tell that to the Italians, Spanish and Portuguese here. Lots of times we've heard the whole spiel about the culture in southern Europe being more forgiving than elsewhere, even as David Millar rides his guts out for "Team GB" and Italy puts out a team including a couple of neo-pros because they've barred anybody who's under investigation or served a ban from competing.

Find a quote from me where I have inferred that, ever

 

[JimmyFingers]

Excellent posting as usual and your previous debunk post as well. Jimmy F doesn't get it or more likely doesn't want to get it. His 'examples' of racism show him up for what he is.

And what pray, is that? A good after-dinner speaker? Devastatingly handsome?

 

[JimmyFingers]

As for the lance wiggins comparison, the one similarity i see is that they are both bullies.

Lance is obvious, wiggins less so as he is nowhere near as big, but everything ive seen about him (tv, interviews, other peoples comments, even when i saw him in person) points to him being a total w***er, and ive heard other people say as much too.

This post doesn't do you much credit. Whether he's a ****er or not, it doesn't make him a bully. Lance is clearly borderline psychotic, Bradley is a bit grumpy.

And calling someone a total ****er when you don't know them smacks of prejudice, espeicially when you're trying to make out they're just like Lance

 

[sittingbison]

...calling someone a total ****er when you don't know them smacks of prejudice...

hoisted on his own petard perchance?

In another parlance - "Paybacks a beach"

 

[Dear Wiggo]

And calling someone a total ****er when you don't know them smacks of prejudice, espeicially when you're trying to make out they're just like Lance

So it's ok for Bradley Wiggins to do it, but not The Hitch?

They're both British you know? The Hitch didn't call Wiggins a bone idle lazy w*nker / carnt, just a w*nker.

Or do you have a valid excuse for Brad that doesn't apply to anyone else but Brad, perhaps?

Wake up Jimmy, you're not making sense.

 

[JimmyFingers]

hoisted on his own petard perchance?

In another parlance - "Paybacks a beach"

Believe it or not, I do think Wiggins is a bit of a ****er, arrogant, obnoxious and dismissive. It doesn't make him like Lance, and throwing around insults doesn't make for constructive debate. Just because you don't like someone doesn't make them a doper

 

[JimmyFingers]

So it's ok for Bradley Wiggins to do it, but not The Hitch?

They're both British you know? The Hitch didn't call Wiggins a bone idle lazy w*nker / carnt, just a w*nker.

Or do you have a valid excuse for Brad that doesn't apply to anyone else but Brad, perhaps?

Wake up Jimmy, you're not making sense.

What I asking for is debate that doesn't devolve into abuse, or flinging about cultural stereotypes like bad teeth. Tell me what doesn't make sense

 

[sittingbison]

...It doesn't make him like Lance...

Yup I agree that Wiggo is not like Lance in the psychological emotional or personality department. Armstrong is a sociopath. Finally clearly demonstrated for all to see in the Evidence.

On a related matter Wiggo is an idiot for declaring his love for Lance - remember "I love Lance..."?

Anyway this has nothing much to do with Sky systematic team doping.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Anyway this has nothing much to do with Sky systematic team doping.

It seems you are in a minority when it comes to this

 

[Dear Wiggo]

This post doesn't do you much credit. Whether he's a ****er or not, it doesn't make him a bully. Lance is clearly borderline psychotic, Bradley is a bit grumpy.

And calling someone a total ****er when you don't know them smacks of prejudice, espeicially when you're trying to make out they're just like Lance

Believe it or not, I do think Wiggins is a bit of a ****er, arrogant, obnoxious and dismissive. It doesn't make him like Lance, and throwing around insults doesn't make for constructive debate. Just because you don't like someone doesn't make them a doper

Your words, Jimmy. You are drowning in a sea of mixed messages mate. Time to take a breather, I reckon.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Your words, Jimmy. You are drowning in a sea of mixed messages mate. Time to take a breather, I reckon.

Read it again and try to understand what I am saying. I can use less syllables in future if it helps.

In layman's terms, since you struggled, Wiggins doesn't come across well as a person. Hitch doesn't like him. Says he's like Lance. I say I agree that he doesn't come across well but he's clearly not like Lance, and whether he comes across well or not it isn't relevant in a debate about doping

 

[bianchigirl]

But he is exactly like Armstrong - oh, not in terms of their own personalities, but in terms of the cult of personality surrounding them, the questions that go unasked by a fawning media, the omertà that is already enshrouding team sky assisted by their enablers in the uk cycling press.

Last night phil liggett was at the yellow ball in honour of wiggins & brailsford stood on stage doing q&a with mick Rodgers whilst the junior mcquaids bid in the auction & men from news international looked on - plus ca change

 

[2008885]

But he is exactly like Armstrong - oh, not in terms of their own personalities, but in terms of the cult of personality surrounding them, the questions that go unasked by a fawning media, the omertà that is already enshrouding team sky assisted by their enablers in the uk cycling press.

Last night phil liggett was at the yellow ball in honour of wiggins & brailsford stood on stage doing q&a with mick Rodgers whilst the junior mcquaids bid in the auction & men from news international looked on - plus ca change

I think there's a world of difference between Wiggins and LA - I'd say that Brailsford is the man you're looking for.

 

[sittingbison]

There's the rub - clearly different personalities (after all people with Armstrongs personality are usually on the FBI most wanted list or on death row), but there are unavoidable similarities to most other aspects of their success - as bianchagirl says.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Read it again and try to understand what I am saying. I can use less syllables in future if it helps.

Maybe you should read it again yourself, I posted your own words, mate. You said The Hitch is prejudiced for calling Wiggins a w*nker, then said you thought he was a w*nker.

Let's see:

And calling someone a total ****er when you don't know them smacks of prejudice,

vs

Believe it or not, I do think Wiggins is a bit of a ****er,

So are you prejudiced or not? Or are you claiming to "know" Wiggins? Which is it?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Interesting questions...

So everyone who dopes will go exactly as fast as eachother? No - if this was true, every major bike race ever would have seen a dead heat for first place, assuming at least two participants were doping!

I dont know much about doping but as i understand it if weaker cyclists (like say one who finished the tdf at age 26 outside the top 130) dope they wont neccesarily reach the same speeds uphill as naturally gifted climbers like Pantani. Agreed - But Pantani climbed ADH at 6.7 watts/kg in 1997. A clearly "suspicious" effort nowadays on an equivalent climb would be 6.1 or 6.2. Wiggo has never been clocked at over 5.9, which is what the top guys were doing pre EPO. Based on performance data, Wiggo may be riding naturally or doped up to the gills. Or something in between. Pantani and other EPO era winners were clearly doped to the gills. This big problem with trying to spot doping via performance levels is that it's good at spotting Pantani type efforts, which were laughably superior to pre epo era efforts, but doesn't help with efforts that are at a level that have been achieved naturally.

Also as I understand it, if someone dopes less (ie in 2012 when there is a blood passport) they wont neccesarily reach the same speeds as an equal athlete who doped more (like say in 2003). Agreed. But Dear Wiggo's argument is that the Sky guys could ride much faster, but hold back, based on powermeter readings, to produce performances that aren't clearly suspicious. This is convenient and based on footage of Froome looking down at this handlebars repeatedly, though clearly unproven.

But you claim that anyone, absolutely anyone, once they take that one epo injection, is capable of doing a 38 minute alpe. No I don't. Though I've not posted this, my view is entirely the opposite. To be Tour contender even doped to the eyeballs, you've got to be an exceptional athlete to start with, though all Tour riders are exceptional, so to be a potential Tour winner, you've got to be an exceptionally exceptional athlete.

 

[sittingbison]

Also as I understand it, if someone dopes less (ie in 2012 when there is a blood passport) they wont neccesarily reach the same speeds as an equal athlete who doped more (like say in 2003). Agreed. But Dear Wiggo's argument is that the Sky guys could ride much faster, but hold back, based on powermeter readings, to produce performances that aren't clearly suspicious. This is convenient and based on footage of Froome looking down at this handlebars repeatedly, though clearly unproven.

One of the reasons for DW and others suggesting this is that when required, the inner cabal of TeamSKY (wiggo, Vroome, Dodger, Porte) were able to up the ante at will. When Nibali attacked (twice) and Evans attacked (once), they cranked up the tempo to a level that the yellow jersey group was immediately shredded, shelling GC guys out the back, it was just them and one or two left clutching at wheels. When the catch was made it was business as usual. As evidenced (for about the millionth time) with the wiggo comment about Captain Dodger cranking out 450W so escapers required 500W for 20mins, and Basso saying no wonder nobody could escape, at 420W he was struggling to hold Porte's wheel.

The operative phrase being "at will"

Another reason was thehogs, that Vroome was able to gesticulate with one hand off the handlebars to wiggo to hurry the frak up going up a hors categorie climb.

The third reason was mine, that Sir Brailsford needed to hop on the radio and order an over excited Vroome to put on the brakes when he dropped wiggo on la Toussuire and revealed to the world what was really going on. Followed by the cat fight of the wags.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

But he is exactly like Armstrong - oh, not in terms of their own personalities, but in terms of the cult of personality surrounding them, the questions that go unasked by a fawning media...

So Lance and Wiggo are the same, except that they have different personalities. Not sure they're really the same in that case.

The media treat them the same, but the media just want to sell papers or subscriptions. If they think the big story involves turning on Wiggo and that they won't fall foul of the UK's libel laws by so doing, then they will.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Maybe you should read it again yourself, I posted your own words, mate. You said The Hitch is prejudiced for calling Wiggins a w*nker, then said you thought he was a w*nker.

Let's see:



vs



So are you prejudiced or not? Or are you claiming to "know" Wiggins? Which is it?

I said he was prejudiced because he is making a judgement on Bradley, that he was a bully like Lance and by inference a doper like Lance. I said that while I think along similar lines on his personality (and please note the difference between 'total' and 'a bit of') I don't think it is at all relevant in a debate on whether he or his team are doping.