Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[The Hitch]

not really. outside the uk nobody gives 2 ***** about wiggins. with lance that was a lot different

Funny. I remember during the armstrong saga 1 of the sports radio commentators introduced Armstrong as "the only real big star from cycling until Bradley Wiggins".

 

[Don Quixote]

As has already been pointed out, you didn't didn't limit your 99.99% to any time period. It just referred to Tour winners. So you're wrong, though if it was anyone else, I would have accepted the "99.99%" as a figure of speech and not commented. However, as you are such an arrogant twot (albeit not without a lot of valuable insight) I felt it appropriate to take what you posted literally and comment accordingly.

Even if you had limited your "99.99%" to Tour winners in the last 20 years, you still don't end up with an integer number of winners. And of course, 99.99% plus 0.0001% will never equal 100%, irrespective of the time period.

What about 99.99% + 0.01%?

(Math was never my strong point)

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Funny. I remember during the armstrong saga 1 of the sports radio commentators introduced Armstrong as "the only real big star from cycling until Bradley Wiggins".

I'm sure that wasn't a dutch, spanish, italian belgian, french (insert pretty much any cycling country non uk) announcer

 

[Dead Star]

you can have the last word, if that gives you a boner.

Resort to something sexual. You know someone's cracking when they start to resort to that.

 

[MartinGT]

How long was Yates DS at US Postal?

 

[thehog]

How long was Yates DS at US Postal?

Just enough rope there to hang himself with....

 

[skidmark]

OSCAR!!!!!! LOL!! EVANS!!! HO HO HO!

Can someone else deal with this? I seriously can't stop laughing.

Oscar Pereiro?? You do realise he tested positive at the 2006 Tour don't you?

You do realize he wasn't suspended, nor was he 'embroiled in scandal', don't you? His positive and subsequent exemption was met with much less fanfare than, say Armstrong in 99.

God, I'm not saying these guys are clean, just trying to contradict your unhelpful mixing of hyperbole with 'fact', and then claiming 'fact' to be the important thing. Why are you being so condescending about it?

edit: anyway, since you haven't responded with anything but condescending laughter and repeating (2 of the 4) names I wrote in capitals, I take it that you don't have any actual defence for your inaccurate statements.

 

[Mellow Velo]

How long was Yates DS at US Postal?

Long enough to manage "Rider number 1" to his second Giro title.

 

[cineteq]

Sky statement:
http://www.teamsky.com/article/0,27290,17546_8173493,00.html

They mean 'Fron now on', don't they?

 

[skidmark]

Sky statement:



http://www.teamsky.com/article/0,27290,17546_8173493,00.html

So basically, they get people to sign something that doesn't mean anything unless they're found out, and they reaffirm that they fire anyone who's found out, which was already the case.

Thanks alot Sky. Amazingly progressive.

 

[Dead Star]

That statement isn't right. Here we go.

Team Sky has had a clear position on doping from the very start. We are a clean team and have shown it is possible to win clean.....but we still needed Geert Leinders. He did a brilliant job. You want to know his role? urrrr, I thought we're here to talk about something else?

 

[thehog]

That statement isn't right. Here we go.

With our new stance on doping we've spoken to Chris and asked him to tone down his climbing. We realise that this year his performances have raised some eyebrows. So in line with our new policy he has agreed to only transfuse two bloodbags at next years Tour rather than the standard three. Chris agrees this is fair in the view of cycling's new pathway to clean cycling.

...............

 

[hrotha]

Wow, that's monumentally stupid. Or, more likely, an empty PR move.

"Confess and you're fired. Don't confess and you'll keep your job, unless you're found out, in which case you wouldn't be worse off than if you had confessed anyway". Yeah, that'll help breach the omertà. That'll help with the transparency.

Brailsford is an idiot. This will only draw more attention to Yates, Julich, Rogers, De Jongh, Knaven and everyone else who will inevitably sign and attract closer scrutiny.

 

[skidmark]

Wow, that's monumentally stupid. Or, more likely, an empty PR move.

"Confess and you're fired. Don't confess and you'll keep your job, unless you're found out, in which case you wouldn't be worse off than if you had confessed anyway". Yeah, that'll help breach the omertà. That'll help with the transparency.

Brailsford is an idiot. This will only draw more attention to Yates, Julich, Rogers, De Jongh, Knaven and everyone else who will inevitably sign and attract closer scrutiny.

Yeah, I don't think threatening people with termination if they don't sign a paper is really a good way to encourage truth, nor really good employment standards, eh?

 

[Dead Star]

Yeah, I don't think threatening people with termination if they don't sign a paper is really a good way to encourage truth, nor really good employment standards, eh?

Indeed. What if Julich comes blubbing to Dave Brailsford and decides he has some things to talk about? That's going to be awkward.

 

[MartinGT]

If Yates signs up for this as saying he has had no past involvement in doping, it will make it laughable and one with no crediblility.

Just said this myself on Twitter

 

[roundabout]

Yeah, let's reaffirm the policy that ended up with Sky having plenty of people with potential or actual connections to doping.

 

[Dead Star]

Do you all remember that anti-doping charter the UCI/Mcquaid wanted everyone to sign up in June/July 2007? Y'know, the one that well-known clean riders like Ricco were happy to sign up to? http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/riders-flock-to-sign-uci-charter-as-tour-nears

Well, this reminds me of that a little. Sign this piece of paper. And you'll be ok.

 

[The Hitch]

While not going as fast as UPS proves nothing other than they are not doping as much.

Or that they are worse

ftr i certainly dont think Sky are doping anywhere near as much as Postal, but i would expect the likes of Heras Armstrong Landis and Savoldeli to go faster up mountains than EBH Porte Rogers and Wiggins, even if on the same stuff.

If Sky are doping, albeit less than in previous years, what is to stop other teams from doping more and being more successful? Short of buying the UCI (far from impossible I grant you) what is stopping other teams from doping at higher levels

Good question. My personal feeling is that it would be a number of factors. I personally do not dismiss the idea that Sky do pay the UCI as they are friendly with Mcquaid, so i think its possible. But it also could be that teams that are willing to dope as much as sky (or were willing to do so during the 2012 tdf), like Saxo and Radioshack, did not have their best guys with them.

Theres also astana and Katusha who would also probably be willing to dope heavy, but Menchov was past it and Astana had no one.

 

[Don Quixote]

If Yates signs up for this as saying he has had no past involvement in doping, it will make it laughable and one with no crediblility.

I guess it depends on the degree of liability. Eg if you breach, you're liable to repay all earnings is one thing, but to accept liability for consequential damage to the team/sponsor is another.

What are the penalties for breach?

 

[roundabout]

The "dopers" get fired, I assume.

 

[Moller]

OSCAR!!!!!! LOL!! EVANS!!! HO HO HO!

Can someone else deal with this? I seriously can't stop laughing.

Oscar Pereiro?? You do realise he tested positive at the 2006 Tour don't you?

Really? he wasn't sanctioned was he? I don't doubt he was doping, (I've read the Kimmage-FLoyd interview) but is this true?

 

[The Hitch]

I'm sure that wasn't a dutch, spanish, italian belgian, french (insert pretty much any cycling country non uk) announcer

no it wasnt. My point was how Brits (or well 1 Brit anyway) think(s) that Wiggins is already the biggest thing to happen to cycling.

 

[The Hitch]

i dont like how Sky and wiggins keep shouting about how they "proved one can win clean".

What exactly did they do in that regard that Sastre and Evans didn't?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

...i certainly dont think Sky are doping anywhere near as much as Postal, but i would expect the likes of Heras Armstrong Landis and Savoldeli to go faster up mountains than EBH Porte Rogers and Wiggins, even if on the same stuff.

Given that the impact of dope is variable from one rider to another, we don't know how each rider concerned reacts and we don't know each rider's programme, how can you conclude this?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but it seems like a "punt" rather than a logical deduction.