Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Dear Wiggo]

You could have posted this in 2000 but for Sky have used USPS. The cynics won't go away as long as Postal like performances by the like of Sky this year continue.

1999 was the Tour of Redemption. http://theconversation.edu.au/is-the-lance-armstrong-affair-a-race-to-the-bottom-for-cycling-9073

In 1999, when Armstrong miraculously, or incredibly – in the fullest sense of the word – was first on the road in the Tour de France, it was heralded as the Tour of Redemption.

It was a new clean start for professional cycling following the previous year’s Festina tour which saw a number of riders arrested for doping by the French police.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...onepage&q="tour of redemption" france&f=false

 

[coinneach]

They have hired people with doping pasts - are you saying the psychologist, who has "made the biggest difference to BC" was not involved in that process?

If he was involved and managed to miss the tells originally, how does he pick them up now?

Or am I missing something from your logic?

You are certainly missing the difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist: this guy used to work in the maximum security hopital with complete psychopaths...have a read of the book I referenced.
I doubt he was so involved in hiring from outside first time round, but this process is internal, with people who have worked together for the last few years.
Do I have faith it´ll be 100% perfect? No.
Do I think it´ll improve things in the long run? Yes.
Do you ever feel you are attacking the wrong side??

 

[ferryman]

They have hired people with doping pasts - are you saying the psychologist, who has "made the biggest difference to BC" was not involved in that process?

If he was involved and managed to miss the tells originally, how does he pick them up now?

Or am I missing something from your logic?

I don't think you are missing anything. Just enjoy the sheer desperation of another Sky apologist. This time the desperation hangs on Sky being the only team out there to employ shrink. Brilliant.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I don't think you are missing anything. Just enjoy the sheer desperation of another Sky apologist. This time the desperation hangs on Sky being the only team out there to employ shrink. Brilliant.

And you know for a fact that no other team uses a sport psychologist?

 

[armchairclimber]

I openly accept that history is in favour of the cynics. It is the cynics that refuse to accept the fact that 1) history has changed and doping is not the same as it used to be, 2) many of their so called facts are either incorrect, unverified or not evidence of doping, and 3) I'm not even a Sky supporter.

Me neither

 

[zalacain]

Looks as it hey might have more than sporting offences to worry about. Can't read article until tomorrow though.

 

[coinneach]

I don't think you are missing anything. Just enjoy the sheer desperation of another Sky apologist. This time the desperation hangs on Sky being the only team out there to employ shrink. Brilliant.

Another one who doesn´t understand difference between psychiatriast and psychologist: have either of you read the book I referenced?
Or is it just easier to troll?
No desperation on my behalf, but I do have a sense of having better things to do than argue with folk here.
Not to say the clinic hasn´t done good work pulling stories and threads together, but really, some of the posts do undermine the value of others.
Its not about not accepting different points of view, but about respect for people trying to make procycling better than it is.
I wonder how many other posters have given up trying to insert balance in the face of trolling?

 

[cineteq]

Looks as it hey might have more than sporting offences to worry about. Can't read article until tomorrow though.

Is this why he's twitter account has been deleted?
https://twitter.com/bradwiggins

 

[hrotha]

You know who else is involved in tax dodge schemes? ALL THOSE FERRARI CLIENTS

I keed, I keed.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You are certainly missing the difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist: this guy used to work in the maximum security hopital with complete psychopaths...have a read of the book I referenced.
I doubt he was so involved in hiring from outside first time round, but this process is internal, with people who have worked together for the last few years.
Do I have faith it´ll be 100% perfect? No.
Do I think it´ll improve things in the long run? Yes.
Do you ever feel you are attacking the wrong side??

I posted in error. It appears you can understand the intent of my post, even though it made no sense, discussing something different (psychologist vs psychiatrist).

Do you find it strange that you understood anyway?

I am guessing you will say no - because in the context of our discussion, meaning is clear. This is not always the case, but in the majority of cases, you don't have to hear every word to derive meaning. People who are native speakers of the language can fill in the gaps.

tl;dr:
2010 - Brad did it himself, "everything by the book"
2012 - Brad relied on doing non-traditional, track "stuff", doing it his way, and that's how he stomped everything


So given this very real every day interaction between English speaking people (deriving meaning regardless of gaps in communication), perhaps you can explain how a multiple world champion who can rattle off power numbers required for IP world titles at the drop of a hat and has 6 professional road racing years experience, does not understand what a physiologist (human body study) says when describing the time trial improvements to training they are going to make, and instead says,

July 31:

They worked out Tony's rpm compared to mine and something to do with rolling resistance and with the gears. Tim and I then started working a lot on torque because I've always had good cadence coming off the track, and good power production. What we tried to do was keep the power production and bring the cadence right down, then see how it worked respiratory wise, so we started doing a lot of low cadence work on climbs for those powers – torque work we call it. So at the Tour, in the time trials I was making what I call a Jan Ullrich-esque effort – powering the gear a lot rather than spinning along, and that forward momentum for the same power has helped me go a bit further. It's made me stronger, too.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/31/bradley-wiggins-olympic-time-trial

"...something to do with rolling resistance and with the gears..."

"...forward momentum for the same power has helped me go a bit further..."

"...bring the cadence right down, then see how it worked respiratory wise..."

Despite the weirdness of the above snippets, we can conclude the difference in his TT is they changed his cadence from the track.

A quote, from an interview: July 23: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ol...2012-Olympics-Bradley-Wiggins-going-gold.html

Wiggins said: ‘A year ago when I was beaten by Tony (Martin) at the world championships by quite a way, I thought I was probably just going to get a medal at the Olympics, but 12 months on I’ve closed the gap now if not surpassed it. It’s going to be another tough race, but a very realistic chance of gold.

‘Tim said: “I think we can close the gap.” We started training and we were doing a lot of different, non-traditional stuff. It was much more like the track stuff and we started physically working the machine to get to the point in July when we could ride like this in the Tour. That’s made the difference, ultimately, between now and the Brad Wiggins of 2010 who tried to do it himself.’

Oh wait, I thought we were doing it different to track...

Huh.

What does the "that's" in, "That’s made the difference, ultimately, between now and the Brad Wiggins of 2010 who tried to do it himself." refer to in the above quote?

He mentions:
* We started training - that's good
* we were doing a lot of different, non-traditional stuff - non-traditional stuff, right
* It was much more like the track stuff - non-traditional, like the track stuff hang on what?
* we started physically working the machine - back to training again? the machine is Brad's body, right?

So here's the 4 things mentioned, compressing the duplicates:
training, physically working the machine
non-tradtional, track-like stuff

2 things. training. and non-traditional, track-like stuff. Which is it? Well given that training is ubiquitous, I am going with non-traditional track-like stuff.

"That’s made the difference, ultimately, between now and the Brad Wiggins of 2010 who tried to do it himself."

So there was something Brad did before (doing it himself) that did not work (2010), and something he is doing now (non-traditional, track-like "stuff") which is working (2012).

You seem to be a little interested in the whole psych thing, so let's refresh our memory: humans are visual. If I write, "Do not think about an elephant with pink spots, spraying yellow paint everywhere" - that's what you end up visualising, right?

So when Bradley is talking to an interviewer, describing what he did to get so good in 2012, he is actually visualising that activity. He is describing the activity he is visualising in his head.

Compare what he is saying here, " Brad Wiggins of 2010 who tried to do it himself. " with the following interview from October 2010: http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/feature-wiggins-year-of-wisening-up

In terms of how I will approach things, I'm not going to be something I'm not, which means I'm not going to be this super 'everything by the book athlete', because that doesn't work for me. My biggest thing is just being relaxed and doing it my way.

In 2010 he was "everything by the book", and it didn't work, so from 2011 onwards, he's not going to be "everything by the book". Curious to note that Kerrison is not mentioned once in that interview.

So another piece to the puzzle:

"That’s made the difference, ultimately, between now and the Brad Wiggins of 2010 who tried to do it himself."

So there was something Brad did before (doing it himself, everything by the book) that did not work (2010), and something he is doing now (non-traditional, track-like stuff, not by the book, doing it his way) which is working (2012).

Do you ever feel you are attacking the wrong side??

Do you feel attacked? I am analysing the letters written by pro riders and team managers and governing bodies.

What I have just pieced together here looks to me like:
1. Brad was doping on the track and
2. He didn't dope in 2010 and
3. He started again in 2011/12 - and that's why he is going so well.

 

[taiwan]

Was going to say "Dang, that's not the Ferrari scheme Wiggins got busted for is it" but hrotha beat me to the speculative punch.

That would be another hog exclusive btw if it was the case

[edit] Nah he's just doing that thing Jimmy Carr was doing.

 

[Krebs cycle]

You could have posted this in 2000 but for Sky have used USPS. The cynics won't go away as long as Postal like performances by the like of Sky this year continue.

No you couldn't. WADA was only 1yr old at that time. It is now 13yrs in existence. You people act as if nothing has changed whatsoever. You all fap over anything that Michael Ashenden says yet in saying that nothing has changed you are basically implying that Ashenden is a useless player that has done nothing and achieved nothing as an anti-doping researcher in 10yrs.

You ignore the comments of many in the anti-doping community and pro cycling alike that believe that progress is being made. You ignore the fact that Sky are going slower than USPS but pretend the performances are the same. The tactics are the only thing that resemble USPS, not the VAM nor the watts/kg values. The cynics can think whatever the hell they want and maybe they do have history on their side, but that doesn't mean they are right when they say nothing has changed since 2000.

The believers in clean sport also have history on our side too remember and the historical fact is that in the last 2yrs the tour de france has very clearly slowed down, the incidence of extreme blood profiles has decreased and the total incidence of doping positives has decreased. I don't believe pro cycling is clean by any means, but I believe that the nature of doping has changed and that it is now possible to win the tour without PEDs.

 

[roundabout]

http://www.tuttobiciweb.it/index.php?page=news&cod=53739

it may have been posted, but it seems that rogers will continue with sky next year

question is whether a paper will change anything

 

[Dear Wiggo]

No you couldn't. WADA was only 1yr old at that time. It is now 13yrs in existence. You people act as if nothing has changed whatsoever. You all fap over anything that Michael Ashenden says yet in saying that nothing has changed you are basically implying that Ashenden is a useless player that has done nothing and achieved nothing as an anti-doping researcher in 10yrs.

Not everyone holds Ashenden up as a paragon of anti-doping goodness - I certainly don't. What he has done in research shows the passport can be easily fooled.

Also, it's been 12 years since he started doing anti-doping research.

You ignore the comments of many in the anti-doping community and pro cycling alike that believe that progress is being made.

Their beliefs are just that - beliefs. I ignore the beliefs of Christians for the same reason - they are only beliefs.

Noone here is denying progress has been made either, so you are in error there. We just don't think the progress is all that ... useful.

You ignore the fact that Sky are going slower than USPS but pretend the performances are the same. The tactics are the only thing that resemble USPS, not the VAM nor the watts/kg values. The cynics can think whatever the hell they want and maybe they do have history on their side, but that doesn't mean they are right when they say nothing has changed since 2000.

Sky employed the same tactics as USPS - glad to see you admit that. The tactic? Ride so fast noone can attack or get away. How do you do that without being better "prepared" than anyone else?

In 2000, everyone else rode slower than USPS.
USPS had a better "program".
In 2012, Sky are riding slower than USPS - correct.
In 2012, everyone else is now riding slower than Sky - correct.
Sky has a better "program".

It's just logic.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The Mail says an anonymous employee at Sky has denied his doping past even though the Mail claim to have 3 independent sources who verify his doping past. This anonymous employee has signed the pledge.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2220801/Team-Sky-braced-departures.html

The claims are specific and revolve around the injection of drugs at races when the employee rode for other teams. They come from three separate independent sources.

Hmmmm where have I heard this before... Sounds like this employee's Gremlin is getting the better of him. Or is it his chimp. Quick, get the psych onto him!

 

[thehog]

The Mail says an anonymous employee at Sky has denied his doping past even though the Mail claim to have 3 independent sources who verify his doping past. This anonymous employee has signed the pledge.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2220801/Team-Sky-braced-departures.html

This is funny. Where have I heard this before?

I'd say [the accuser] is a very bitter and twisted guy. I must have been tested 103 times or something in my career and never ever come up positive.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

this is funny. Where have i heard this before?

+ 1

he cannot be named for legal reasons but says those making claims of a secret doping past are doing so because they are 'twisted', 'bitter', 'disillusioned' and 'jealous'.

 

[Ferminal]

http://www.tuttobiciweb.it/index.php?page=news&cod=53739

it may have been posted, but it seems that rogers will continue with sky next year

question is whether a paper will change anything

More importantly, a top5 in the Giro on the cards.

(Until the final two stages).

The Mail says an anonymous employee at Sky has denied his doping past even though the Mail claim to have 3 independent sources who verify his doping past. This anonymous employee has signed the pledge.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2220801/Team-Sky-braced-departures.html

Has to be Sutton or Yates? And yeh, lol @ Armstrong talking points.

 

[Tinman]

This no-doping pledge is going to be a millstone around Sky's neck until they implode. Which they will (unless they deal with it now).

Unfortunately in the process it will continue to further damage cycling.

 

[the omertà hurts]

I openly accept that history is in favour of the cynics. It is the cynics that refuse to accept the fact that 1) history has changed and doping is not the same as it used to be, 2) many of their so called facts are either incorrect, unverified or not evidence of doping, and 3) I'm not even a Sky supporter.

vs

We wont see if history has changed until it becomes history.

Doping is always evolving. We are in the era of micro doping and possible new products that allow a rider to lose weight but not power.

Sky are getting a lot of attenion becuase they won a lot this year and the manner of their wins remind a lot of people of USPS.

OPQS were getting something similar in the spring.

it strikes me that these opposing viewpoints are what this 700+ page thread essentially boils down to. well that and amateur google-sleuths with pseudo-hypothesising mania

oh and the fail on sunday tax story is awful hackery, the drugs one not so much.

 

[AussieEdge]

it strikes me that these opposing viewpoints are what this 700+ page thread essentially boils down to. well that and amateur google-sleuths with pseudo-hypothesising mania

oh and the fail on sunday tax story is awful hackery, the drugs one not so much.

Correct

I openly accept that history is in favour of the cynics. It is the cynics that refuse to accept the fact that 1) history has changed and doping is not the same as it used to be, 2) many of their so called facts are either incorrect, unverified or not evidence of doping, and 3) I'm not even a Sky supporter.

I'm in this group it has to be said - and I don't believe this 'everybody does it' BS as if that was true none of this would matter now.

Everyone has however their beliefs on who is or isn't clean and it's everyone's right to do so.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

And yet the employee in question has signed the pledge. Is there a tiny tiny chance the pledge system won't work? I'm as shocked and surprised as Brailsford was when he learnt the detail of he USPS conspiracy. Strange that the anonymous wan..I mean employee has signed it already. Brailsford indicated this process would take some time. More misdirection?

Brailsford is keen to stress that there is no set timescale, interviews will be ongoing.

Nice spotting with the Barry comment Hrotha. How come there has been no news headline "Sky policy forced doping coverup"? The Daily Mail's description of the "private debate" about sky's policy is both trite and inaccurate, but I forgive them because they appear to be trying to do some investigative journalism.

Rogers is the key to measuring whether Sky is serious or not. If Braisford is prepared to fire a prominent rider on the current A-Team, I will believe his policy is genuine, although misguided. If the only casualties are behind the scenes staff, whose misdeeds are definitely in the past, then my sky skepticism will be reinforced.

Tax evasion too. This is getting uglier by the minute. The peloton must have had wind of the Italian investigation. Slower speeds are a sign of fear, not saintly attitudes. If this sport is to ever come properly clean, the heavy foot of authority will need to stay firmly planted on the peloton's throat.

 

[BroDeal]

The Mail says an anonymous employee at Sky has denied his doping past even though the Mail claim to have 3 independent sources who verify his doping past. This anonymous employee has signed the pledge.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2220801/Team-Sky-braced-departures.html

How does does this work with regards to money? Let's say a rider has a multi year contract that continues through next year. If the rider says he cannot sign because he doped eight or more years ago then what about the balance of his contract?

 

[sittingbison]

...it strikes me that these opposing viewpoints are what this 700+ page thread essentially boils down to. well that and amateur google-sleuths with pseudo-hypothesising mania...

and you would be completely wrong.

The reason why this thread is 7000+ posts and there are several wiggo and Froome threads as well is because there are multiple examples of circumstantial evidence pointing to a team based systematic doping program, than have not been adequately explained. Even by PhDs in physiology and Sky apologist amateur google-sleuths with pseudo-hypothesising manias.

The smartest comment so far, it might even have been from jimmyfingers, is Sky couldn't have done and said things to appear more like dopers if they tried.

I can't be bothered listing them all, read the thread yourself.