Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Mellow Velo]

Michael Barry! That was your best effort. Barry was a sacrificial lamb thrown to the wolves to keep them happy. Just like Leinders, just like Yates.

Irrefutable evidence? give me a break. That's Armstrong 101.

Two straight questions:
Do you believe that the Clinic was responsible for the removal, from Sky, of these guys?
If so, what did the Clinic do, that was more influential in the removal of these guys from Sky, than the evidence and testimony within the USADA's report?

If the answer to Q1 is no, then no reply necessary.

 

[noddy69]

It's an excellent post Hog. Be interested in the replies you get - if any.

From pedalling squares behind Gerrans to sprinting at the top and beating a vuelta field......yet still not proof......mind you its a mighty improvement

However it doesnt answer my questions and only serves to question more on how you know for sure. Tyler knew for certain cause he was there,he could quote dates people involved etc....all that did was show a couple of videos of improvement.

 

[AcademyCC]

Two straight questions:
Do you believe that the Clinic was responsible for the removal, from Sky, of these guys?
If so, what did the Clinic do, that was more influential in the removal of these guys from Sky, than the evidence and testimony within the USADA's report?

If the answer to Q1 is no, then no reply necessary.

This ****ing advert from the side of my screen of some idiot skiing in Canada keeps popping out. Whats the deal with that?

Answer is no, but thought id respond anyway to vent about the advert.

 

[maltiv]

Let's not pretend that the "evidence" against Sky is anything close to what we had with Postal, even in the early years. Already in 1999 there was a positive test for Cortisone and a couple of years later there were witnesses accusing them, as well as 5 back-dated positive EPO tests. With Sky there has been no admissions of doping, no positive tests of any sorts, no witnesses coming out...

All we have is a couple of great performances and some suspicious staff-members (all of whom are fired), but that's not exactly conclusive proof. So as of now I find the comparisons with Postal to be quite ridiculous.

So far I at least think it's reasonably likely that they are clean. After all, in a clean peloton, one would expect the team with the most money and best structure to dominate. Particularly when the other rich teams, such as BMC, use their resources so poorly (see e.g. Kristoff, who said he got no training advice, no nutrition advise or any follow-up from BMC)

 

[thehog]

From pedalling squares behind Gerrans to sprinting at the top and beating a vuelta field......yet still not proof......mind you its a mighty improvement

However it doesnt answer my questions and only serves to question more on how you know for sure. Tyler knew for certain cause he was there,he could quote dates people involved etc....all that did was show a couple of videos of improvement.

Realisation is a stepped approach.

I agree the improvement is massive. Suspicious at minimum. But not proof - correct.

But as I request many times - what does constitute proof? A positive test?

 

[noddy69]

Realisation is a stepped approach.

I agree the improvement is massive. Suspicious at minimum. But not proof - correct.

But as I request many times - what does constitute proof? A positive test?

Not what I asked. You stated from what I read that you knew. Thats a definitive statement and I am just wondering what evidence you have to back it up if any apart from some improvement videos.

If you state what evidence you have then people can decide what they think of it and if it constitutes definitive guilt. Ball is in your court.

 

[Grandillusion]

Realisation is a stepped approach.

I agree the improvement is massive. Suspicious at minimum. But not proof - correct.

But as I request many times - what does constitute proof? A positive test?

Ask Travis.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

But as I request many times - what does constitute proof? A positive test?

From a Wiggins thread

Also I never said Sky are working with Ferrari. I said Wiggins is. Which he is. 100%.

Proof to me would be being able to show conclusive evidence (i.e. 100%) that a rider is working with an infamous blood doping doctor.

 

[noddy69]

Yep I think we can safely say working with the car manafacturer would do.

 

[thehog]

Not what I asked. You stated from what I read that you knew. Thats a definitive statement and I am just wondering what evidence you have to back it up if any apart from some improvement videos.

If you state what evidence you have then people can decide what they think of it and if it constitutes definitive guilt. Ball is in your court.

That's just silly. I can't reveal my sources. And you know if there was public proof it would be on CyclingNews.com not coming from me.

So back to the question - what would constitute proof? A positive test.

 

[thehog]

From a Wiggins thread

Proof to me would be being able to show conclusive evidence (i.e. 100%) that a rider is working with an infamous blood doping doctor.

Slow down guys. You're being silly now. Slow down.

This is not about me. Stop trying to prove me wrong as a deflection against Sky.

This is internet forum. We're here to discuss, speculate and argue.

Forget me for a while and look at what you're seeing in the performances. Does it look real?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Slow down guys. You're being silly now. Slow down.

This is not about me. Stop trying to prove me wrong as a deflection against Sky.

This is internet forum. We're here to discuss, speculate and argue.

Forget me for a while and look at what you're seeing in the performances. Does it look real?

Where have I said that you were wrong? I am just saying that you made a statement of fact without any facts. I am now asking you to back that up.

 

[thehog]

Where have I said that you were wrong? I am just saying that you made a statement of fact without any facts. I am now asking you to back that up.

Again. As I keep saying. I'm not revealing my sources.

(requested to remove lawyers by CN)

I don't mind that you guys want Sky to be clean. That's fine. Its doesn't worry me. Its a nice feeling to believe your team is clean.

But it doesn't stop me from presenting an alternate view. If you don't like the view then thats fine. Its ok not to agree with me.

According to many here Sky are clean because they've not tested positive. Fine. Good. I'm ok that you're ok with that. Sky are clean. No positives, zero tolerance. Good.

But I would suggest there wouldn't be such vehement opposition to the story I present if they really thought Sky were clean.

I don't know why so many of you wish to fight me? What are you trying to protect? Clean cycling?

 

[MatParker117]

Slow down guys. You're being silly now. Slow down.

This is not about me. Stop trying to prove me wrong as a deflection against Sky.

This is internet forum. We're here to discuss, speculate and argue.

Forget me for a while and look at what you're seeing in the performances. Does it look real?

Yes without any kind of conclusive evidence to the contrary it's 110% real. Sky have been the best stage racing team in cycling for the past couple of years and last year was a prime example of that. Whether they can repeat that domination with Contador and at least Andy Schleck to contend with next year we'l have to wait and see.

 

[Mellow Velo]

This ****ing advert from the side of my screen of some idiot skiing in Canada keeps popping out. Whats the deal with that?

Answer is no, but thought id respond anyway to vent about the advert.

In that case, you may find a look here, useful:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=16228&page=17

This is a must, too:
http://adblockplus.org/en/

 

[thehog]

Yes without any kind of conclusive evidence to the contrary it's 110% real. Sky have been the best stage racing team in cycling for the past couple of years and last year was a prime example of that. Whether they can repeat that domination with Contador and at least Andy Schleck to contend with next year we'l have to wait and see.

I agree 1000%. No proof. No positive tests.

I believe in Froome because he's not tested positive. It doesn't look real to me based of 20+ years of watching cycling but he's never tested positive.

Can I not have an opinion?

 

[ebandit]

Yes!

I agree 1000%. No proof. No positive tests.

I believe in Froome because he's not tested positive. It doesn't look real to me based of 20+ years of watching cycling but he's never tested positive.

Can I not have an opinion?

yes! your entitled to your opinion

but it's out of order to lie...............

stating that you have substantial video proof that team sky are doping

that you can prove link between wiggo and ferarri

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Again. As I keep saying. I'm not revealing my sources.

(requested to remove lawyers by CN)

I don't mind that you guys want Sky to be clean. That's fine. Its doesn't worry me. Its a nice feeling to believe your team is clean.

But it doesn't stop me from presenting an alternate view. If you don't like the view then thats fine. Its ok not to agree with me.

According to many here Sky are clean because they've not tested positive. Fine. Good. I'm ok that you're ok with that. Sky are clean. No positives, zero tolerance. Good.

But I would suggest there wouldn't be such vehement opposition to the story I present if they really thought Sky were clean.

I don't know why so many of you wish to fight me? What are you trying to protect? Clean cycling?

I would like all teams to be clean. Do I think Sky are clean? I don't think there is systematic doping. Do I think one or more riders dope. I think there is a good chance.

You keep trotting out the many think they are clean because they have not tested positive. You know that anyone that is slightly informed would not even bother to take this line of reasoning.

Vehement opposition? A minute ago this was an internet forum where people could discuss, speculate and argue?

btw Just to clarify. You were brought up in England, right?

 

[thehog]

that you can prove link between wiggo and ferarri

Sure. Let's play connect the dots.


Ferrari (master of no positives & drugs)
|
Rogers/Yates/Lance love (mentoring proven)
|
Tenerife
|
Inhumane power levels for weight ratio (A Ferrari speciality)
|
Wiggins.


- But I'm sure you'll tell me this means nothing. All this has been disproven as hearsay

Its just a myth

 

[No_Balls]

so far I at least think it's reasonably likely that they are clean. After all, in a clean peloton, one would expect the team with the most money and best structure to dominate. Particularly when the other rich teams, such as BMC, use their resources so poorly (see e.g. Kristoff, who said he got no training advice, no nutrition advise or any follow-up from BMC)

Yes, cycling has during the years reached this point that opions like these seems valid. Long days gone since the idea of the team with the best riders would dominate the field. Now its as you say all money and infrastructure.

Basically you are right. Team Sky seems better prepared (as for the "better infrastructure" thing) then the USPS back in 1999 when the use of cortisone leaked out. I guess the Armstrong character did not do his "thing" any favour since he by common sense will make many enemies preparing to betray him. Team Sky doesnt have this main bad *** villain plotting things (remember his Motorola option) but rather solves their business as a corporate. Which mean you must fight against a team rather then a person as was the deal with Armstrong.

Also the connection between McQuaid-UCI-Team Sky is a very important one. UCIs corruption growned over the years when more money was involved in cycling and reached new lows as late as 2001 but then it was too late because the idea of Armstrong on the dope lived its one life and they couldnt sweep it under the table. With Sky they might have learned its lesson and deals their business a bit smoother.

 

[Netserk]

Relax. One is allowed to post inside knowledge without revealing sources. If I read from RaceRadio that rider x had got a warning because of abnormal blood values, then I would take his word for it.

On the other hand I don't think that TheHog has equal amount of inside knowledge as RR, but that doesn't mean that (s)he is lying (or telling the truth).

PS: Everybody knew that Riis doped before his confession in '07 without ANY proof. The same way I am 99.9% sure that the Tenerife-quartet is on the juice.

 

[ebandit]

joke

Sure. Let's play connect the dots.

Ferrari (master of no positives & drugs)
|
Rogers/Yates/Lance love (mentoring proven)
|
Tenerife
|
Wiggins.

- But I'm sure you'll tell me this means nothing. All this has been disproven as hearsay

Its just a myth

you're joking...........you;re talking about a slanderous accusation

if you say you can prove something you must have proof

what sort of reply is 'you have to join the dots' one can obviously

add 2 + 2 = 5

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Relax. One is allowed to post inside knowledge without revealing sources. If I read from RaceRadio that rider x had got a warning because of abnormal blood values, then I would take his word for it.

On the other hand I don't think that TheHog has equal amount of inside knowledge as RR, but that doesn't mean that (s)he is lying (or telling the truth).

PS: Everybody knew that Riis doped before his confession in '07 without ANY proof. The same way I am 99.9% sure that the Tenerife-quartet is on the juice.

I would argue that RR is slightly more credible then TheHog.
I was 60% sure that Riis doped.

 

[No_Balls]

Doublepost

 

[thehog]

you're joking...........you;re talking about a slanderous accusation

if you say you can prove something you must have proof

what sort of reply is 'you have to join the dots' one can obviously

add 2 + 2 = 5

Nice use of slander. Care to prove its slanderous? i.e. no Yates? No Rogers? No Tenerife?

You keep believing my friend. Keep believing.

Nothing to see here