Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[JimmyFingers]

This.

To make an addition re: Kimmage and the 2010 Tour, it is my understanding that Wiggins went into the Tour incredibly nervous about his form (being dropped by Barry at the Alpine training camp), and therefore wanted a minimum of distraction. Not ideal, but Kimmage was invited, as stated, from stage 8. Why not?

Secondly, very few cyclists have openly criticised Armstrong in the wake of the Tygart report. Indeed, there are threads on this already. Though not alone, Wiggins has gone on record criticising Lance:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/02/bradley-wiggins-interview-tour

Compare that to those who say they still see Lance as the winner of those 7 Tours de France.

Why hasn't Sky outwardly supported Greg LeMond. Dunno. Why should they?

I'll await the inevitable quotes from 2010 of 'I love him' from the Wiggins doubters. Wiggins of course has broken omerta in the past, most famously in 2007 and it seems here he is breaking again.

It won't be enough.

And I agree with your points on embedding Kimmage with the team in 2010

 

[martinvickers]

I'll await the inevitable quotes from 2010 of 'I love him' from the Wiggins doubters. Wiggins of course has broken omerta in the past, most famously in 2007 and it seems here he is breaking again.

It won't be enough.

And I agree with your points on embedding Kimmage with the team in 2010

If you....shiver...read Wiggin's last book, there's a number of paragraphs on Kimmage - not attacks, exactly, but a description of an interview in 2009 which clearly made Wiggins uncomfortable. That he felt "Kimmage wanted to put words in [wiggins] mouth", and got a bit annoyed if Wiggins wouldn't play ball on his agenda.

Given the famous article by Kimmage questioning Sky, seems Wiggo, doper or not, read Paul pretty well

For the record, I love Paul's agenda, and more power to his f***ing elbow - but I can imagine it's a distraction.

It seems from the book that Wiggins has no desire to be a full-on posterboy for clean cycling - the 2007 Cofidis strop was an aberation because it affected him personally, it wasn't 'the real doper-hating pre-sky Wiggo' like some would like to believe.

As I suggested in a different thread, doping annoys him in so far as it affects him directly - Cofidis, Armstrong 2009, accusations from the twitterverse, answering for the peleton as le patron in 2012.

Which doesn't prove he's a doper, or that he's not a doper. It tends to sow he lives in his own bubble.

There's a famous play based on the story of Dreyfuss, the Jewish soldier framed and exiled to Devil's Island for treason for anti-semetic reasons in France - it was the subject of Hugo's famous article, J'accuse.

The play makes a point of showing Dreyfuss was a pretty unpleasant man. Pompous, bit of a bigot, unbending, sanctimonious, unctious, sometimes downright nasty.

And innocent.

The point was that victims are not always heroes, that nasty people are not always guilty, and that only a fool looks for moral character in outward charm.

Or put in another way. Wiggins seems, frankly, a ***. Self-important, strong yob character, and a bit of a nasty drunk (it does run in families) from the sound of it.

And none of that has any evidential value in regards to his cleanness.

Sometimes a b***ard sociopath is also a cheat - Armstrong, obviously

Sometimes a blatant cheat is pretty well liked and respected as a reliable and fun human being, outside the cheating - Yates, Contador

Sometimes someone who can be a bit of a *** has hidden moral courage - Bassons, maybe LeMond

It's not a fairy story world- the good guys aren't always nice, the bad guys aren't always nasty, and nobody really wears black or white hats for ease of reference.

 

[Tinman]

The point was that victims are not always heroes, that nasty people are not always guilty, and that only a fool looks for moral character in outward charm.

Or put in another way. Wiggins seems, frankly, a ***. Self-important, strong yob character, and a bit of a nasty drunk (it does run in families) from the sound of it.

And none of that has any evidential value in regards to his cleanness.

Sometimes a b***ard sociopath is also a cheat - Armstrong, obviously

Sometimes a blatant cheat is pretty well liked and respected as a reliable and fun human being, outside the cheating - Yates, Contador

Sometimes someone who can be a bit of a *** has hidden moral courage - Bassons, maybe LeMond

It's not a fairy story world- the good guys aren't always nice, the bad guys aren't always nasty, and nobody really wears black or white hats for ease of reference.

I wonder how many self important yobbo nasty drunk's are also likely to have a very strong moral and ethical compass, ie. be one of the few clean ones in the peloton. And a strong moral/ethical compass is what you'd need with all those dopers around you, including the well liked reliable fun ones.

I'd say it's possible, and appreciate the consideration, but far less likely than the other way around. No black and whites, yes, but correlations between variables, absolutely.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

And Wiggins kept the jersey from that point forward, never having to "win" it back. I think they knew he would be able to do that too.

Interviewed: on the 11th, Pat knew Sky were going to be the overall winners, 11 days before the finish of the race.
Theory: before the start, Sky knew Wiggins was going to be in yellow, 8 days into the Tour. I also believe they knew he was going to keep the jersey.

In respect of 2012, of course no-one knew for certain that Wiggo was going to take Yellow on a particular stage. However, if he was in winning form and didn't crash in the first week, then if he was going to take Yellow at any point it would either be on stage 7 (to Planche des Belles Filles) or stage 9, the first ITT.

Cancellara or Martin would have been favoured to win the Prologue and then lose time on stage 7. If in form, Wiggo and Froome would be expected to be prominent in the Prologue, with either one of them in the frame to take Yellow in stage 7.

Given Wiggo's form through the early season, it was a good bet that he would still be in form for the Tour, so taking Yellow on stage 7 was a "probable" rather than a "possible".

Once in Yellow, the odds on him losing it other than by crashing or illness were pretty remote, as none of the opposition was clearly superior in the hills, and Wiggo was clearly dominant in the ITTs.

Other than Froome's one-handed riding and Wagwars on Twitter, the Tour panned out in the least unlikely fashion that might have been predicted in advance.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Or put in another way. Wiggins seems, frankly, a ***. Self-important, strong yob character, and a bit of a nasty drunk (it does run in families) from the sound of it.

And none of that has any evidential value in regards to his cleanness.

Sometimes a b***ard sociopath is also a cheat - Armstrong, obviously

Sometimes a blatant cheat is pretty well liked and respected as a reliable and fun human being, outside the cheating - Yates, Contador

Sometimes someone who can be a bit of a *** has hidden moral courage - Bassons, maybe LeMond

It's not a fairy story world- the good guys aren't always nice, the bad guys aren't always nasty, and nobody really wears black or white hats for ease of reference.

The truth of it is that nice guys dope. Armstrong is the pantomime villain, the doper of all dopers that not only cheated but was a bully with it, borderline psychopath who initmidated and smeared anyone who was a threat. But plenty that doped with him, like Hincapie and Dave Z, come accross as stand up blokes. There is no forgiveness forthcoming for Lance from pretty much any quarter, but plenty of calls for reconciliation for other (ex) dopers, and only a 6 months ban for the 11 that fessed up.

And then you get Wiggins, who many see simply as the second coming of Lance. It is telling that many posters here are pre-occupied with raking through his life, tabloid-style, looking for dirt, and when they can't find it twisting facts to suit their agenda. Most recently was several pages discussing his postcode and whether he was from Kilburn or Maida vale. There is an obvious attempt to paint Wiggins as black as possible, make him as close to the Lance-model of doper as possible.

While he certainly has a spikey personality, he's no demon and since anyone, nice guy or *******, is a potential doper, his character is irrelevant unless you simply come here to call him a ****.

Which a few seem to do.

 

[ebandit]

thoughts

My thoughts on this thread.

A lot of people thinking Sky are doping.
Many are suspicious.
Some are suspicious but want to see more evidence/proof

No one actually thinks they're clean.

That is telling.

this is the clinic..........of course most members here will have doubts

a different story in the pro racing thread?

what i am unhappy is seeing members make up claims about sky even telling

blatant lies................then ignoring members who ask for said claim

to be validated ( the very same member who would cast scorn on a

team sky fan daring to believe )

+ members jumping to huge conclusions to confirm that sky are doping

from scant information which could mean anything

it's good to be suspicious but suspicion is in no way proof

the truth is out there ladies and gentlemen

 

[thehog]

I think that Team Sky are 100% clean and have seen nothing to convince me otherwise.

That's because you work for them! You're compromised.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Head of marginal gains Matt Parker!?

 

[ebandit]

well done

I think that Team Sky are 100% clean and have seen nothing to convince me otherwise.

well done for having that conviction

it's a fact there is zero evidence of doping...............however i'm a realist

and hold reservation...............to be honest i am sceptical of wiggo

and froomes performances but i'm honest enough to realise that i'm

likely to be wrong

it's a shame that members who think themselves cleverer than you and i

poke fun at youself for stating what you believe

 

[Grandillusion]

The truth of it is that nice guys dope. Armstrong is the pantomime villain, the doper of all dopers that not only cheated but was a bully with it, borderline psychopath who initmidated and smeared anyone who was a threat. But plenty that doped with him, like Hincapie and Dave Z, come accross as stand up blokes. There is no forgiveness forthcoming for Lance from pretty much any quarter, but plenty of calls for reconciliation for other (ex) dopers, and only a 6 months ban for the 11 that fessed up.

And then you get Wiggins, who many see simply as the second coming of Lance. It is telling that many posters here are pre-occupied with raking through his life, tabloid-style, looking for dirt, and when they can't find it twisting facts to suit their agenda. Most recently was several pages discussing his postcode and whether he was from Kilburn or Maida vale. There is an obvious attempt to paint Wiggins as black as possible, make him as close to the Lance-model of doper as possible.

While he certainly has a spikey personality, he's no demon and since anyone, nice guy or *******, is a potential doper, his character is irrelevant unless you simply come here to call him a ****.

Which a few seem to do.

Except amongst a few hardcore cycling fans (and maybe not even them) Armstrong has not been seen as an archetypal sociopathic pantomime villain. Until the reasoned decision was published, so all his millions of trusting supporters could see the reality, he was perceived as one of the greatest heroes in sporting history.

I don't think it's remotely true either that many now see Bradley Wiggins as some sort of "second coming" of the demonic Lance.

His anodyne feeble criticism of Armstrong since the report was published just hardly seems like some daring breaking of omerta. It reinforces the impression (to me as an outsider) of a sport paralysed with inertia.

Why aren't Sky making as much noise, expressing real anger, as Kimmage and LeMond? It just looks weird and suspicious.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Dont worry Doc. It is educated.
I know certain staff and riders opinions of Kimmage. I just dont know if they are the reason he isn't being welcomed with open arms.

See Andy, that's the point.
You don't know the reason - that is not an educated guess, it's a guess and a poor one.
Was Kimmage going to be cured after 8 days?

Maybe if you asked the certain riders & staff you know why Sky pulled Kimmage then it might actually make some sense.

As far as Garmin not having a problem....
People form their own opinions about other people. I imagine some people like you, but some think you are an a-hole? go figure.


There are many people in the peloton, and their teams, who would prefer Kimmage didn't further his career through them.
Whether this is a part of the decison making process.....?

IMO The tipping point will come if Kimmages opinion becomes important enough to overlook the relationship factor. At the moment it appears it is not.

I am sure there are - I would think Millar & Landis thought that too, funny how their opinions changed.

Kimmage was going to be paid anyway - so your theory does not hold.
Maybe when you talk to whoever in Team Sky you could ask (not make uneducated guesses) why they invited Kimmage in the first place? Brailsford wanted him.
Also, can you find out why they would not allow PK an interview with Barry?

 

[JimmyFingers]

Except amongst a few hardcore cycling fans (and maybe not even them) Armstrong has not been seen as an archetypal sociopathic pantomime villain. Until the reasoned decision was published, so all his millions of trusting supporters could see the reality, he was perceived as one of the greatest heroes in sporting history.

I don't think it's remotely true either that many now see Bradley Wiggins as some sort of "second coming" of the demonic Lance.

His anodyne feeble criticism of Armstrong since the report was published just hardly seems like some daring breaking of omerta. It reinforces the impression (to me as an outsider) of a sport paralysed with inertia.

Why aren't Sky making as much noise, expressing real anger, as Kimmage and LeMond? It just looks weird and suspicious.

I think you are making wide generalisations. In the wider public Armstrong may have been perceived as a hero and great sportsman, but there have been whispers about him for some time, and not just about cheating but his demeanour as well.

Interesting read here: http://www.lfgss.com/thread691.html regarding Lance on a forum dedicated to fixed gear riding. Shows the duality of reactions to Lance from as far back as 2007 from a group of cyclists but not necessarily hardcore road-cycling fans.

I think the effort has been on here to try to draw as many comparisons between Lance and Wiggins to taint one with the other. And I was talking about the clinic's, or more specifically certain members of the clinic, reaction to Wiggins.

I highlighted the last line: Sky have only been a team since 2010, should they be leading the condemnation of Armstrong, really? LeMond has had well-publicised spats with Lance and a court case, as does Kimmage. You would expect them to be dancing on the grave of Lance's career and reputation, I see no reason why Sky should be doing the same.

Given that they and Garmin seem to be the only teams talking about it and with their zero-tolerance policy actually reacting to it, I don't think your charge rings true.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Why aren't Sky making as much noise, expressing real anger, as Kimmage and LeMond? It just looks weird and suspicious.

It's not weird, though I can see why it's suspicious.

Sky as a team have more important business - winning bike races. If they win no races next year but clean up cycling then it will maybe give them a warm, rosy feeling inside, but nothing compared to a clean sweep of the GTs. They will do what is necessary as "anti doping crusaders" to assist in the aim of winning bike races and minimising any bad PR.

Kimmage in particular, has being vocal and deliberately controversial about doping as one of his commercial avenues, but he hasn't got to worry about winning bike races. Wiggins could undoubtedly do more, but not all of us are designed to be crusaders for the cause, however just the cause may be, and there is limited gain for him by so doing. (Dave Millar obviously fancies himself as some sort of future mover and shaker in sports politics, and good luck to him, but I can't really see Wiggo doing this sort of thing!) He's good at riding a bike, so that's what he should do (along with making sure he doesn't get caught, if he is doping.)

 

[thehog]

Head of marginal gains Matt Parker!?

Perhaps Matt could tell us why they are clean?

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ps-gb-gold-machine-stay-in-front-8010110.html

Instead of just saying "they're clean".

My original post stands.

I'm not sure anyone actually thinks they're clean.

We range from: "suspicious to dirty".

That's not good.

 

[martinvickers]

I wonder how many self important yobbo nasty drunk's are also likely to have a very strong moral and ethical compass, ie. be one of the few clean ones in the peloton.

More than you'd think, oddly. The prickliness with fans and critics can also extend, oddly enough, to prickliness with bent DS's, and doping colleagues. Bassons was certainly seen as prickly by all and sundry. And his moral compass was just fine.

And a strong moral/ethical compass is what you'd need with all those dopers around you, including the well liked reliable fun ones.

I'd say it's possible, and appreciate the consideration, but far less likely than the other way around. No black and whites, yes, but correlations between variables, absolutely.

Correlation does not prove causality. Post Hoc Ergo is a logical fallicy.

 

[martinvickers]

Perhaps Matt could tell us why they are clean?

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ps-gb-gold-machine-stay-in-front-8010110.html

Instead of just saying "they're clean".

My original post stands.

I'm not sure anyone actually thinks they're clean.

We range from: "suspicious to dirty".

That's not good.

I've already said I think they are clean. so have others. You don't have to agree, but don't lie about what's already been written in this thread. You made a claim, the claim was mistaken. Accept it and move on.

Let's be honest. Jesus Christ and his holy Mother could ride the f***ing tour, and I'd wonder if the Son of God was juiced, and Mary was carrying the 'Po. That's the nature of the sport at the moment. It's not specific to Sky, however much you'd like it to be, and its not really any more applicable to sky than any other pro teams - and frankly less than some.

 

[sublimit]

Perhaps Matt could tell us why they are clean?

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ps-gb-gold-machine-stay-in-front-8010110.html

Instead of just saying "they're clean".

My original post stands.

I'm not sure anyone actually thinks they're clean.

We range from: "suspicious to dirty".

That's not good.

Shouldn't it be the other way round? Like clean until proven to be drug cheats?
So the default situation for Sky is they're dopers until somebody comes up with evidence they are not... OK...

 

[Grandillusion]

I think you are making wide generalisations. In the wider public Armstrong may have been perceived as a hero and great sportsman, but there have been whispers about him for some time, and not just about cheating but his demeanour as well.

Interesting read here: http://www.lfgss.com/thread691.html regarding Lance on a forum dedicated to fixed gear riding. Shows the duality of reactions to Lance from as far back as 2007 from a group of cyclists but not necessarily hardcore road-cycling fans.

I think the effort has been on here to try to draw as many comparisons between Lance and Wiggins to taint one with the other. And I was talking about the clinic's, or more specifically certain members of the clinic, reaction to Wiggins.

I highlighted the last line: Sky have only been a team since 2010, should they be leading the condemnation of Armstrong, really? LeMond has had well-publicised spats with Lance and a court case, as does Kimmage. You would expect them to be dancing on the grave of Lance's career and reputation, I see no reason why Sky should be doing the same.

Given that they and Garmin seem to be the only teams talking about it and with their zero-tolerance policy actually reacting to it, I don't think your charge rings true.

Re: the highlighted last line - I don't mean only condemning Armstrong (which seems like bolting doors/stables ), but a strong public endorsement of those fighting the important battles in Switzerland, expressing solidarity. It would hardly take away from their training schedule as W&G suggests in the answer after yours. Wouldn't mean Bradley himself had to emotionally invest at the expense of valuable bike time? Brad himself wouldn't neccessarily even have to be the one.

Maybe I'm making something of nothing, it just seems so feeble a response from cycling when there's such massively important fights ongoing.

Thanks for replying anyway & for the links

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If you....shiver...read Wiggin's last book, there's a number of paragraphs on Kimmage - not attacks, exactly, but a description of an interview in 2009 which clearly made Wiggins uncomfortable. That he felt "Kimmage wanted to put words in [wiggins] mouth", and got a bit annoyed if Wiggins wouldn't play ball on his agenda.

Which book? There is a new Wiggins book every week, so which one?

In fact you might index or quote the relevant passage, because I do not recall PK interviewing BW in 2009.

Given the famous article by Kimmage questioning Sky, seems Wiggo, doper or not, read Paul pretty well

For the record, I love Paul's agenda, and more power to his f***ing elbow - but I can imagine it's a distraction.

It seems from the book that Wiggins has no desire to be a full-on posterboy for clean cycling - the 2007 Cofidis strop was an aberation because it affected him personally, it wasn't 'the real doper-hating pre-sky Wiggo' like some would like to believe.

As I suggested in a different thread, doping annoys him in so far as it affects him directly - Cofidis, Armstrong 2009, accusations from the twitterverse, answering for the peleton as le patron in 2012.

Which doesn't prove he's a doper, or that he's not a doper. It tends to sow he lives in his own bubble.

There's a famous play based on the story of Dreyfuss, the Jewish soldier framed and exiled to Devil's Island for treason for anti-semetic reasons in France - it was the subject of Hugo's famous article, J'accuse.

The play makes a point of showing Dreyfuss was a pretty unpleasant man. Pompous, bit of a bigot, unbending, sanctimonious, unctious, sometimes downright nasty.

And innocent.

The point was that victims are not always heroes, that nasty people are not always guilty, and that only a fool looks for moral character in outward charm.

Or put in another way. Wiggins seems, frankly, a ***. Self-important, strong yob character, and a bit of a nasty drunk (it does run in families) from the sound of it.

And none of that has any evidential value in regards to his cleanness.

Sometimes a b***ard sociopath is also a cheat - Armstrong, obviously

Sometimes a blatant cheat is pretty well liked and respected as a reliable and fun human being, outside the cheating - Yates, Contador

Sometimes someone who can be a bit of a *** has hidden moral courage - Bassons, maybe LeMond

It's not a fairy story world- the good guys aren't always nice, the bad guys aren't always nasty, and nobody really wears black or white hats for ease of reference.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Correlation does not prove causality.

It can do and does as per the weak states & corruption example and others. So I'd be a little reluctant to repeat as fact a throwaway line that was told to you when you were in school.

 

[ebandit]

clean

Perhaps Matt could tell us why they are clean?

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ps-gb-gold-machine-stay-in-front-8010110.html

Instead of just saying "they're clean".

My original post stands.

I'm not sure anyone actually thinks they're clean.

We range from: "suspicious to dirty".

That's not good.

here we go..........atrollin' we go........................

hog you know team skys policy 100% no doping

............now prove otherwise!

 

[JimmyFingers]

Re: the highlighted last line - I don't mean only condemning Armstrong (which seems like bolting doors/stables ), but a strong public endorsement of those fighting the important battles in Switzerland, expressing solidarity. It would hardly take away from their training schedule as W&G suggests in the answer after yours. Wouldn't mean Bradley himself had to emotionally invest at the expense of valuable bike time? Brad himself wouldn't neccessarily even have to be the one.

Maybe I'm making something of nothing, it just seems so feeble a response from cycling when there's such massively important fights ongoing.

Thanks for replying anyway & for the links

Do you not think Sky's dismissal of anyone who admits to involvement in doping a strong statement? The reaction from the pro-teams has generally been a deafening silence, and from pro-riders incredibly inconsistent, ranging from the 'Lance did win those races' from the likes of Contador and most recently Nibali (although from the Italian) to utter condemnation from Routley. Wiggins' reaction is certainly closer to Routley than it is to Contador.

The other reaction is the calls for a 'truth and reconciliation' process, where by you admit it, sound contrite and then get a pat on the back and carry on. I personally don't like that: at least Sky's policy puniches people that have cheated and haven't been sanctioned. You have to remember that through doping people were earning a living, winning prize money and endorsements, and spent their careers deceiving the fans. I don't see why they should get off scot-free.

We all want cycling to come out swinging now the elephant in the room can be seen by everyone, the problem is so many people in cycling have been involved in someway in the past, all the way up to Pat and Hein at the top. So many people can't come out in condemnation because they would be condemning themselves. And I'm not implicating Sky in that statement, rather the entire pro-tour

 

[martinvickers]

It can do and does as per the weak states & corruption example and others. So I'd be a little reluctant to repeat as fact a throwaway line that was told to you when you were in school.

No, it doesn't. Logic 101. Back to school you go.

Post Hoc Ergo

So what on earth are you talking about?

 

[MatParker117]

That's because you work for them! You're compromised.

I'm not that Mat Parker. I'm a 23-year old Shop Assistant/Waiter from Doncaster.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

No, it doesn't. Logic 101. Back to school you go.

Post Hoc Ergo

So what on earth are you talking about?

Yes it does as per that example and others. Go away, look at the FSI index, look at their methodology, then come back and talk to me.