Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Don't be late Pedro]

As far as I can see this is the only time he's mentioned Wiggins on twitter.

https://twitter.com/Ty_Hamilton/status/231456183498719235

Thanks. That tweet that sounds pretty genuine to me?

He's the same guy who sent a mocking tweet to Wiggins on the nature of his ridiculous win.

Hog, care to post the one you are referring to?

 

[sniper]

Thanks. That tweet that sounds pretty genuine to me?

Landis/Kimmage vs. Hamilton/Walsh.
All the way vs. diplomacy.

 

[martinvickers]

In other olympic news, London games made a ton of money and the UCI is set for a windfall profit. http://m.espn.go.com/extra/olympics/story?storyId=8694677&i=TWT&w=1cdqh&wjb

If you divide the estimated $400 million evenly, that's $15 million each sport. I don't know the formula, so the number could be $5-12 million. FYI, Pat McQuaid is Vice President of the International Association of Athletics Federations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Summer_Olympic_International_Federations

http://www.asoif.com/IFDirectory/Default.aspx

We know that Pat and Hein are about revenues first, then revisit my crackpot theory that the UCI assisted Sky in making the fairy tale of 2012 come true. They'd do it for a few million bucks just like they did it with Wonderboy.

Now, is that exactly the sports fraud story that breaks? Probably not. Did the UCI assist Sky's pursuit of wins in 2012 in exchange for a bigger Olympics payout? Very likely.

I think those payouts to the feds are based on a set formula; not sure how manipulating results could affect that formula?

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

I think those payouts to the feds are based on a set formula; not sure how manipulating results could affect that formula?

Just someone coming up with any old rubbish to try and make Sky look like dopers. Nothing new on here.

 

[Alphabet]

Just someone coming up with any old rubbish to try and make Sky look like dopers. Nothing new on here.

I am aware that I've probably missed a lot due to the length of this thread, but many of the comments people have said regarding Sky's probable doping make a fair amount of sense. Hardly 'any old rubbish'.

 

[The Hitch]

So, as a hypothetical question... if Kimmage were to come out and say something similar to Walsh would you reconsider or just assume that he too had sold out to some extent?

Id like to think im not as much of a nutjob about this as others ( i don't for example think wiggins smoking is proof of doing) but i am disappointed by the interview and here is why.

When you have wiggins praising lance Armstrong as an inspiration for his win all year, now claiming he has never ridden with lance and that doping was "15 years ago" and froome becoming best rider in the world out of nowhere and guys like rogers and Barry and yates being hired even though everyone knew they had a past, and whatsmorr rogers finding the form of his life and wiggins, who spoke frankly about doping when he wasn't very good now cursing at the very idea of a doping question, and lienders in lswept under the rug for months before being dealt with only when the **** hit the fan and most importantly, bailsford treating anti doping entirely as a political campaign and not doing a single anti doping thing unless it can be sold to a very naive press (same press which believed pass 500 tests = doping not possible).

And here comes walsh and says that he bekieves sky are clean bevause vaughters ( who is hardly a stranger to running his own game) says that wiggins might could if everything went well with 2 ymore ears at garmjn have resembled something like the one we saw at sky, well that to me sounds like a massivr cop out that totaly plasters over the entire debate because "vaughters says so"


And id like to think that in an alternate universe in which my mind worked differently and for some reason i took the side that wiggins and bailsford really were the frontline against doping and that they only appeared to some people of above average intellgence to be on the other side because they have the self control of mr bean, id like to think thay even if i was on that side id still see dws interview as a cop out that does not adress the discussion at all.


Btw as regards kimmage i recall in the post lance stuff walsh was the one who said " i really hope wiggins is clean" and " he should speak out against this" which bailsford of course heard and arranged the scripted 2 minute promo where wiggins says that lance cheated and wiggins did not.
Kimmage meanwhile was asking sky questions.

Also is it not true that kimmage arrived far earlier at the lance doped conclusion?

So i have far more confident in kimmage than walsh. Hell i even posted a few months ago that i didnt think walsh knew half as much about doping as kimmage and was shut down by bennoti.

So lets leave the - its as if kimmage came out and said sky was clean for when the big man actually comes our and says it.

Not that i woulr.neccesarily move with kimmage, i believe the weakness with all these people os.that they want nothing else in life than clean cycling whereas one should never let your emoions cloud your judgment. Walsh clearly does and kimmage probably too but he is imo far stronger and has maybe seen enough to be a real cynic.

 

[workingclasshero]

this thread has made me hate Sky. Too many of their fans are in the mould of the Armstrong groupies

people, you need to grow up, what's the point of someone above the age of 12 having idols they'll back to the moon and back no matter what?? This is cycling, not football where tribe goes before anything. Stop supporting Sky coz it's a british team, stop supporting Wiggins only coz he's British, it's embarrassing to watch adults becoming 'die hard fans' of someone just because they happen to have parents from the same country

 

[Dear Wiggo]

it's embarrassing to watch adults becoming 'die hard fans' of someone just because they happen to have parents from the same country

Some of us have a parent from the same country and aren't diehard fans, you know ;-)

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

I am aware that I've probably missed a lot due to the length of this thread, but many of the comments people have said regarding Sky's probable doping make a fair amount of sense. Hardly 'any old rubbish'.

There's a big difference between what The Hitch just posted and the drivel spouted earlier by DirtyWorks.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Id like to think im not as much of a nutjob about this as others ( i don't for example think wiggins smoking is proof of doing) but i am disappointed by the interview and here is why.

When you have wiggins praising lance Armstrong as an inspiration for his win all year, now claiming he has never ridden with lance and that doping was "15 years ago" and froome becoming best rider in the world out of nowhere and guys like rogers and Barry and yates being hired even though everyone knew they had a past, and whatsmorr rogers finding the form of his life and wiggins, who spoke frankly about doping when he wasn't very good now cursing at the very idea of a doping question, and lienders in lswept under the rug for months before being dealt with only when the **** hit the fan and most importantly, bailsford treating anti doping entirely as a political campaign and not doing a single anti doping thing unless it can be sold to a very naive press (same press which believed pass 500 tests = doping not possible).

And here comes walsh and says that he bekieves sky are clean bevause vaughters ( who is hardly a stranger to running his own game) says that wiggins might could if everything went well with 2 ymore ears at garmjn have resembled something like the one we saw at sky, well that to me sounds like a massivr cop out that totaly plasters over the entire debate because "vaughters says so"


And id like to think that in an alternate universe in which my mind worked differently and for some reason i took the side that wiggins and bailsford really were the frontline against doping and that they only appeared to some people of above average intellgence to be on the other side because they have the self control of mr bean, id like to think thay even if i was on that side id still see dws interview as a cop out that does not adress the discussion at all.


Btw as regards kimmage i recall in the post lance stuff walsh was the one who said " i really hope wiggins is clean" and " he should speak out against this" which bailsford of course heard and arranged the scripted 2 minute promo where wiggins says that lance cheated and wiggins did not.
Kimmage meanwhile was asking sky questions.

Also is it not true that kimmage arrived far earlier at the lance doped conclusion?

So i have far more confident in kimmage than walsh. Hell i even posted a few months ago that i didnt think walsh knew half as much about doping as kimmage and was shut down by bennoti.

So lets leave the - its as if kimmage came out and said sky was clean for when the big man actually comes our and says it.

Not that i woulr.neccesarily move with kimmage, i believe the weakness with all these people os.that they want nothing else in life than clean cycling whereas one should never let your emoions cloud your judgment. Walsh clearly does and kimmage probably too but he is imo far stronger and has maybe seen enough to be a real cynic.

Good post.

I actually agree that the logic Walsh gives for Wiggins being clean is weak at best. But I would argue if he condemned him for anything as weak the anti Sky brigade would be out in force. As it is we have, and you touched on it, smoking, his winning pose and God knows what other silly stuff as indicators of doping. There is plenty of stuff out there for people to justifiably be suspicious.

The crux of my (original) question was at what point would you reconsider your position as to whether Sky were doping (At least as a team). If no matter what anyone says you will not change you position then it really doesn't matter what Walsh, JV or anyone else might say. I don't think that is an unreasonable position given the history of cycling but it means that the Sky 'debate' is almost pointless.

One thing Wiggins has done has come out and condemned Armstrong. It may be too late for many but compare that to plenty of other riders. Had he not said anything he would have been seen as enforcing omertà.

And as for Kimmage... well he did write

There is nothing to suggest that Bradley Wiggins achieved yesterday’s historic victory through anything other than talent and hard work.

Of course the full article still asks for full disclosure from Sky before being totally convinced...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

One thing Wiggins has done has come out and condemned Armstrong. It may be too late for many but compare that to plenty of other riders. Had he not said anything he would have been seen as enforcing omertà.

Are you referring to the article where Wiggins says, "IF Lance doped, then he's a very naughty boy?"

Because that is not condemning Lance by any means I am capable of comprehending.

 

[Velo1ticker]

this thread has made me hate Sky. Too many of their fans are in the mould of the Armstrong groupies

people, you need to grow up, what's the point of someone above the age of 12 having idols they'll back to the moon and back no matter what?? This is cycling, not football where tribe goes before anything. Stop supporting Sky coz it's a british team, stop supporting Wiggins only coz he's British, it's embarrassing to watch adults becoming 'die hard fans' of someone just because they happen to have parents from the same country

Well there's practically nobody left. What people disagree with is a 3 month ban to the Italians and death to Wiggo or any brit.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Are you referring to the article where Wiggins says, "IF Lance doped, then he's a very naughty boy?"

Because that is not condemning Lance by any means I am capable of comprehending.

Here are a couple.

''It is a shame that cycling is being dragged through this again really, not a shame that he has been caught

It's pretty damning stuff. It is pretty jaw-dropping the amount of people who have testified against him.

It is certainly not a one-sided hatchet job, it is pretty damning. I am shocked at the scale of the evidence.

 

[veganrob]

Brad is not condemning Lance at all in those statements.

 

[Alphabet]

Brad is not condemning Lance at all in those statements.

Agreed.

That's not a condemnation. A condemnation would have been something "Lance doped and he has disappointed the world". And that's a pretty mild one at that.

What Wiggins said there comes closer to grudging acknowledgement/acceptance of the possibility that Lance doped.

 

[thehog]

Agreed.

That's not a condemnation. A condemnation would have been something "Lance doped and he has disappointed the world". And that's a pretty mild one at that.

What Wiggins said there comes closer to grudging acknowledgement/acceptance of the possibility that Lance doped.

Yes Wiggins sure did turn up the heat on Lance!

During the Federal investigation he called Landis a drunk, said Lance passed 500 tests therefore innocent, said he loved Lance for everything he did for cycling, likened Sky to USPS.

If anything Wiggins compounded the entire Lance myth. Now he's just pretending because of the rest of world changed their view.

 

[JimmyFingers]

While I appreciate people's disappointment with the Walsh peice's failure really to shed any fresh light on proceedings, it was never really going to. I guess what the interview did give him was the opportunity to meet and talk to Brailsford and get a better handle on him, on Sky and the reasons behind their success.

And so it becomes someone again voicing an opinion. Which is always what it was supposed to be. Perhaps he could have been more agressive, asked more difficult questions but that wouldn't have lead to new evidence all of a sudden, or prompted Brailsford to suddenly release blood data.

At the end of the day it depends on your opinion on Walsh's credibility, and he should have that in spades really. He's not the type of person who is going to be duped easily.

 

[thehog]

At the end of the day it depends on your opinion on Walsh's credibility, and he should have that in spades really. He's not the type of person who is going to be duped easily.

Yes it's Walsh's fault Sky dope. It's up to him to find doping in the peloton. Walsh caught Lance so its up to him to catch out Sky. And if he can't then he's credibility should be brought into question.

Journalists are the new anti-doping testers. It's up to them to discover doping.

Sky are innocent until Walsh says otherwise

 

[martinvickers]

Yes it's Walsh's fault Sky dope. It's up to him to find doping in the peloton. Walsh caught Lance so its up to him to catch out Sky. And if he can't then he's credibility should be brought into question.

Journalists are the new anti-doping testers. It's up to them to discover doping.

Sky are innocent until Walsh says otherwise

Hog, I give you credit, that's a spectacular piece of spinning.

The straw men cut down in that argument could guard every field in france...

 

[The Hitch]

Good post.

I actually agree that the logic Walsh gives for Wiggins being clean is weak at best. But I would argue if he condemned him for anything as weak the anti Sky brigade would be out in force.

As it is we have, and you touched on it, smoking, his winning pose and God knows what other silly stuff as indicators of doping. There is plenty of stuff out there for people to justifiably be suspicious.

Yes, and i do my best to disasociate myself from those people. they destroy the discussion.

The crux of my (original) question was at what point would you reconsider your position as to whether Sky were doping (At least as a team). If no matter what anyone says you will not change you position then it really doesn't matter what Walsh, JV or anyone else might say. I don't think that is an unreasonable position given the history of cycling but it means that the Sky 'debate' is almost pointless.

there is no single moment or person that could convince me because the defense that people make errors is always there.

What could make me revise my position on wiggins is if people in the anti doping movement start to say they believe the likes of Vino post 2009 and Contador post 2011 or post 2010 (or maybe even post 09) where clean. (other than Millar of course who already said it)

because for me saying a rider who hasnt tested positive is clean has lost all its alure. Its if people defined as bad guys are aknowledged to have achieved things clean, that people are actually making any sort of leap and the idea that doping is on its way out can actually make some sense.

But it would be the narrative of cycling getting cleaner and not the narrative of a few individuals ( Kerrison wiggins and bailsford) being the fathers of anti doping.

Wiggins afterall did say before he won the Tour that Cadel was the "first tour winner we could believe in" but since then Sky have taken all the credit for themselves.

While it would not neccesarily make it believable if their line was that people like Evans, Hejsedal Wiggins (and especially if they said Sastre) have shown it is possible to win clean, i find it curious that Sky have refused to credit anyone else in the story of how they win clean, and choose to portray themselves not as part of the movement but as the movement itself.

for me cycling is either changing as a whole or its not.
I may one day revise my position that wiggins did not win clean, but i doubt i will ever revise my position that the sky narrative of one team on its own leading the way to a clean sport, is severely wanting, and the only person that could ever change my mind on that is if god himself visits me in a dream.

One thing Wiggins has done has come out and condemned Armstrong. It may be too late for many but compare that to plenty of other riders. Had he not said anything he would have been seen as enforcing omertà.

To me condemning scapegoats has never meant anything. I said it long before the Lance thing and i say it now. People who just attacked Landis, Hamilton, Ricco, Vino, Di luca, never scored any points with me.

It attests more to the absolute stupidity of people like Nibali Contador Sanchez and Indurain or for that matter Dowsett, that they did not see Lances fall as an opportunity, than to any cleanliness or even intelligence from those who did. It was an open goal and, something for nothing opportunity to portray oneself as clean without any having to make any actual sacrifice.

also for me there were a few things worth calling out in his criticsm of Lance most notably that the thing was clearly organized (if not planned) by Bailsford, as it took the form of wiggins a prerecorded interview with Sky (their own sponsors) and took place on the same day that Bailsford did his own media blitz and other sky members did a media blitz and dowsett came on and explained his own praise for Lance. And of course it happened only after the USADA report and not 5 weeks earlier when people like Engoulvent spoke out.

Again doing it 5 weeks earlier would not neccesarily mean anyone was clean, (doing it like Pinotti a few years earlier would), since lance was clearly on the way down, but why did all the people who eventually spoke out against lance only wait for him to become PEN1 and not do it when it would actually have taken some balls.

And all this goes doubly so for Wiggins becuase, and i know you get tired of me making this point but Wiggins won the Tour and then the olympics 4 and 3 weeks respectively before the August 23rd thing, and i remember wiggins in the hero come home interviews talking about Lance about training like Lance and that he admires Lance for doing it 7 times becuase he found it difficult doing it just the once.

So i do think someone in who was praising Lance just before the **** hit the fan would owe more of an explanation than others, and saying that the USADA evidence is damning but that it happened long ago, does imo suffice.

 

[martinvickers]

Good news guys.

Paul Kimamge has just declare in the CCN presser that he can't believe Wiggins is clean.

...here we go....

 

[Ferminal]

He may struggle to believe he is clean, but that is not to say that he believes he is doping. Such a position would not be unreasonable.

Nice post, Hitch.

 

[martinvickers]

He may struggle to believe he is clean, but that is not to say that he believes he is doping. Such a position would not be unreasonable.

Nice post, Hitch.

Apparently he has clarified it to say that he can't "know" he's clean, because he can't "know" that about anyone until change happens. Which is of course, frankly, the only sensible position to take with cycling at the moment.

Sorry guys, false alarm....

 

[JimmyFingers]

Yes it's Walsh's fault Sky dope. It's up to him to find doping in the peloton. Walsh caught Lance so its up to him to catch out Sky. And if he can't then he's credibility should be brought into question.

Journalists are the new anti-doping testers. It's up to them to discover doping.

Sky are innocent until Walsh says otherwise

What sort of nonsense is this? You really do yourself no favours. I said Walsh voiced an opinion, it's up to you whether you share that opinion or not.

 

[sniper]

...i find it curious that Sky have refused to credit anyone else in the story of how they win clean, and choose to portray themselves not as part of the movement but as the movement itself.

for me cycling is either changing as a whole or its not....

crucial stuff here.