Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[sniper]

The BBC is going to look pretty daft when Wiggins gets awarded SPOTY this coming weekend. Then has to strip him of the award in a few years...

shows you just how many around the globe really care about (anti)doping.
it's heroism that counts.

wasn't much different with Lance. Innumerable, the distinctions, sponsorcontracts, and other deals he got even when it was clear for every(sane)body to see the fraud he was.

 

[SundayRider]

shows you just how many around the globe really care about (anti)doping.
it's heroism that counts.

wasn't much different with Lance. Innumerable, the distinctions, sponsorcontracts, and other deals he got even when it was clear for every(sane)body to see the fraud he was.

True, everyone who really knows cycling knows that Wiggins is too good to be true, he said it himself 'Father Christmas doesn't exist'. Only patriotic 'sports fans' who aren't really sports fans believe Wiggins and Sky.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

The BBC is going to look pretty daft when Wiggins gets awarded SPOTY this coming weekend. Then has to strip him of the award in a few years...

The BBC merely organises the vote. It's the voting public that bestow the honour of SPOTY. The BBC would have to hold another vote to remove it, otherwise they'd fall foul of OFFCOM regulations.

 

[Froome19]

True, everyone who really knows cycling knows that Wiggins is too good to be true, he said it himself 'Father Christmas doesn't exist'. Only patriotic 'sports fans' who aren't really sports fans believe Wiggins and Sky.

shows you just how many around the globe really care about (anti)doping.
it's heroism that counts.

wasn't much different with Lance. Innumerable, the distinctions, sponsorcontracts, and other deals he got even when it was clear for every(sane)body to see the fraud he was.

Lol guys no need for the limited viewpoints. You can argue your point but do not pretend that there is no other possibility. It is effectively trolling and will just end up getting other people upset.

 

[Netserk]

Lol guys no need for the limited viewpoints. You can argue your point but do not pretend that there is no other possibility. It is effectively trolling and will just end up getting other people upset.

I'd call it naive to think that there might be a possibility that Wiggins is clean. There isn't. Wiggins is a doper.

ok?

 

[thehog]

I'd call it naive to think that there might be a possibility that Wiggins is clean. There isn't. Wiggins is a doper.

ok?

Agreed. Wiggins is a doper.

 

[ebandit]

disagreed

Agreed. Wiggins is a doper.

disagreed..............many have doubts.............but no-one is sure

 

[xcleigh]

I'd call it naive to think that there might be a possibility that Wiggins is clean. There isn't. Wiggins is a doper.

ok?

Yup, he's a doper. In your opinion. Mine differs; I don't know if he is. Bye.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Yup, he's a doper. In your opinion. Mine differs; I don't know if he is. Bye.

See I don't call this naive, I call it sensible and reasoned. Go figure

 

[thehog]

I'd call it naive to think that there might be a possibility that Wiggins is clean. There isn't. Wiggins is a doper.

ok?

I love Lance. The UCI s doing a great job, Yates connection was confirmation for me.

Wiggins sold his soul.

Sad.

I'm not angry about the doping. Just the lying.

 

[SundayRider]

disagreed..............many have doubts.............but no-one is sure

He finished roughly 30 secs behind LA in the 2009 tour is Wiggins that naturally talented that he can pretty much match a doped rider like that - no he is not.

 

[ebandit]

history

He finished roughly 30 secs behind LA in the 2009 tour is Wiggins that naturally talented that he can pretty much match a doped rider like that - no he is not.

but that was 2009..........this is the new BETTER clean era of cycling...just

ask fat pat

point being brad / team sky state that they are riding clean and thus far

there is no proof otherwise

 

[SundayRider]

but that was 2009..........this is the new BETTER clean era of cycling...just

ask fat pat

point being brad / team sky state that they are riding clean and thus far

there is no proof otherwise

If you go to bed when it is still daylight and wake up when it is dark, you do not have to have seen the sun set, to know that the sun did indeed go down.

 

[thehog]

If Fat Pat is the paragon of truth then God help us all!

 

[JimmyFingers]

If you go to bed when it is still daylight and wake up when it is dark, you do not have to have seen the sun set, to know that the sun did indeed go down.

But if a tree falls over in the woods and there's no-one there to hear it, did it make any sound?

 

[thehog]

If a cyclist transfuses a blood bag and no one sees is that really doping?

 

[ebandit]

dear 'ol blighty

If you go to bed when it is still daylight and wake up when it is dark, you do not have to have seen the sun set, to know that the sun did indeed go down.

wow! clever cookie.............but where did you read that the sun had not

set?................here i read that sky are doping..........but 'the clinic' are

the only ones convinced............................................

team sky doping..........better get on to the hotline and tell fat pat at uci

but be quick hoggie thinks that it's his scoop

 

[Froome19]

I'd call it naive to think that there might be a possibility that Wiggins is clean. There isn't. Wiggins is a doper.

ok?

Well there is no point in coming into a debate (this thread is supposedly such) if your mind is already made up

 

[Grandillusion]

I know this has been discussed (probably to death) but I can't trawl through over 1000 pages to look for the evidence:

Is there reliably honest power output data (ie not from the Teams themselves) over the last several years which could show that things are generally somewhat "cleaner" than at the hight of the Armstrong period?

It seems a simple way to assess cleanliness by comparison (unless the teams are so sophisticatedly devious as to be able to fake low power outputs strategically).

 

[thehog]

I know this has been discussed (probably to death) but I can't trawl through over 1000 pages to look for the evidence:

Is there reliably honest power output data (ie not from the Teams themselves) over the last several years which could show that things are generally somewhat "cleaner" than at the hight of the Armstrong period?

It seems a simple way to assess cleanliness by comparison (unless the teams are so sophisticatedly devious as to be able to fake low power outputs strategically).

Why would you compare to Armstrong only?

If Matt White hack Aussie rider was doping with blood and EPO at the Vuelta why does a comparisons with only Armstrong prove cleanness vs doping?

Ferrari numbers. He'll get you hitting a number that you need to hit. It's a different game now than the unabated doping days.

Doping is an art form of balance not a no holds barred consumption routine.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I know this has been discussed (probably to death) but I can't trawl through over 1000 pages to look for the evidence:

Is there reliably honest power output data (ie not from the Teams themselves) over the last several years which could show that things are generally somewhat "cleaner" than at the hight of the Armstrong period?

It seems a simple way to assess cleanliness by comparison (unless the teams are so sophisticatedly devious as to be able to fake low power outputs strategically).

Sports Scientists blog

Possibly the most relelvant analysis to your question, with a good preamble about Bradley's outburst about...well this place. Basically the analysis tells us they were climbing within psyiological limits, but the counter to this is that they are doping to a minimum so giving themselves only a slight edge and performance within the realms of possibility, or that they were soft-pedalling, with an eye on their power meter to make sure they didn't trigger any alarms.

Depends on your viewpoint really, but power and speeds up the climbs are distinctly below the dark era speeds.

 

[thehog]

Sports Scientists blog

Possibly the most relelvant analysis to your question, with a good preamble about Bradley's outburst about...well this place. Basically the analysis tells us they were climbing within psyiological limits, but the counter to this is that they are doping to a minimum so giving themselves only a slight edge and performance within the realms of possibility, or that they were soft-pedalling, with an eye on their power meter to make sure they didn't trigger any alarms.

Depends on your viewpoint really, but power and speeds up the climbs are distinctly below the dark era speeds.

Is that the same blog that used to say Armstrong was clean back in the 2000's?

 

[JimmyFingers]

Is that the same blog that used to say Armstrong was clean back in the 2000's?

No..........

 

[thehog]

No..........

I think you'll find it is

 

[Alphabet]

Depends on your viewpoint really, but power and speeds up the climbs are distinctly below the dark era speeds.

That doesn't mean a lot. All it shows is that doping to excess (like Riis racing with a hematocrit of 64) has more or less ended. I'm more inclined to believe that the peloton hasn't cleaned up much at all since Lance's day. You might have perhaps 5% more riders riding unassisted, and the rest of the dopers using a few thousand fewer units of EPO or one less blood bag than their predecessors.