Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[JimmyFingers]

Kimmage - who btw has.not only not said anything good about sky but has attacked themis imo far more credible.on this than walsh who for all his heroics on lance, hasn't been watching the sport for a long time.

Kimmage also offered substance- when he asked bailsford about lienders and wiggins about his comments. All Walsh - who is heavily guided by his emotions as he so wants sky to be clean, did was say - i had a private chat with bailsford and liked what he said.

I wonder if Walsh even understands any of the arguments against sky. When he talks about wiggins - he says he understands people are skeptical because precious tdf winners doped. Even diehard wiggins fans have to admit the case against wiggo and bailsford is a little.bit bigger than - all cyclists dope.

Know them personally do we? Interesting how quickly previously respected anti-doping campaigners/journalists get jettisoned as soon as they say something vaguely positive about Sky. And it was only vaguely positive; 'if Wiggins is clean, and there's no reason to believe there's not', so stopping short of definitively declaring him clean. And yet his judgement, understanding and closeness to the sport these days is suddenly called into question. I guarantee if he was singing from the clinic's hymn sheet you'd be telling us how in touch he is.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Kimmage - who btw has.not only not said anything good about sky but has attacked themis imo far more credible.on this than walsh who for all his heroics on lance, hasn't been watching the sport for a long time.

Kimmage also offered substance- when he asked bailsford about lienders and wiggins about his comments. All Walsh - who is heavily guided by his emotions as he so wants sky to be clean, did was say - i had a private chat with bailsford and liked what he said.

I wonder if Walsh even understands any of the arguments against sky. When he talks about wiggins - he says he understands people are skeptical because precious tdf winners doped. Even diehard wiggins fans have to admit the case against wiggo and bailsford is a little.bit bigger than - all cyclists dope.

Walsh, the anti doping crusader was unimpeachable...............until now.
Now he doesn't understand, some even say bought and paid for by Sky.

The cloth keeps getting cut, but there ain't much width left.

 

[MartinGT]

Re' Walsh, for me this just stinks of the omerta. "Bad Blood" by Whittle springs to mind. Instead, this time its not an individual, its a whole Team.

Lets not forget, Sunday Times is part of News Corp, owned by that sh!t that is Murdoch. Sky is owned by? You guessed it. He is hardly going to be slagging off Sky is he?

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Kimmage - who btw has.not only not said anything good about sky but has attacked themis imo far more credible.on this than walsh who for all his heroics on lance, hasn't been watching the sport for a long time.

Kimmage also offered substance- when he asked bailsford about lienders and wiggins about his comments. All Walsh - who is heavily guided by his emotions as he so wants sky to be clean, did was say - i had a private chat with bailsford and liked what he said.

I wonder if Walsh even understands any of the arguments against sky. When he talks about wiggins - he says he understands people are skeptical because precious tdf winners doped. Even diehard wiggins fans have to admit the case against wiggo and bailsford is a little.bit bigger than - all cyclists dope.

I agree, takes one to know one and a known drug cheat like Kimmage is going to have more of an idea about whether someone else is doping. Walsh is clearly guided by personal vendettas, he didn't like Armstrong as a person but he likes Wiggins. He has lost all credibility over this issue.

 

[RownhamHill]

Sigh, once again this past will always come.out bull****. When will it come out on indurain? Im still waiting. 21 years and counting.

I'm interested in how you define the past coming out. When you say 'when will it come out on Indurain?' do you mean when will Indurain be punished and have his titles stripped, or do you mean when will we get to a point when there is no longer any plausible denialability (if that could ever be a word!) for Indurain/Indurain fans?

The reason I ask is that while you'd be right to suggest you'd grow old and die waiting for the former (SOL issues and lack of political will being two big impediments, regardless of what evidence may still exist), I think if anything the latter condition has already been long-since past.

Look at any report into doping into cycling/TdeF - you'll often see LeMond hailed as the last 'clean' winner, or that the 'last 20 years' have been tainted. I don't know anyone with a passing interest in the sport who would make a serious argument that Indurain was clean. And indeed Indurain himself has past beyond trying to deny drug use - didn't he famously get asked, on live radio, whether he doped, with the presenter first explaining that if he responded by saying 'next question', the presenter would take that as a tacit admission? Indurain's response to the question: 'next question'.

So pretty much, I'd argue, the fact that Indurain almost certainly took EPO during his tour reign (as did most of the rest of the peloton by all accounts) is really 'out' already - to the point where the man himself doesn't bother denying it.

Compare a discussion of Indurain doping in terms of heat, light, and consensus with the present conversation about Wiggins - or until pretty recently a discussion of Armstrong - and you're not looking at the same kind of conversation at all. The difference being that (broadly) everyone knows Indurain doped, everyone now knows Armstrong doped (though until September that wasn't necessarily the case, abetted by Armstrong's explicit strategy and cult), but nobody really know if Wiggins doped or not, even if some have suspicions or feel convinced he must be.

So, I suppose, to reiterate my first question, what would you like to see happen with regard to Indurain, that hasn't already happened?

(And you could apply the same kind of logic to someone like Pantani - no doubt (probably in anyone but his mum's mind) that he doped to win the Tour/Giro double: those results are still 'official' and I don't see any move to strip them now, so is the truth 'out' about Pantani or not?)

 

[Mellow Velo]

Re' Walsh, for me this just stinks of the omerta. "Bad Blood" by Whittle springs to mind. Instead, this time its not an individual, its a whole Team.

Lets not forget, Sunday Times is part of News Corp, owned by that sh!t that is Murdoch. Sky is owned by? You guessed it. He is hardly going to be slagging off Sky is he?

Like I said.
Nobody thought that, until a couple of weeks ago.
Now, the guy took on Lance and his legion of lawyers, refused to be bullied or bought off, the guy who nailed Armstrong almost a decade or go and opened the eyes many posters here in the process, becomes overnight a Sky lackey.

Proof? None required.

Clinic idol to false prophet for not following the party line.

Anyone who thinks that, should go back and re-read (assuming they have read it in the first place) LA Confidential, reflect and then, give thanks.

 

[Ferminal]

Why would Walsh write an article about the doping practices of someone he doesn't believe dopes?

He knew for a fact that Armstrong doped, hence why he pursued him.

 

[coinneach]

Like I said.
Nobody thought that, until a couple of weeks ago.
Now, the guy took on Lance and his legion of lawyers, refused to be bullied or bought off, the guy who nailed Armstrong almost a decade or go and opened the eyes many posters here in the process, becomes overnight a Sky lackey.

Proof? None required.

Clinic idol to false prophet for not following the party line.

Anyone who thinks that, should go back and re-read (assuming they have read it in the first place) LA Confidential, reflect and then, give thanks.

Yes and No, Mellow Velo. The trouble with this analysis is that it makes the mistake of seeing everything through the eyes of the Lance case. The Clinic is so obsessed with Lance, it totally colours their opinions on everything to do with pro-cycling. By this way of thinking, Walsh is "good" because he fought Lance. Tygart is similarly "good". Where they differ is in their opinions on Sky. In fact, Sky-scepticism is rapidly taking over from Lance-doubt. By this way of thinking, anything Walsh says now is tainted, whereas Tagart remains a true god worth following.

What we need to do, I think, is way up comments on the basis of evidence and cooroboration.
(Incidentally, when Walsh says: "I had a chat with Brailsford and liked what he said" I interperate that as Brailsfod saying "Yeh, when we found out about Leinders and Rogers past I was gutted. They lied to me, so we've got rid of them; but please don't print that, that has to be off the record.")

But that's just my take on it: I'm not too bothered about other anti-dope campaigners saying they think Sky are clean (or dirty), unless they have some evidence to back that up. And that evidence has to exist whether they liked Lance or not.

 

[The Hitch]

Walsh, the anti doping crusader was unimpeachable...............until now.
Now he doesn't understand, some even say bought and paid for by Sky.

The cloth keeps getting cut, but there ain't much width left.

Not for.me, i criticised him.before.

But no one is unimpeachable. Doesn't matter who chanes sides, if the facts remain the same then the facts remain the same.

Im surprised ya'll are acting as if 1 guy saying he hopes sky are clean is such a game changer.

go checkout Libertine Seguro's posts for a quick summary of some of the reasons why some of us think Wiggins and Froome are suspicious.

Those arguments in those posts are the pillars on which our scepticism against the Sky team stand on.

Walsh never was one of those pillars. He had nothing to do with it.

So to come in now that Walsh (who never was part of the discussion) said something and act as if our entire argument has been blown away (or "not much cloth left" as you put it) is a bit cheap to say the least.

 

[martinvickers]

But no one is unimpeachable. Doesn't matter who chanes sides, if the facts remain the same then the facts remain the same.

Im surprised ya'll are acting as if 1 guy saying he hopes sky are clean is such a game changer.

Not really - he just has a much better and proven track record for getting the truth than, say, yourself, that's all.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Which game would that be changing? Convincing such as yourself Sky/Sky riders are racing clean? Lets face it that's never going to happen. No matter what happens from here on in, you'll always view 2012 Sky as tainted, so there's no point trying.

For me though it adds to the peace of mind to a degree.

 

[The Hitch]

Like I said.
Nobody thought that, until a couple of weeks ago.
Now, the guy took on Lance and his legion of lawyers, refused to be bullied or bought off, the guy who nailed Armstrong almost a decade or go and opened the eyes many posters here in the process, becomes overnight a Sky lackey.

THere is far more to doping than Lance Armstrong. Half the gts of the last 2 decades have been won by people who doped and only a fraction of that was Lance Armstrong.

But here you are mocking those who think - if it happened so many times before could it happen again, with cries that they have nothing to go on as Froome goes from continental level bottle carrier to worlds greatest rider over night.

If that rider was Italian or Spanish would you be paraphrasing Brunyeel about how the sceptics have nothing to go on?

Would you?

Which game would that be changing? Convincing such as yourself Sky/Sky riders are racing clean? Lets face it that's never going to happen. No matter what happens from here on in, you'll always view 2012 Sky as tainted, so there's no point trying.

For me though it adds to the peace of mind to a degree.

Excuse me, by what right and on what basis do you tell me that my opinion will never change?

Just because you are incapable of thinking rationally because you are blinded by patriotism does not mean others are.

Dont make the mistake of thinking everyone is as small minded as you.

If youve forgoten again the case against Sky, then i urge you to skimread LS's posts once again.

Those arguments are what my case against Sky stands on, and I wont let you get away with trying to hide our arguments under the carpet and frame us as bitter conspiracy theorists out with a grudge.

And since you initiated the amateur mind reading hour, ill go ahead and make an attempt at it myself.

You say Walsh saying he hopes Sky may actually have won clean, gives you peace of mind.

Based on many of the contributions you have made to this subforum in the last few months I am going to go out on a limb and question if you even knew who Walsh was until he said he likes Sky.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Not really - he just has a much better and proven track record for getting the truth than, say, yourself, that's all.

That's the way I see it.
Proven track record; experienced, determined, words and deeds to match.
A pillar of the anti-doping community.

The Hitch says Walsh has nothing to do with the "pillars" upon which the dirty Sky argument is based.
Fair enough, but if that is so, why then do posters feel the need to attack the man's credibility, when we all know he is more credible than any poster, here?

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

Excuse me, by what right and on what basis do you tell me that my opinion will never change?

Just because you are incapable of thinking rationally because you are blinded by patriotism does not mean others are.

Dont make the mistake of thinking everyone is as small minded as you.

If youve forgoten again the case against Sky, then i urge you to skimread LS's posts once again.

Those arguments are what my case against Sky stands on, and I wont let you get away with trying to hide our arguments under the carpet and frame us as bitter conspiracy theorists out with a grudge.

And since you initiated the amateur mind reading hour, ill go ahead and make an attempt at it myself.

You say Walsh saying he hopes Sky may actually have won clean, gives you peace of mind.

Based on many of the contributions you have made to this subforum in the last few months I am going to go out on a limb and question if you even knew who Walsh was until he said he likes Sky.

Most of LS's excellent posts are, naturally, about the past. Suspicious performances, suspicious team mates, suspicious doctors etc. Any one of which in isolation you could dismiss easily. However, as I understand it, for him (and that is where I disagree with him) all these things taken together suggest Sky and/or individual riders on Sky are doping.

I'm struggling to see what evidence would make you and him change your minds as it is always harder to prove a negative. Would the release of the blood passport, which is not cast iron proof but suggestive, do?

 

[martinvickers]

Excuse me, by what right and on what basis do you tell me that my opinion will never change?

Right? Freedom of expression - Article 10, ECHR. 1st Amendment, US Constitution.

Basis? Past experience.

 

[armchairclimber]

THere is far more to doping than Lance Armstrong. Half the gts of the last 2 decades have been won by people who doped and only a fraction of that was Lance Armstrong.

But here you are mocking those who think - if it happened so many times before could it happen again, with cries that they have nothing to go on as Froome goes from continental level bottle carrier to worlds greatest rider over night.

If that rider was Italian or Spanish would you be paraphrasing Brunyeel about how the sceptics have nothing to go on?

Would you?



Excuse me, by what right and on what basis do you tell me that my opinion will never change?

Just because you are incapable of thinking rationally because you are blinded by patriotism does not mean others are.

Dont make the mistake of thinking everyone is as small minded as you.

If youve forgoten again the case against Sky, then i urge you to skimread LS's posts once again.

Those arguments are what my case against Sky stands on, and I wont let you get away with trying to hide our arguments under the carpet and frame us as bitter conspiracy theorists out with a grudge.

And since you initiated the amateur mind reading hour, ill go ahead and make an attempt at it myself.

You say Walsh saying he hopes Sky may actually have won clean, gives you peace of mind.

Based on many of the contributions you have made to this subforum in the last few months I am going to go out on a limb and question if you even knew who Walsh was until he said he likes Sky.

Pompous post of the year. Well done.
You are presumptuous about others on this board often enough and play the man not the ball often enough (including in the above post). Stop crying you wuss.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Most of LS's excellent posts are, naturally, about the past. Suspicious performances, suspicious team mates, suspicious doctors etc. Any one of which in isolation you could dismiss easily. However, as I understand it, for him (and that is where I disagree with him) all these things taken together suggest Sky and/or individual riders on Sky are doping.

At what point did you come to the conclusion that Lance Armstrong was suspicious? What would it take for you to say that Sky are suspicious? Not that Sky are definitely doping, but for you to say that the doubters are not wrong to have doubts?

These things taken together suggest Sky and/or individual riders on Sky are doping. That's a key word, suggest. It is theoretically possible for riders to do as Sky did last year clean. Theoretically. But it requires some serious leaps of faith regarding the clean capabilities of guys like "Freiburg" Mick "Ferrari" Rogers and Chris "Anyone Who Wins The Anatomic Jock Race Must Be A GT Contender" Froome, when realistically, because of illness and injuries, and Rogers' history of shady association until the point at which illness and injury started to derail things for him, judging those riders' clean potential is not a very exact science for pretty much any of us. If you believe that an aging Aussie time trial specialist who has been involved in not one but two doping scandals, clean, is one of the elite climbing talents of the péloton, then fine, but I don't.

I think we can both agree on one thing, though. If Sky truly are a clean team, they have done a completely fricking horrible job of showcasing that. So far their policy of publicising clean cycling has consisted of the following plan:
1) win races
2) ?
3) say it was clean

Nothing more to it. It requires a leap of faith from a cynical fanbase, and relies on that fanbase wanting to buy what's being sold to them. The casual fan may buy it, but for the hardcore fans, it's harder. There's too much smoke to wave away the suspicious as conspiracy theorist nutjobs, however. Naturally, there are some conspiracy theorist nutjobs, but it's not possible, unless one is a pro-Sky Betonkopf, to simply dismiss all of those suspicious of Sky as conspiracy theorists; there's far too much smoke that's gathered for that. Certainly I could live without certain ambiguous or even totally innocent quotes being spun as part of some vast network of lies (like people comparing Wiggins' victory celebration in the ITT to Floyd's, or the conflation of Wiggins' post-Tour quote about dreams coming true with Armstrong's one about believing in miracles, as if an aspiring cyclist might never have dreamed of the Tour), but there are plenty of reasons to suspect Sky might be about as kosher as a bacon double cheeseburger served on the Sabbath.

 

[armchairclimber]

At what point did you come to the conclusion that Lance Armstrong was suspicious? What would it take for you to say that Sky are suspicious? Not that Sky are definitely doping, but for you to say that the doubters are not wrong to have doubts?

These things taken together suggest Sky and/or individual riders on Sky are doping. That's a key word, suggest. It is theoretically possible for riders to do as Sky did last year clean. Theoretically. But it requires some serious leaps of faith regarding the clean capabilities of guys like "Freiburg" Mick "Ferrari" Rogers and Chris "Anyone Who Wins The Anatomic Jock Race Must Be A GT Contender" Froome, when realistically, because of illness and injuries, and Rogers' history of shady association until the point at which illness and injury started to derail things for him, judging those riders' clean potential is not a very exact science for pretty much any of us. If you believe that an aging Aussie time trial specialist who has been involved in not one but two doping scandals, clean, is one of the elite climbing talents of the péloton, then fine, but I don't.

I think we can both agree on one thing, though. If Sky truly are a clean team, they have done a completely fricking horrible job of showcasing that. So far their policy of publicising clean cycling has consisted of the following plan:
1) win races
2) ?
3) say it was clean

Nothing more to it. It requires a leap of faith from a cynical fanbase, and relies on that fanbase wanting to buy what's being sold to them. The casual fan may buy it, but for the hardcore fans, it's harder. There's too much smoke to wave away the suspicious as conspiracy theorist nutjobs, however. Naturally, there are some conspiracy theorist nutjobs, but it's not possible, unless one is a pro-Sky Betonkopf, to simply dismiss all of those suspicious of Sky as conspiracy theorists; there's far too much smoke that's gathered for that. Certainly I could live without certain ambiguous or even totally innocent quotes being spun as part of some vast network of lies (like people comparing Wiggins' victory celebration in the ITT to Floyd's, or the conflation of Wiggins' post-Tour quote about dreams coming true with Armstrong's one about believing in miracles, as if an aspiring cyclist might never have dreamed of the Tour), but there are plenty of reasons to suspect Sky might be about as kosher as a bacon double cheeseburger served on the Sabbath.

Personally I though that Armstrong was probably doping...along with everyone else...from day one. I've never considered there to be a will to change until the last couple of years.

I don't think cycling is clean...and there are dots you can join pretty much everywhere BUT I do believe in JV and (less so) DM. I do doubt that British Cycling have a doping programme...though it is, of course possible. And BMW is clean of all but recreational drugs.

 

[the sceptic]

Personally I though that Armstrong was probably doping...along with everyone else...from day one. I've never considered there to be a will to change until the last couple of years.

I don't think cycling is clean...and there are dots you can join pretty much everywhere BUT I do believe in JV and (less so) DM. I do doubt that British Cycling have a doping programme...though it is, of course possible. And BMW is clean of all but recreational drugs.

What would you say is the difference between skys domination in the 2012 tour and Postals domination in the Lance years?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

ILook at any report into doping into cycling/TdeF - you'll often see LeMond hailed as the last 'clean' winner, or that the 'last 20 years' have been tainted. I don't know anyone with a passing interest in the sport who would make a serious argument that Indurain was clean. And indeed Indurain himself has past beyond trying to deny drug use - didn't he famously get asked, on live radio, whether he doped, with the presenter first explaining that if he responded by saying 'next question', the presenter would take that as a tacit admission? Indurain's response to the question: 'next question'.

Indurain was told at the outset of the interview that any question he didn't want to answer, he could just say "next question" and they'd move on. Most of the time he answered questions the interviewer thought he wouldn't. On doping, he said "next question". It's actually more direct than you thought - the interviewer at that point said, but Miguel, if you dodge that question I have to take it that you doped! Miguelón repeated his statement, more firmly.

It has been discussed here before, most notably in this post (with link).

 

[JimmyFingers]

Excuse me, by what right and on what basis do you tell me that my opinion will never change?

Just because you are incapable of thinking rationally because you are blinded by patriotism does not mean others are.

Dont make the mistake of thinking everyone is as small minded as you.

If youve forgoten again the case against Sky, then i urge you to skimread LS's posts once again.

Those arguments are what my case against Sky stands on, and I wont let you get away with trying to hide our arguments under the carpet and frame us as bitter conspiracy theorists out with a grudge.

And since you initiated the amateur mind reading hour, ill go ahead and make an attempt at it myself.

You say Walsh saying he hopes Sky may actually have won clean, gives you peace of mind.

Based on many of the contributions you have made to this subforum in the last few months I am going to go out on a limb and question if you even knew who Walsh was until he said he likes Sky.

Man you are all class. No one here puts more words into my mouth than you, misunderstands me yet reacts with insults and condescension and ignores me when I point out the error.

And you tell me I'm not rational? You over-react at every turn, jumping at insults that aren't there. And just swing back with more and more tawdry attacks.

You need to get a grip and realise not everywhere is a battleground for you to throw your weight around in. You disagree with me, it doesn't mean I'm angry with you, in the slightest. I understand the doubts and suspicions and accept them. I choose not to agree with them, but either that just fundamentally makes you mad or you just completely fail to get what I am saying. I am hoping I am being less ambiguous with this post.

 

[Ferminal]

I think we can both agree on one thing, though. If Sky truly are a clean team, they have done a completely fricking horrible job of showcasing that. So far their policy of publicising clean cycling has consisted of the following plan:
1) win races
2) ?
3) say it was clean

0) Have a special meeting with Lady Amaury to make sure she believes you are clean.

 

[martinvickers]

What would you say is the difference between skys domination in the 2012 tour and Postals domination in the Lance years?

Honestly?

A significantly easier peleton to control.

USP controlled w whole Ullrich and Basso included, doped to the gills, not to mention Vinikourov, Beloki and others.

Sky had a race with no Schleck, No Berti, a patently unwell Evans, and basically only Nibali to really deal with, being 2 on 1'd by Froome/Wiggins.

Even in the earlier races, Schelck and Evans were not in the best form. It's been one of those years, really.

Styalistic similarity to USPS is one of the less convincing links between Sky and LA and doping. I suspect the Sean Yates connection is more fertile ground for conspiracy.

 

[martinvickers]

At what point did you come to the conclusion that Lance Armstrong was suspicious?

AS the guy said, almost day one. Specifically, the Bassons incident.

A clean rider, trying to 'save' the tour, doesn't pick on the one obviously clean rider in the peleton. I didn't know enough about cycling back then to know about omerta directly - but I knew a ball-squeeze when i saw one. I was pretty much anti-tex thereafter. It was a very frustrating six years, as it became more and more apparent.

What would it take for you to say that Sky are suspicious? Not that Sky are definitely doping, but for you to say that the doubters are not wrong to have doubts?

I'm perfectly happy with doubts, right now. I just think the link from doubts -> complete certainty is made rather too easily, and with rather too little evidence.

"trust but verify" "i have my worries" -> healthy scepticism
"i just know they cheat" -> cynical bias

These things taken together suggest Sky and/or individual riders on Sky are doping. That's a key word, suggest. It is theoretically possible for riders to do as Sky did last year clean. Theoretically. But it requires some serious leaps of faith regarding the clean capabilities of guys like "Freiburg" Mick "Ferrari" Rogers and Chris "Anyone Who Wins The Anatomic Jock Race Must Be A GT Contender" Froome, when realistically, because of illness and injuries, and Rogers' history of shady association until the point at which illness and injury started to derail things for him, judging those riders' clean potential is not a very exact science for pretty much any of us. If you believe that an aging Aussie time trial specialist who has been involved in not one but two doping scandals, clean, is one of the elite climbing talents of the péloton, then fine, but I don't.

I'm not sure how Rogers was cycling like an elite climbing talent. He did his bit, then fell off completely. Elite talents tend to make it to the top.

I think we can both agree on one thing, though. If Sky truly are a clean team, they have done a completely fricking horrible job of showcasing that. So far their policy of publicising clean cycling has consisted of the following plan:
1) win races
2) ?
3) say it was clean

I don't think their PR is great, no.

 

[ferryman]

Honestly?

A significantly easier peleton to control.

USP controlled w whole Ullrich and Basso included, doped to the gills, not to mention Vinikourov, Beloki and others.

Sky had a race with no Schleck, No Berti, a patently unwell Evans, and basically only Nibali to really deal with, being 2 on 1'd by Froome/Wiggins.

Even in the earlier races, Schelck and Evans were not in the best form. It's been one of those years, really.

Styalistic similarity to USPS is one of the less convincing links between Sky and LA and doping. I suspect the Sean Yates connection is more fertile ground for conspiracy.

Stylistically, is, in my opinion, the biggest link between the two. It really was Groundhog day for me in July this year and it was very very very depressing.