Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Don't be late Pedro]

Already addressed in #10984.

That their rivals are doping to a lesser extent than them is only one possible explanation.

Sky are better because any one or a combination of:

1) They are physiologically superior

2) They are doping better

3) They have a "professional approach" which other teams do not

Do not rule out the fact [possibility] that they just may be better - with 2 + 3 being equal across the top competitors.

(1) Few people seem to buy into that.

(2) Even if they are doping 'better' (might need to qualify this with some context) their absolute numbers are still nothing compared to previous years from a doping point of view (Post Bio-passport). So I am sure other teams can match them given experience. Guys that were sprinting up mountains previously were being dropped. Why was this given the numbers were well within what they were doing before.

(3) A "professional approach". Marginal gains and a shed load of money?

I appreciate you do state it could be some combination of all three.

 

[red_flanders]

So if Sky were not going full blast and undetectable drugs are pretty much available to cyclists how come no one was able to match them? It's easy to beat the bio-passport, right?

In recent years these many teams could easily match those numbers. Did everyone except Sky agree to stop using them? Well, that seems unlikely and breaks the opinion that everyone is doping.

Perhaps Sky has a wonder-drug. Possible but from what people have been saying there are plenty of things out there for others to use and are undetectable.

Suggestions?

Well, we know for a fact that riders and teams have been protected in the past, so that has to be on the list of possible explanations with all the rest.

Nope, no proof of this but given recent history and the amazing timing of the rise of British Cycling, it is a question that has to be asked. As of this time, no hard evidence of this exists that I know of.

 

[Ferminal]

What numbers?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Bio-passport is not an in-competition metric. It's a long score.

But for the last time. Bio passport is a not an in-competion test.

Lance smashed it at Flanders in 2010 and dropped a bag the night before and didn't trouble the Bio committee.

When did I ever say if was an in-competition test? That is a strawman argument.
Wiggins (and Sky) were winning throughout the year as has been pointed out many, many times.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Well, we know for a fact that riders and teams have been protected in the past, so that has to be on the list of possible explanations with all the rest.

That would certainly be a possible explanation.

Nope, no proof of this but given recent history and the amazing timing of the rise of British Cycling, it is a question that has to be asked. As of this time, no hard evidence of this exists that I know of.

I am not saying that you need proof unless something is claimed as fact. There is plenty to be suspicious about and of that there is no doubt.

 

[thehog]

When did I ever say if was an in-competition test? That is a strawman argument.
Wiggins (and Sky) were winning throughout the year as has been pointed out many, many times.

Exactly the point. They kept ther numbers consistent not to flag the off score. Still the bio doesn't test at races. Only a handful of times during the year.

Let me know if you need a hand when you're finished digging that hole.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

What numbers?

Wattage numbers up mountains.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Exactly the point. They kept ther numbers consistent not to flag the off score. Still the bio doesn't test at races. Only a handful of times during the year.

Let me know if you need a hand when you're finished digging that hole.

What about dopers fatigue? You can't do it all year, remember?

Unless you work with Ferrari I guess. 100% guaranteed. I hear he was town and gown at Ferrara in Italy.

 

[thehog]

What about dopers fatigue? You can't do it all year, remember?

Unless you work with Ferrari I guess. 100% guaranteed. I hear he was town and gown at Ferrara in Italy.

Why get personal? Why mock?

Besides...

Sky didn't do it all year. They stopped at the Olympics. They all hit a brick wall.

Look at Wiggins at the World Championships. Terrible. Froome hit a wall mid Vuelta. Porte could barely pedal his bike to win a stage. Rogers died at the Olympics.

It had all gone.

Wiggins, Rogers and Porte lasted March to August. Which is 5 months. Nowhere near 'all year'.

Froome-dawg well, Froome-dawg just 'appeared' and went ET on everyone. Not even Basso could do that in 2006!

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Sky didn't do it all year. They stopped at the Olympics. They all hit a brick wall.

Look at Wiggins at the World Championships. Terrible. Froome hit a wall mid Vuelta. Porte could barely pedal his bike to win a stage. Rogers died at the Olympics.

It had all gone.

GB did not have much of a chance at the worlds and after a long season it was not surprising that Wiggins was not as strong as throughout the year.
Porte seemed to do well on Stage 20 unless I am mistaken?
Froome came 4th in a GT after a big run in. More than decent.

Wiggins, Rogers and Porte lasted March to August. Which is 5 months. Nowhere near 'all year'.

Given the cycling season is shorter than a year and Wiggins was racing from the Volta ao Algarve (Mid Feb) until World Road race (Mid Sep) that is more like 7 months. Which is certainly most of the cycling year.

 

[thehog]

GB did not have much of a chance at the worlds and after a long season it was not surprising that Wiggins was not as strong as throughout the year.
Porte seemed to do well on Stage 20 unless I am mistaken?
Froome came 4th in a GT after a big run in. More than decent.


Given the cycling season is shorter than a year and Wiggins was racing from the Volta ao Algarve (Mid Feb) until World Road race (Mid Sep) that is more like 7 months. Which is certainly most of the cycling year.

6 months. He'd hit party mode after the Games.

Froome lasted an extra month the rest died at the same time as Wiggo.

They hit the wall. The dopers wall. Sit down JV for a beer sometime and ask him about it.

You cannot dope all year. It's impossible on logistics alone.

If Froome and Wiggins were really that good that could have finished the WC race. Especially Froome. They were just crud. Froome pulled out of the ITT as well!

Nibali was attacking on the final hill at WC and he raced just as much as Wiggins.

Difference being Nibali is clean.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

If Froome and Wiggins were really that good that could have finished the WC race. Especially Froome. They were just crud.

Comedy gold.
Obviously Cav not finishing proves he is doping as well.
Why would they bother to finish if they were pulling for other people and/or not in contention?

You cannot dope all year. It's impossible on logistics alone.

I guess you know this from working at the AIS, right?

Nibali was attacking on the final hill at WC and he raced just as much as Wiggins.
Difference being Nibali is clean.

Or he was motivated to finish as it was a race more suited to him.

 

[thehog]

Comedy gold.
Obviously Cav not finishing proves he is doping as well.
Why would they bother to finish if they were pulling for other people and/or not in contention?


I guess you know this from working at the AIS, right?


Or he was motivated to finish as it was a race more suited to him.

This is not about me.

Froome could out sprint Nibali up a hill.... When he was in ET Tour form no one could beat Froome up any type of incline.

Should have finished as JTL was still in with a chance.

If Froome and Wiggins are the natural talents that many here explain them to be then they should have been front and center in that race.

They were hopeless. Just terrible. Or maybe they'll just their natural selves?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

This is not about me.

You keep saying that but if you post facts with no sources you should be prepared to be asked about them.

Froome could out sprint Nibali up a hill.... When he was in ET Tour form no one could beat Froome up any type of incline.

Should have finished as JTL was still in with a chance.

If Froome and Wiggins are the natural talents that many here explain them to be then they should have been front and center in that race.

JTL was in contention at the bottom of the hill. After that is was up to him and that being the case what difference does it make for Wiggins/Froome to finish. Answer, it makes no difference.

 

[Ferminal]

Wattage numbers up mountains.

Yeh, like what compared to what.

 

[Joachim]

Why get personal? Why mock?

Besides...

Sky didn't do it all year. They stopped at the Olympics. They all hit a brick wall.

Look at Wiggins at the World Championships. Terrible. Froome hit a wall mid Vuelta. Porte could barely pedal his bike to win a stage. Rogers died at the Olympics.

It had all gone.

Wiggins, Rogers and Porte lasted March to August. Which is 5 months. Nowhere near 'all year'.

Froome-dawg well, Froome-dawg just 'appeared' and went ET on everyone. Not even Basso could do that in 2006!

Jeez. Where do you get this stuff?

One minute you are using the 'peaking all season' argument conclude that they are doping, and now you are using their failure to 'peak all season' to conclude that they are doping.

You quote your own posts often enough, maybe you should read what is in them.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Well, we know for a fact that riders and teams have been protected in the past, so that has to be on the list of possible explanations with all the rest.

Nope, no proof of this but given recent history and the amazing timing of the rise of British Cycling, it is a question that has to be asked. As of this time, no hard evidence of this exists that I know of.

Even if we buy into the rise of British Cycling, the sudden and shocking rise of riders not tied into the British Cycling developmental arm to take advantage of the sudden opportunities provided for British cyclists raises some concerns.

The amazing timing is incredibly convenient given that it seems to coincide almost exactly with the decline (doping-related) of attention for the sport in another country with a similar population size and potential audience - Germany. Makes you wonder if the recent trend for neutered, TT-friendly parcours that suit riders like Wiggins (look at the parcours of Paris-Nice 2011 and 12, the Dauphiné this year, Romandie the last couple of years, and the proliferation of crappy short stage races with the 'win the TT win the race' format) and an excess of sprint stages may have been manufactured to try to develop this British audience. Personally I think that there may be something in that, but just as much in other reasons; I think the ASO have deliberately and consciously killed the Dauphiné. It used to be a one-week stage race through the Alps that riders used to warm up for the Tour; now it's nothing more than a Tour recce to give riders a visua of the route, but with World Tour points.

The riders may therefore not need to cheat to get to that point, because there would then be other forces in play directly responsible for the fast and convenient increase in British cycling viewers. Lose one major market, replace with another. No need for picking up a Spanish, Italian, Belgian or French market, those guys will always follow the sport. Much more potential audience in a non-traditional cycling country because most of the potential cycling fans there aren't already watching the sport.

ASO are just as likely to bias their courses to try to manufacture French triumphs, mind.

 

[ebandit]

happy new year......................all

Jeez. Where do you get this stuff?

where?............................where do you think.......................it's

the voices in my head

ah well? i never was very clever....................members may be relieved to

hear that from now on i will only be posting in the clinic.....................as and

when anything happens

meanwhile................happy new year to .............................ALL

 

[Joachim]

@Liberty S

Who knows. It is true that the ASO carefully choose their parcours, and equally true that this year they couldn't have made it more suitable to Wiggins. It is also true that there is a reported surge in interest in cycling in the UK, and of course a TdF win wouldn't harm that.

You can join the dots on that one, might be right, might be wrong. Equally it is entirely plausible they tailored it to Wiggins because they wanted him to win because they were confident a Wiggins win wouldnt blow up in their faces.

Armstrong, Contador and Landis have made a farce of the Tour. Tour winners being busted for drugs is absolutely against the ASO's commercial interests. They don't want TV networks dropping it.

 

[sniper]

McQuaid speaking volumes.

"Look at Wiggins this year. I think the sport is in a very good position. Cycling shouldn't be judged on the Lance Armstrong story. It should be judged on the Olympic Games. 1.5 million people for the road race, the Velodrome was the hottest in terms of atmosphere. The BMX was hugely successful, the mountain biking was hugely successful. The sport is in a great place and is growing.

is it really a wild conspiracy to say UCI has invested in Sky's success?

What the hell does that mean: "Look at Wiggins this year"?
Why not "Look at Vino this year"?
What if Contador had won the Tour, would he have said "Look at Contador this year"?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

@Liberty S

Who knows. It is true that the ASO carefully choose their parcours, and equally true that this year they couldn't have made it more suitable to Wiggins. It is also true that there is a reported surge in interest in cycling in the UK, and of course a TdF win wouldn't harm that.

You can join the dots on that one, might be right, might be wrong. Equally it is entirely plausible they tailored it to Wiggins because they wanted him to win because they were confident a Wiggins win wouldnt blow up in their faces.

Armstrong, Contador and Landis have made a farce of the Tour. Tour winners being busted for drugs is absolutely against the ASO's commercial interests. They don't want TV networks dropping it.

Of course, the most notable one of those was Rasmussen; German TV execs were talking about dropping coverage partway through the race, they were that angered.

The UCI certainly have a vested interest in replacing that lost audience. McQuaid was quoted as saying he hoped Cavendish could continue this amazing year for British cycling at the Olympics. Part of that may be that after repeated scandals he's throwing his hat in the ring behind a more trustworthy source of victories, part of it may be the tendency of the sport's bigwigs to be glory hunters, to create marketable stars and to conflate themselves with winners (see Bernie Ecclestone advising Sebastian Vettel in the pitlane at Abu Dhabi and making sure from interviews that you know he wants the guy to win), part of that may be a cynical attempt at cashing in on a potential audience because of the strides Britain has made cycling-wise, part of it may be a wholly manufactured decision to target Britain as a new market now that the bottom has fallen out of German cycling. Then again, with the US market likely to be hurt by the Armstrong scandal, I'm surprised he has gone out of his way to annoy the Russians, but then McQuaid is also looking at China to develop as well.

It's hard to say which of these is the driving factor, or they may all be factors, or we may all just be paranoid, which too much time in the Clinic can do to you. However, Britain's rise to prominence in World cycling has coincided conveniently with a bunch of routes that suit their riders, with the downfall of another non-traditional nation of similar population and potential that had been riding high for the last 10-15 years - and that had a much stronger national scene of stage races that would make it easier for them to develop such talents, and McQuaid - a known corrupt politician - has been known to vocally support the continued success of British cycling.

Just like with the doping side of things, there's no hard evidence, but there's an awful lot of things to entice speculation with little to quell the suspicions.

 

[Benotti69]

McQuaid speaking volumes.

is it really a wild conspiracy to say UCI has invested in Sky's success?

What the hell does that mean: "Look at Wiggins this year"?
Why not "Look at Vino this year"?
What if Contador had won the Tour, would he have said "Look at Contador this year"?

Couple the above with what Roberti said about the olympics being awash with new forms of EPO it appears cycling is still as charged as it has always been but with 1 difference, the teams are trying to control their doping to the biopassport, which the better they get at it with the help of their sports scientists the better the performances and speeds will start increasing again.

Sky ahead of the rest this year with the help of ASO/UCI? Of course they were why the presentation to ASO.

Wonder will Wiggins samples be available in a few years to retest?

 

[xcleigh]

Sky ahead of the rest this year with the help of ASO/UCI? Of course they were why the presentation to ASO.

This is an interesting point. May I perhaps ask how you think the meeting with ASO went and what was discussed? Do you think Brailsford did brazenly tell ASO 'we are going to win your race, UCI are on board, we will be doping but don't worry it's all under control. Rest assured it won't be another Festina'. How do you feel ASO might have reacted to such a proposal?

I'm happy to countenance things happen behind the scenes we will never know about but would be interested to know exactly what you feel might be discussed at these meetings. I agree it causes reason to be inquisitive of such meetings but I do struggle to comprehend exactly how one would broach the matter of 'we'll be doping at your race and we'll win it'. Or do they (SKY) not mention that to ASO? One would have though a team telling them such things risks ASO calling them out on it. ASO/UCI aren't exactly bosom buddies as far as I know(?) so kicking SKY off the tour start roster could be a consequence of such a meeting with ASO could it not? As they may not buy in to the whole scheme/proposal? I'm just trying to get a scene in my head as to how this might all work as I genuinely can't quite work it out as yet.

Also, might I add, Pat doesn't do a good job of not focusing attention on the main characters of such a scheme, Wiggins and SKY. He is a plonker.

 

[Joachim]

At the meeting between Sky and ASO, it was made clear to Sky that they would be subject to extra testing, the samples of which would be held by WADA in perpetuity. Sky also had to hand over a $8 million bond, repayable with interest in 8 years time provided that Wiggins win, should he win, still stood.

I have no evidence for the above, I just know it.

 

[MatParker117]

Of course, the most notable one of those was Rasmussen; German TV execs were talking about dropping coverage partway through the race, they were that angered.

The UCI certainly have a vested interest in replacing that lost audience. McQuaid was quoted as saying he hoped Cavendish could continue this amazing year for British cycling at the Olympics. Part of that may be that after repeated scandals he's throwing his hat in the ring behind a more trustworthy source of victories, part of it may be the tendency of the sport's bigwigs to be glory hunters, to create marketable stars and to conflate themselves with winners (see Bernie Ecclestone advising Sebastian Vettel in the pitlane at Abu Dhabi and making sure from interviews that you know he wants the guy to win), part of that may be a cynical attempt at cashing in on a potential audience because of the strides Britain has made cycling-wise, part of it may be a wholly manufactured decision to target Britain as a new market now that the bottom has fallen out of German cycling. Then again, with the US market likely to be hurt by the Armstrong scandal, I'm surprised he has gone out of his way to annoy the Russians, but then McQuaid is also looking at China to develop as well.

It's hard to say which of these is the driving factor, or they may all be factors, or we may all just be paranoid, which too much time in the Clinic can do to you. However, Britain's rise to prominence in World cycling has coincided conveniently with a bunch of routes that suit their riders, with the downfall of another non-traditional nation of similar population and potential that had been riding high for the last 10-15 years - and that had a much stronger national scene of stage races that would make it easier for them to develop such talents, and McQuaid - a known corrupt politician - has been known to vocally support the continued success of British cycling.

Just like with the doping side of things, there's no hard evidence, but there's an awful lot of things to entice speculation with little to quell the suspicions.

ASO are probably kicking themselves at signing a cheap long term deal with ITV/Eurosport a few years back. Think of the cash BSkyB would be prepared to fork over for the GT rights now.