Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Dear Wiggo]

Let me be straight, I do not like you as a poster - nevertheless maybe you are a great person in real life, let's assume u are - but what is your affiliation with SKY?

He has hinted often at inner connections with the track program with BC. The posts were made recently. Connect the dots.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Since they aren't pretending to be clean, how many positive tests did Saxobank Astana Katusha and Movistar accumulate between them last year?

As if testing mattered? Let's revisit the phrase "Never tested positive." again.

The other premise here being that Sky are UCI protected and the others are not.
Hence, they are micro-micro dosing to avoid detection.

You can't even keep the consipiracy theories straight. If Sky was protected by the UCI in 2012, then it would be game-on for doping at Sky just like it was for USPS members. No micro dosing. That's for the rest of the dopers.

If so isn't that the same as pretending to be clean?

No. It's never testing positive. The games rules are
1. finish first
2. pass the dope test.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Don't worry about it.

Let's not, waste of time.

interesting how you bemoan when the forum becomes about you and yet also seize every opportunity to make it about you. Wonder what the DSM-V will call that.

It takes an asperger to know one?

Go troll somewhere else please.

He has hinted often at inner connections with the track program with BC. The posts were made recently. Connect the dots.

More likely this poster has been too long on SKY fanboy forums, believing the myth. Or wanting to believe of course.

Back on topic, sorry for the off topic.

What points SKY to being clean?

 

[D-Queued]

Let's not, waste of time.It takes an asperger to know one?

Go troll somewhere else please.More likely this poster has been too long on SKY fanboy forums, believing the myth. Or wanting to believe of course.

Back on topic, sorry for the off topic.

What points SKY to being clean?

I am sure there is a good pun in there somewhere.

Acid (as in LSD / hallucinogenics) Rain?

Dave.

 

[The Hitch]

Since they aren't pretending to be clean, how many positive tests did Saxobank Astana Katusha and Movistar accumulate between them last year?

.

Not pretending to be clean is not the same as intentionally getting caught.

Of course no one deliberately walks into 2 year bans and massive fines that threaten to destroy your livelyhood.

That doesnt mean they are putting any effort into convincing anyone that they are clean.

People who for example continue to side with Lance even as he has become the symbol for doping are clearly making absolutely no effort to pretend they are clean.
Teams which hire and are run by unrepentant dopers without even bothering to make up justifications as to why they are hiring these people are also not making an effort.

To me the term "not pretending to be clean" whoever first said it, is an accurate description of the above.

Though tbf i did probably make a mistake in naming Katusha since they did once have the fines system.


And to directly respont to the the question

"Since they aren't pretending to be clean, how many positive tests...

since when does passing tests have any correlation with cleanliness?

The other premise here being that Sky are UCI protected and the others are not.
Hence, they are micro-micro dosing to avoid detection.
If so isn't that the same as pretending to be clean?

Where did i say that?

I dont know what exact methods teams use to dope and i dont know which teams rely on the complicity of the UCI and i never said anything on either matter.

So i dont get where you got those arguments and conclusions from.

 

[mastersracer]

Let's not, waste of time.It takes an asperger to know one?

Go troll somewhere else please.More likely this poster has been too long on SKY fanboy forums, believing the myth. Or wanting to believe of course.

Back on topic, sorry for the off topic.

What points SKY to being clean?

actually Asperger's has been dropped from DSM-V.

 

[thehog]

interesting how you bemoan when the forum becomes about you and yet also seize every opportunity to make it about you. Wonder what the DSM-V will call that.

This the Sky thead. Not the mental illness thread. Why take it off topic?

Back to Sky, doping and the Clinic.

 

[mastersracer]

This the Sky thead. Not the mental illness thread. Why take it off topic?

Back to Sky, doping and the Clinic.

not exactly sure how concocting non-existent relationships between Wiggins and Armstrong is keeping it on topic, but to get back on topic perhaps you could recap the most direct piece of evidence of doping this thread of 11,500+ posts has dredged up against Sky. As I've said before, this thread appears to be the post-hoc rationalization of an irrational hatred for Sky that suffers from confirmation bias and has simply cherry-picked generic bits together into a doping conspiracy that could be made against virtually any team.

Wiggins' relative performance? (other threads have dismissed this).
Is it Leinders? (what team has no link to suspicious doctors - even Garmin has links to Lim)
Is it Froome's rise? (if so what about Hesjedal's Giro win?)

Again, non-evidence of doping is not equivalent to evidence of non-doping, so no claim is being made that Sky is clean. Just asking what is specific to them.

 

[thehog]

not exactly sure how concocting non-existent relationships between Wiggins and Armstrong is keeping it on topic, but to get back on topic perhaps you could recap the most direct piece of evidence of doping this thread of 11,500+ posts has dredged up against Sky. As I've said before, this thread appears to be the post-hoc rationalization of an irrational hatred for Sky that suffers from confirmation bias and has simply cherry-picked generic bits together into a doping conspiracy that could be made against virtually any team.

Wiggins' relative performance? (other threads have dismissed this).
Is it Leinders? (what team has no link to suspicious doctors - even Garmin has links to Lim)
Is it Froome's rise? (if so what about Hesjedal's Giro win?)

Again, non-evidence of doping is not equivalent to evidence of non-doping, so no claim is being made that Sky is clean. Just asking what is specific to them.

Wiggins "loves" Lance. He's "clean". Over "500" tests. Never tested positive.

Wiggins also avoids paying tax.

You can join the dots.

His statements not mine.

Sorry.

Your hero is not all what he pretends to be.

Not a hog issue. But a Wiggins/Sky problem. I'm sure there PR will give it the perfect spin.

 

[Ferminal]

I didn't think Sky were part of that "let's all pretend we are clean together" group?

 

[mastersracer]

Wiggins "loves" Lance. He's "clean". Over "500" tests. Never tested positive.

Wiggins also avoids paying tax.

You can join the dots.

His statements not mine.

Sorry.

Your hero is not all what he pretends to be.

Not a hog issue. But a Wiggins/Sky problem. I'm sure there PR will give it the perfect spin.

Why do you avoid any real, critical discussion with these sorts of flippant remarks? The Wiggins tax issue is a red herring. You also seem to project a lot - I never said Wiggins is a hero of mine. I'm agnostic about whether he is clean or doping. It wouldn't surprise me if he was doping, just as it wouldn't surprise me if any other rider tested positive. But, I don't think there's any more specific evidence against him. Can you offer any serious and specific evidence?

 

[thehog]

Why do you avoid any real, critical discussion with these sorts of flippant remarks? The Wiggins tax issue is a red herring. You also seem to project a lot - I never said Wiggins is a hero of mine. I'm agnostic about whether he is clean or doping. It wouldn't surprise me if he was doping, just as it wouldn't surprise me if any other rider tested positive. But, I don't think there's any more specific evidence against him. Can you offer any serious and specific evidence?

I'm the only one here not avoiding the doping question. Many here attempt to shut down the conversation. No proof they say. This is not the "xxxx" thread etc.

I've provided several components of specific evidence on Sky. I'm forever batterling the Mods because everyone wants links. I provide the links and they keep going.

I know why. And it's ok. I saw the same. Faced the same from 1999-2005.

Sky are doping. Period. I'm sorry if they bursts the bubble if dreams for a few. But it's an open and blatant display of drug use.

The sport will live on but Wiggins will be caught as will Froome.

It always comes out in the end.

 

[Cyivel]

thehog dropping legs on the trolls right here.

 

[richtea]

not exactly sure how concocting non-existent relationships between Wiggins and Armstrong is keeping it on topic, but to get back on topic perhaps you could recap the most direct piece of evidence of doping this thread of 11,500+ posts has dredged up against Sky. As I've said before, this thread appears to be the post-hoc rationalization of an irrational hatred for Sky that suffers from confirmation bias and has simply cherry-picked generic bits together into a doping conspiracy that could be made against virtually any team.

Wiggins' relative performance? (other threads have dismissed this).
Is it Leinders? (what team has no link to suspicious doctors - even Garmin has links to Lim)
Is it Froome's rise? (if so what about Hesjedal's Giro win?)

Again, non-evidence of doping is not equivalent to evidence of non-doping, so no claim is being made that Sky is clean. Just asking what is specific to them.

Several thousand posts since you last engaged in this thread, I think. How do you think it has evolved in the absence of new evidence?

 

[mastersracer]

Several thousand posts since you last engaged in this thread, I think. How do you think it has evolved in the absence of new evidence?

the numbers of posts in doping clinic threads seems to be inversely proportional to the strength of evidence for doping. Clear doping cases are uninteresting because there'e so little to say whereas pure speculation is much richer in terms of intrigue unfettered by actual empirical considerations of evidential support. Interesting that this thread - where not a single direct piece of evidence for doping appears - has so many more posts than the largest scandal to hit cycling. A grad student could do a dissertation on the psychopathology of it all.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I'm the only one here not avoiding the doping question. Many here attempt to shut down the conversation. No proof they say. This is not the "xxxx" thread etc.

I've provided several components of specific evidence on Sky. I'm forever batterling the Mods because everyone wants links. I provide the links and they keep going.

I know why. And it's ok. I saw the same. Faced the same from 1999-2005.

Actually, you make things up, take quotes out of context and generally try and make things about you (Ironic, when every other post you write says it is not about you).

Is is just a coincidence that when posters like Libertine, Franklin and Hitch make salient points and coherent arguments that point to Sky doping that even people whom are not convinced about Sky systematically doping comment that they are great posts and actually make people reconsider their position in the whole debate. They further the conversation which is not something that can be attributed to you IMO.

 

[Ferminal]

I guess that is why the Armstrong threads had so few posts.

Anyway, wrong place for these things.

 

[DirtyWorks]

the numbers of posts in doping clinic threads seems to be inversely proportional to the strength of evidence for doping. Clear doping cases are uninteresting because there'e so little to say

Now you are just making stuff up. Seriously. Why?

whereas pure speculation is much richer in terms of intrigue unfettered by actual empirical considerations of evidential support.

Again with the "no proof" defense. We've been through this before in this thread and making the same false claim again doesn't make you any more right than before.

Interesting that this thread - where not a single direct piece of evidence for doping appears - has so many more posts than the largest scandal to hit cycling. A grad student could do a dissertation on the psychopathology of it all.

Another false claim that doesn't get more true by repeating it. Look at the grand tour squad's pre-2012 performances and compare then to 2012's results. Totally extraordinary performances for the entire, long, season. How did they end the season? Back at their historical norm.

A grad student could do a dissertation on willful deniers too.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Actually, you make things up, take quotes out of context and generally try and make things about you (Ironic, when every other post you write says it is not about you).

TheHog's been sometimes right, sometimes wrong. But, I do not read your interpretation into Hog posts at all.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

TheHog's been sometimes right, sometimes wrong.

Even a broken clock can be right twice a day.

But, I do not read your interpretation into Hog posts at all.

And that, of course, is your prerogative.

 

[Ferminal]

I have purged a dozen or so recent posts, please can we return to some sort of "normal" discussion.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

Evans on Sky / Wiggins:


"Sky

In spite of his illness, the stricken Evans had a close-up view of Team Sky's startling collective dominance at the Tour. While the expression "marginal gains" has passed into the cycling lexicon as a byword for innovation, Evans was unsure if their approach was especially revolutionary.

"There aren't a whole lot of new things they are doing, although I'm sure there are new things they're doing that they're not telling us about, although we also have our little secrets and performance gains that we make that we don't tell everyone about as well," Evans said.

"The thing that impressed me most about Brad Wiggins' season was how he stayed at a high level from Paris-Nice to the Olympic Games. To hold that high, high level was to me bordering on what I thought was impossible. But obviously he's gone and done it so it's clearly not impossible. Let's see how they back up again from that this year. We'll see. That was 2012, this is 2013.""

 

[hfer07]

"The thing that impressed me most about Brad Wiggins' season was how he stayed at a high level from Paris-Nice to the Olympic Games. To hold that high, high level was to me bordering on what I thought was impossible.

There you go.....

 

[Dear Wiggo]

There you go.....

165 23/07/2006 [Fra] Tour de France 4. 123.
166 22/07/2006 [Fra] Tour de France, Stage 19 : Le Creusot - Montceau-les-Mines I.T.T. 7. 55.

 

[meat puppet]

So, in essence that is not very different from the comments Basso made during the TDF. Though Cadel is clever enough to add in the longevity angle, which is a good one. Gilbert 2011 was ridiculously awesome in this sense as well.

Cap n science in agreement: