Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[thehog]

Rumor has it McQuaid is on the way out. That will affect Sky significantly.

The wolves are surronding.

 

[mastersracer]

Rumor has it McQuaid is on the way out. That will affect Sky significantly.

The wolves are surronding.

rumor is he'd be replaced by Cookson - how is that bad for Sky?

 

[JimmyFingers]

rumor is he'd be replaced by Cookson - how is that bad for Sky?

Brilliant, good man

 

[thehog]

Brilliant, good man

Perfect! the fix is in!

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

It's safe to say the British audience doesn't really get road racing, despite the millions watching the Olympic event. A bit like say, NFL there's a core of fans who know the intricacies of the calender, and know words like Monuments, hilly classics and puncheur, but mostly the wider audience will watch only the big events, TdF and Olympics. The core will watch everything, and they will go on watching, because they've seen it before, the wider audience will desert in droves and all those new bikes bought will get hung in the garage to collect dust, and the sport will be dismissed as a continental eccentricity once more.

However there is damage to be done to the rest of the sport as well. Clearly the women's side is suffering the most, but the Spanish are struggling to find money to put on some traditional races, and with the backdrop of the Eurozone crisis you can see further money getting pulled from the sport if the scandals continue.

Hence the mantra that the sport got clean in 2006, hence the 'it's all in the past now'. It's not omerta so much as advertising.

Brits like to watch Brits winning. When Brits are winning then there is interest and an audience, when Brits don't win and the sport is being won by a bunch of greasy foreigners with funny names then the audience won't turn up.

Pre-Armstrong cycling coverage was half and hour on channel four before the news and a 2 minute summary on GMTV at about 7.30am.

The BBC/Eurosport/Newspapers won't invest money in coverage where there is no anglophone interest/winner because they know there isn't the audience. If cycling were to go back to being Eurocentric then you can bet your life the media coverage will also dry up and the hardcore audience will be learning Flemish to understand the feeds for the classics.

 

[King Of The Wolds]

Brits like to watch Brits winning. When Brits are winning then there is interest and an audience, when Brits don't win and the sport is being won by a bunch of greasy foreigners with funny names then the audience won't turn up.
.

Utter nonsense. We turned up to the Ashes series for years, when we got routinely thrashed. We turned up at Wimbledon for decades, with no Brit in sight during the second week. We turned up at the Olympics when there wasn't even a Brit competing.

 

[thehog]

Because they haven't been very transparent, Sky's perception as a clean team has been predicated on fans' ability to draw that conclusion. The presence of a known doping doctor makes that hard. Because they haven't gone out of their way to show themselves as being clean other than jumping up and down stamping their feet and telling us to believe them, a lot of fans' belief in them is based on faith. Faith can be more easily shaken in the absence of justification for it, and the presence of a doping doctor can shake a fan's faith without the need for hard evidence that he was actually plying his doping trade.

I have to say if the forum is evidence of anything there appears to be an orchestrated attack on anyone saying anything about Sky which might deem them as dopers.

I’m concerned about Sky for 2013. 2012 was an amazing year with even more amazing results. How will they back it up?

Can’t have Froome going right angles up hills again or getting outpaced by a 12 year old boy named Simon Gerrans.

I’ll be keeping a close eye on Sky. If I see doped performances I will call them out.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Utter nonsense. We turned up to the Ashes series for years, when we got routinely thrashed. We turned up at Wimbledon for decades, with no Brit in sight during the second week. We turned up at the Olympics when there wasn't even a Brit competing.

If anyone is talking utter nonsense it is you. Mind you, using 'we' to refer to a bunch of sports fans is not really a great start.

Cricket viewing figures when England were losing were pathetic, coverage of overseas tours etc minimal. Cricket viewing figures when England are winning, through the roof. Coverage goes up in relation to viewing figures

Tennis coverage WAS Wimbledon - no coverage outside of that other than Queens and highlights from Eastbourne.

Brits only watch when they're winning and love a good bandwagon to jump on. Huzzah, you share the same passport as me so I'm going to cheer you on.

Bottomline - coverage is dictated by ratings - if no one from that country is winning then rating go through the floor because with very few exceptions most people are fairweather fans.

 

[Benotti69]

Utter nonsense. We turned up to the Ashes series for years, when we got routinely thrashed. We turned up at Wimbledon for decades, with no Brit in sight during the second week. We turned up at the Olympics when there wasn't even a Brit competing.

Brits invented cricket and it has a very long tradition. Cycling doesn't. Wimbledon is in London and another Brit tradition.

Will Brits fans turn up to Paris Roubais if no Sky? Flanders?

The Olympics was a fiasco to get tickets for. People went to events that could get tickets for, not events by choice!

 

[JimmyFingers]

Brits like to watch Brits winning. When Brits are winning then there is interest and an audience, when Brits don't win and the sport is being won by a bunch of greasy foreigners with funny names then the audience won't turn up.

Pre-Armstrong cycling coverage was half and hour on channel four before the news and a 2 minute summary on GMTV at about 7.30am.

The BBC/Eurosport/Newspapers won't invest money in coverage where there is no anglophone interest/winner because they know there isn't the audience. If cycling were to go back to being Eurocentric then you can bet your life the media coverage will also dry up and the hardcore audience will be learning Flemish to understand the feeds for the classics.

And that's different to other countries how exactly? Ignorant to make vast generalisations for millions of people. I watch NFL, downhill skiing, basketball, Aussie Rules (rarely), canoeing as well as rugby, football, cricket and cycling. Plenty of Brits like me that watch sport for sport's sake without any partisan involvement, and plenty like me that also get partisan while watching our own teams compete.

Who cares where the media points the camera? Any criticism you can accuse the British of you can accuse any country of. Personally I'd prefer British media to keep the spotlight on British sport: you see the decline in the WI cricket team? It's because the kids are playing basketball and soccer, not cricket. Rugby, cricket, football first, everything else second. It is how it should be.

But cycling is more inclusive, easily accessible as an amateur, endurance based, multi-disciplined, and something everyone has done as a kid. It will grow in Britain given a chance, and given that Sky and Wiggins didn't cheat.

Unless it was Rogers. Then we'll throw him to the wolves

 

[coinneach]

I really think cycling is in the last chance salon now.....everyone in the Clinic is so battle-hardened, we get immune to the real world.
Britain would become like Germany for cycling but I think the real problem would be getting new sponsors on board in the Eurozone.

 

[Joachim]

Brits invented cricket and it has a very long tradition. Cycling doesn't. Wimbledon is London and another Brit tradition.

Will Brits fans turn up to Paris Roubais if no Sky? Flanders?

I doubt very many more Brits would go to anything much other than TdF regardless of Sky being in existence or not. Cycling does have a long history in GB but it is infintessimal in scale to that or Belgium, France and Italy. The standing of the Tour of Britain is indicative. The Brits are not a sporting nation. A glance at the obese blobs wobbling down every high street should tell you that.

The Olympics was a fiasco to get tickets for. People went to events that could get tickets for, not events by choice!

That is a little unfair. Brits being by their nature pessimistic, they thought the entire organisation would be a disaster, but it wasn't. It was absolutely superb. The ticketing was also efficient. I'm pretty sure that if you think about it, you'll realise that very few could ever get to see the exact event they would choose. Everyone wants to see the 100m sprint. Nobody wants to see the Trap shooting. There has to be a middle ground.

 

[JimmyFingers]

If anyone is talking utter nonsense it is you. Mind you, using 'we' to refer to a bunch of sports fans is not really a great start.

Cricket viewing figures when England were losing were pathetic, coverage of overseas tours etc minimal. Cricket viewing figures when England are winning, through the roof. Coverage goes up in relation to viewing figures

Tennis coverage WAS Wimbledon - no coverage outside of that other than Queens and highlights from Eastbourne.

Brits only watch when they're winning and love a good bandwagon to jump on. Huzzah, you share the same passport as me so I'm going to cheer you on.

Bottomline - coverage is dictated by ratings - if no one from that country is winning then rating go through the floor because with very few exceptions most people are fairweather fans.

You state the obvious at every turn (coverage is dictated by ratings? OF course it is) and essentially criticise human nature: we are all tribal, especially when it comes to sports.

To sum up, your problem with the British is that they are the same as everyone else

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

If anyone is talking utter nonsense it is you.

Cricket viewing figures when England were losing were pathetic, coverage of overseas tours etc minimal. Cricket viewing figures when England are winning, through the roof. Coverage goes up in relation to viewing figures

Of course figures go up when a country is doing well at a sport. It is rubbish to think that Britain is the only country where this happens which is what you are implying. However, there are plenty of instances where teams that are not doing well are well supported regardless. Man City (before they became big spenders) were in the third tier of football but were still getting 30k plus gates.

Test cricket figures were poor previously because coverage was on pay-per-view TV for years.

Tennis coverage WAS Wimbledon - no coverage outside of that other than Queens and highlights from Eastbourne.

And has been highlighted, for years there was hardly a Brit that made it past the first few rounds but people still watched.

Brits only watch when they're winning and love a good bandwagon to jump on.

Yep, that is why the English football team always gets such good TV figures at major tournaments even though they fail miserably.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

And that's different to other countries how exactly? Ignorant to make vast generalisations for millions of people. I watch NFL, downhill skiing, basketball, Aussie Rules (rarely), canoeing as well as rugby, football, cricket and cycling. Plenty of Brits like me that watch sport for sport's sake without any partisan involvement, and plenty like me that also get partisan while watching our own teams compete.

Who cares where the media points the camera? Any criticism you can accuse the British of you can accuse any country of. Personally I'd prefer British media to keep the spotlight on British sport: you see the decline in the WI cricket team? It's because the kids are playing basketball and soccer, not cricket. Rugby, cricket, football first, everything else second. It is how it should be.

But cycling is more inclusive, easily accessible as an amateur, endurance based, multi-disciplined, and something everyone has done as a kid. It will grow in Britain given a chance, and given that Sky and Wiggins didn't cheat.

Unless it was Rogers. Then we'll throw him to the wolves

Spare me the nationalist paranoia, indignation and victimhood. You're as bad as the USA, USA, USA Armstrong fans.

We were talking about coverage in Britain, so logically we would be talking about the behaviour of British fans and the British media.

'Where were you when you were ****?' as a chant is not without factual basis.

It's equally patronising and insulting to think that you also have the ability to speak for 'millions of people' as well.

Are their fairweather fans in other countries - of course, but we're not talking about them or the sport in their country if there is a scandal, we're talking about the sport in Britain if there is a major doping scandal involving Sky which ends up wiping out a large chunk of British cycling.

The Huzzah for lovely Laura Trott, Sir Brad and Sir Dave crowd will melt away as fast as they came if the **** hits the fan.

 

[King Of The Wolds]

If anyone is talking utter nonsense it is you. Mind you, using 'we' to refer to a bunch of sports fans is not really a great start.

Cricket viewing figures when England were losing were pathetic, coverage of overseas tours etc minimal. Cricket viewing figures when England are winning, through the roof. Coverage goes up in relation to viewing figures

Tennis coverage WAS Wimbledon - no coverage outside of that other than Queens and highlights from Eastbourne.

Brits only watch when they're winning and love a good bandwagon to jump on. Huzzah, you share the same passport as me so I'm going to cheer you on.

Bottomline - coverage is dictated by ratings - if no one from that country is winning then rating go through the floor because with very few exceptions most people are fairweather fans.

Good grief. It's fairly common to use the first person plural when referring to oneself as part of a wider group, to which you belong.

Re: passports, are you familiar with the reason as to why human beings are tribal creatures? We have a basic instinct to procreate, a basic instinct to love and a basic instinct to belong.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

'A nation is a group of people with a mistaken view of the past and an irrational hatred of their neighbours' - Karl Deutsch

Which about sums it up.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Spare me the nationalist paranoia, indignation and victimhood. You're as bad as the USA, USA, USA Armstrong fans.

We were talking about coverage in Britain, so logically we would be talking about the behaviour of British fans.

'Where were you when you were ****?' as a chant is not without factual basis.

It's equally patronising and insulting to think that you also have the ability to speak for 'millions of people' as well.

Are their fairweather fans in other countries - of course, but we're not talking about them or the sport in their country if there is a scandal, we're talking about the sport in Britain if there is a major doping scandal involving Sky which ends up wiping out a large chunk of British cycling.

You seem very good at using a lot of words without making a point. Sports fans are fickle, so what? The teams that win the most get the most fans? Stop the press, how terrible and unusual. You seem to be berating people for being people. Yes, we are a bit sh!t, your point is?

I don't believe that Britain is any better or worse than any other country, apart from America. And Scotland (jokes).

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Do you want me to find you a nice tree for you to nail yourself to so that you can complete your martyr for the nation routine?

 

[coinneach]

You seem very good at using a lot of words without making a point. Sports fans are fickle, so what? The teams that win the most get the most fans? Stop the press, how terrible and unusual. You seem to be berating people for being people. Yes, we are a bit sh!t, your point is?

I don't believe that Britain is any better or worse than any other country, apart from America. And Scotland (jokes).

Nice to see you back firing again, Jimmy after your day or two off (sulking?)

ER, not sure about your "joke", though...you do know that neither Scotland nor Wales nor the Isle of Man are in England, but all are in Britain? So comparing Britain with Scotland doesn't really work, does it?
Unless it "nationalism" you are comparing, in which case, maybe you did have a point....but not much any more....time for bed

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I really think cycling is in the last chance salon now.....everyone in the Clinic is so battle-hardened, we get immune to the real world.
Britain would become like Germany for cycling but I think the real problem would be getting new sponsors on board in the Eurozone.

If a British (or Sky rider) was caught - mainland Europe would shrug, the new fans in the US (if there are any left) wouldn't even know who it was. It would be another embarrassment for true cycling fans, of whatever nationality, but they will remain.
It would be only big in Britain.

Pro Cycling will never die - but it is at rock bottom and has been there some time now. Races going under, merry go round of sponsors, dodgy sponsors (Pegasus), falling participation in racing at entry level.

 

[Joachim]

Isle of Man isn't

 

[Joachim]

Nice to see you back firing again, Jimmy after your day or two off (sulking?)

ER, not sure about your "joke", though...you do know that neither Scotland nor Wales nor the Isle of Man are in England, but all are in Britain? So comparing Britain with Scotland doesn't really work, does it?
Unless it "nationalism" you are comparing, in which case, maybe you did have a point....but not much any more....time for bed

Isle of Man isn't

 

[martinvickers]

Isle of Man isn't

Jesus don't get started on terminology there

UK not = GB
GB not = England
NI not in GB, in UK
SCotland in both GB and UK, trying to get out of UK, can't get out of GB
Ireland in the British Isles, but not the British Islands!
Ireland not = Ireland !!!!!
IOM, Jersey Guernsey not in GB or UK, but in both British Island ans British Isles
Turks and Caicos not in GB, UK, British Isles or British Islands - but still british!

 

[Grandillusion]

If a British (or Sky rider) was caught - mainland Europe would shrug, the new fans in the US (if there are any left) wouldn't even know who it was. It would be another embarrassment for true cycling fans, of whatever nationality, but they will remain.
It would be only big in Britain.

Pro Cycling will never die - but it is at rock bottom and has been there some time now. Races going under, merry go round of sponsors, dodgy sponsors (Pegasus), falling participation in racing at entry level.

But if it was Wiggins, the Tour de France winner, not just any old Sky rider, it would be savage. Coming directly after Armstrong? Savage.