Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[JimmyFingers]

Along with a PHD in bull****

More likely a BA in BS: Doctorates take years of study

 

[RownhamHill]

More likely a BA in BS: Doctorates take years of study

Yeah, but if you do your phd in BS part-time at the University of Life it's amazing how quickly you can progress.

 

[orbeas]

Sky

Not listed here http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/palmares/palmares.php#B

Seems that Mr Brailsford has no history of being a bike rider either in the UK or as a Pro in Europe !!!!!

 

[Mellow Velo]

"In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king" .

You must have needed directions to the Clinic, then.

A bright, shiny new Skyeptic, or someone
on leave, I wonder?

Anyhow, welcome to the doghouse.

Feel free to make Illegal, libellous, or slanderous posts, insult other members,
blatantly lie, bait, or tease other members, Issue claims of information or quotes without listing sources or links.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

"In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king" .

I thought it was the land of blind giants and the one-eyed pygmy, but even so I'm not sure I see the relevance to Brailsford and his achievements.

You're taking the p*ss out of his racing and academic achievements, whilst conveniently glossing over his achievements in his current field of employment, namely managing teams to win bike races. Ultimately, as performance director of a national track team or a DS of a pro team, winning races is what counts, not your educational background.

 

[horsinabout]

You must have needed directions to the Clinic, then.

A bright, shiny new Skyeptic, or someone
on leave, I wonder?

Anyhow, welcome to the doghouse.

Feel free to make Illegal, libellous, or slanderous posts, insult other members,
blatantly lie, bait, or tease other members, Issue claims of information or quotes without listing sources or links.

Ahh someone with a sense of humour, I had started to wonder. No slanders just satire from yours truely. With sources and of course my own spin on things.

 

[horsinabout]

I thought it was the land of blind giants and the one-eyed pygmy, but even so I'm not sure I see the relevance to Brailsford and his achievements.

You're taking the p*ss out of his racing and academic achievements, whilst conveniently glossing over his achievements in his current field of employment, namely managing teams to win bike races. Ultimately, as performance director of a national track team or a DS of a pro team, winning races is what counts, not your educational background.

It's satire dear (boy/girl). You are entitled to your view point and I mine.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Isn't a Satir a half-goat half-man? I presume you mean satire?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

It's satir dear (boy/girl).

Phew. I thought you were being serious!

Sir Dave is undoubtedly a prize bullsh*t merchant, but he certainly has a gift for making things happen, which is a rare talent indeed.

 

[horsinabout]

Isn't a Satir a half-goat half-man? I presume you mean satire?

Correct Sir, Thankyou.

 

[horsinabout]

Phew. I thought you were being serious!

Sir Dave is undoubtedly a prize bullsh*t merchant, but he certainly has a gift for making things happen, which is a rare talent indeed.

I think financial investments and politics have helped him with a huge tail wind. I think you may have gathered, I don't find him credible, until proven other wise. A shed load of medels don't do it for me.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I think financial investments and politics have helped him with a huge tail wind. I think you may have gathered, I don't find him credible, until proven other wise. A shed load of medels don't do it for me.

What do you mean by credible?

Put simply, as you saying that Sir Dave's achievements are all due to doping or are the result of some sort of political/financial advantage over the opposition?

I'm open-minded as to the doping argument, but the success of the GB track team and Sky in the last year or so - however achieved - is quite something, given that none of the opposition are simply rolling over and saying "OK Dave. Your guys can win this. We're not that bothered."

 

[mastersracer]

I think financial investments and politics have helped him with a huge tail wind. I think you may have gathered, I don't find him credible, until proven other wise. A shed load of medels don't do it for me.

Once upon a time, posts in this forum discussed watts/kg, VAM, physical evidence (gasp), and informed speculation regarding blood parameters. Now it is a desperate repository for empty speculation from posters who can't even spell. RIP Clinic.

 

[horsinabout]

What do you mean by credible?

Put simply, as you saying that Sir Dave's achievements are all due to doping or are the result of some sort of political/financial advantage over the opposition?

I'm open-minded as to the doping argument, but the success of the GB track team and Sky in the last year or so - however achieved - is quite something, given that none of the opposition are simply rolling over and saying "OK Dave. Your guys can win this. We're not that bothered."

Yes you are right - the performances of the riders were out of this World. Undeniable. I don't necessarily mean doping, no. It is the inertia of it, a seemingly unstoppable force. And the opposition are really getting toasted actually. More so in Baijing than London.

Any way is this what they call trolling.

 

[Caruut]

Once upon a time, posts in this forum discussed watts/kg, VAM, physical evidence (gasp), and informed speculation regarding blood parameters. Now it is a desperate repository for empty speculation from posters who can't even spell. RIP Clinic.

Funnily enough though, Sky don't release that data. You know full well that if Bradley's Tour blood data were available it would be discussed here, it is childish to even insinuate otherwise.

 

[the sceptic]

Funnily enough though, Sky don't release that data. You know full well that if Bradley's Tour blood data were available it would be discussed here, it is childish to even insinuate otherwise.

Exactly. Sky wanting to be transparent and all. What is their excuse for not making any data public?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I don't necessarily mean doping, no. It is the inertia of it, a seemingly unstoppable force.

Now this is a curious position to take, surely?

If you don't necessarily think it's doping then you're trashing BD's achievements simply because they're too good. Total dominance achieved within the rules of the game is surely the ultimate that any coach/competitor can aspire to.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Exactly. Sky wanting to be transparent and all. What is their excuse for not making any data public?

My educated guess is that they have nothing to gain from releasing the data, as to satisfy the cynics, they need to prove a negative, which is impossible.

Releasing the data will "prove" conclusively to the most hardened cynics that Sky have been doping even if the data is actually in respect of completely legitimate blood composition.

Alternatively, they might just be laughing in the background, safe in the knowledge that as the burden of proof lies with the accuser, there's diddly squat that anyone can do at the moment.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Exactly. Sky wanting to be transparent and all. What is their excuse for not making any data public?

Which data are you referring too? If it's power data for the riders no-one is going to release that. It's like tweeting an F1 teams telemetry from qualifying the evening before a race

 

[Caruut]

Exactly. Sky wanting to be transparent and all. What is their excuse for not making any data public?

Well, the line is that they don't want to give their competitors an advantage. I buy that, to some degree. I wouldn't want to either and I think rivals knowing your data would given them some advantage. In July 2012, however, knowing the watts/kg wouldn't exactly have done much. Sky would have slaughtered them all anyway.

The thing is, however, that this is cycling and they say they are clean. You can't just say that in cycling where, for so many, suspicion is the default position. If they wanted to prove that they were clean, this would be a good start. What I have seen from Sky is that they want people to believe that they are clean without actually doing anything to prove it above or beyond any other team. Apart from saying it, what is different about Sky's approach and provision of evidence that, say, Mantova-infested Lampre? Not much as far as I can see, which is grounds for suspicion.

I don't have (much) of a problem with Sky not releasing their data. No-one else does it, why should they? The problem I have is with Sky saying "believe us, we're clean and transparent" and being, well, opaque.

 

[Caruut]

Which data are you referring too? If it's power data for the riders no-one is going to release that. It's like tweeting an F1 teams telemetry from qualifying the evening before a race

My post above has some response to this, but directly:

Yes, it would be a sacrifice, but are you saying Sky are willing to be anti-doping until they have to make any kind of sacrifice? What kind of flimsy position is that? Secondly, what could rival teams have done with power data this July? You don't have to know the exact numbers to know that the boys in black ahead of you are going just too fast. You can know the numbers all day long but when the road turns up and the pace hots up, what good is that when they are just way too good?

 

[Caruut]

Releasing the data will "prove" conclusively to the most hardened cynics that Sky have been doping even if the data is actually in respect of completely legitimate blood composition.

I for one would certainly admit that a lot of what I have written about Sky has been wrong if they produced blood files which I believed were the true blood files and indicative of clean riders. You might counter that Sky don't give a toss what I think or write, and you might be right. I would say, though, that if they are only interested in seeming clean to those willing to believe their statements at face value, then that's really quite pathetic for a so-called "clean team".

 

[JimmyFingers]

My post above has some response to this, but directly:

Yes, it would be a sacrifice, but are you saying Sky are willing to be anti-doping until they have to make any kind of sacrifice? What kind of flimsy position is that? Secondly, what could rival teams have done with power data this July? You don't have to know the exact numbers to know that the boys in black ahead of you are going just too fast. You can know the numbers all day long but when the road turns up and the pace hots up, what good is that when they are just way too good?

What team does release power data for riders? Why should Sky be a special case?

Calling it a flimsy excuse is, well flimsy. And your argument it wouldn't be helpful is bogus IMO, clearly its data that would be very helpful to opposition teams, in both race tactics and team make-up. Maybe it wouldn't have helped but it's still card you keep close to your chest.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Which data are you referring too? If it's power data for the riders no-one is going to release that.

I doubt power data would be very conclusive even if released. As has been covered here many time, the Sky boys aren't climbing or TTing at rates that are unbelievable in isolation.

The Hog even went so far as to suggest that Froome soft-pedals deliberately to believable power levels, so as to not draw attention to anything unbelievable.

But even so, the cynics have already concluded that the Sky boys aren't as talented as Lemond et al, and so can only achieve "believable" performance levels by doping.

In addition, the cynics have also already concluded that the number of riders and the number of climbs involved at "believable" performance levels is itself unbelievable, so they must be doping by this analysis as well.

 

[Caruut]

What team does release power data for riders? Why should Sky be a special case?

Calling it a flimsy excuse is, well flimsy. And your argument it wouldn't be helpful is bogus IMO, clearly its data that would be very helpful to opposition teams, in both race tactics and team make-up. Maybe it wouldn't have helped but it's still card you keep close to your chest.

Nobody does. Sky should be a special case because they treat themselves as such. They say "We are clean. Trust us, we are clean". That is why they should make some effort to prove it. Yet they make no effort and still expect everyone to believe them. I am not saying they have to do this. I am saying it would increase confidence if they did. They can (and likely will) go on treating the fans the same as every other Tour winning team. No transparency, no effort, nothing. What about Sky means that I should treat them differently?