Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

agree as well!

is the ST article anywhere online or do i need to pick it up tomorrow?

also, is it a multi-parter? (my whereabouts in the next fee weeks will make getting it difficult.)

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto...e?shareToken=ccea51abc589211e28ad23ea10f8b076

 

[The Hitch]

Walsh is investigation journalist. Of course he is investigating

Hi joachim.

 

[thirteen]

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto...e?shareToken=ccea51abc589211e28ad23ea10f8b076

cheers!
10 char

 

[JimmyFingers]

Well I thought it was a good read, encouraging but in no way conclusive. As has been said, questions about Leinders do need to be asked, but I do think Walsh will do a thorough job

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Honestly? no. Neither should be 'appeased' exactly . But you should engage the sceptic. Scepticism is healthy. Cynicism is entirely understandable, especially given the crap Paul has been through, but it's not healthy.

Just catching up on this.
What does that even mean that it's not healthy to be cynical?
In this sport, particularly as PK is a former Pro, then it should be the default.
Add to that how Sky have flip flopped on certain issues then they have exhausted any goodwill they may have had.

So for myself, yes I'd invite Walsh and leave it at that. Especially given the last few onths, Paul's attitiude to Sky has moved to all-but-accusation.

Hold on - what exactly has Paul said?! He is suspicious and it is because Brad has lied. The question is why did he lie?

And if we were absolutly honest? David's a better investigative journalist than Paul, in my view. He's more likely to 'find' stuff. Rough ride was a seminal book, by an insider, that blew the place apart. But Walsh's work since then has been far more forensic. Paul is more a polemicist. We need both, but Walsh is arguably better placed if an 'investigative' job is needed.


As set out above, I don't agree. Paul is honest, incorruptible, intelligent and cycnical. All very attractive traits. But what he does is not the same as what David does - and I would argue right now we need what David does (LA confidential style stuff)

This the new mantra. David is a better investigative journalist.

That is simply rubbish. Neither are investigators, they are journalists. They interview people and obviously then check the story. That's is not investigating, that is standard practice for a big name newspaper.
David isn't going to ask to lock down the Docs room and break out his CSI box of tricks, he will cover Sky as he does with any subject, asking questions.

 

[Rambo1970]

Hi joachim.

My name is Rémi

 

[argyllflyer]

Of course there is a possibility. However in the UK at the moment there is a massive love fest for Wiggins and Sky and no article criticizing them openly will be published in the mainstream press. Yes I a might be a bit biased for believing that Sky are not clean however there are many British people who are far more biased the other way i.e. not evening questions Wiggins/Sky AT ALL, not even slightly for second - blind faith if you like.

Blind faith and blind hate are closely related.

There is not a shred of evidence against Sky in terms of doping riders. No whispers, no quashed positives, no binbags of needles or calf extract. The only evidence offered is either guilt by association with those who have a dodgy past (yet that applies to almost every team, so are all teams systematically doping?) or because they win, so must be doping. Or because Wiggins wasn't nasty enough about Lance. Or that Froome and Wiggins have suddenly developed superhuman powers that can only be explained by doping. Or whatever contrived scenario can be offered to fit the picture.

I am open-minded to the possibility Sky are at it, but I love the sport and want to take enjoyment from performances I hope to be genuine. I genuinely don't understand the desire for every big name to be exposed as a doper. Wait for the evidence rather than waste energy looking in every nook and crannie for it.

The Clinic zeitgeist of 'find a doper' is unhealthy.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Blind faith and blind hate are closely related.

There is not a shred of evidence against Sky in terms of doping riders. No whispers, no quashed positives, no binbags of needles or calf extract. The only evidence offered is either guilt by association with those who have a dodgy past (yet that applies to almost every team, so are all teams systematically doping?) or because they win, so must be doping. Or because Wiggins wasn't nasty enough about Lance. Or that Froome and Wiggins have suddenly developed superhuman powers that can only be explained by doping. Or whatever contrived scenario can be offered to fit the picture.

I am open-minded to the possibility Sky are at it, but I love the sport and want to take enjoyment from performances I hope to be genuine. I genuinely don't understand the desire for every big name to be exposed as a doper. Wait for the evidence rather than waste energy looking in every nook and crannie for it.

The Clinic zeitgeist of 'find a doper' is unhealthy.

Seriously, I have been watching cycling for 31 years now and I know what is a doper and what is not a doper.
Do NOT insult people. Froome is a friggin fraud, Wiggins was a great trekkie at 85 kilograms who dopes nowadays to be succesfull on the road, Porte is laughable, do I need to go into Rogers and Zivtzov?

EBH and the the little fokker that knows how to sprint are more or less the real deal.

Please endulge me and open your friggin eyes when u watch cycling.

And really, pardon me French.

 

[Froome19]

Blind faith and blind hate are closely related.

There is not a shred of evidence against Sky in terms of doping riders. No whispers, no quashed positives, no binbags of needles or calf extract. The only evidence offered is either guilt by association with those who have a dodgy past (yet that applies to almost every team, so are all teams systematically doping?) or because they win, so must be doping. Or because Wiggins wasn't nasty enough about Lance. Or that Froome and Wiggins have suddenly developed superhuman powers that can only be explained by doping. Or whatever contrived scenario can be offered to fit the picture.

I am open-minded to the possibility Sky are at it, but I love the sport and want to take enjoyment from performances I hope to be genuine. I genuinely don't understand the desire for every big name to be exposed as a doper. Wait for the evidence rather than waste energy looking in every nook and crannie for it.

The Clinic zeitgeist of 'find a doper' is unhealthy.

Good post

 

[the asian]

There is enough to be deeply suspicious of SKY, just not enough to be 100% certain that they are doping. Interesting that they invited Walsh on board after Leinders, Yates, Sutton,Julich and De Jongh left.

My guess is they will have a bad season GC wise, blame it on Froome's Bilharzia and the Giro being too difficult for Wiggins, get Walsh to write glowing articles about them, get some good PR, and then revert back to UK Postal in 2014.

 

[janraaskalt]

Seriously, I have been watching cycling for 31 years now and I know what is a doper and what is not a doper.

Why then do we go to all the trouble of the whereabouts system, biological passport and doping tests if the UCI can simple hire your expertise?

 

[The Hitch]

There is enough to be deeply suspicious of SKY, just not enough to be 100% certain that they are doping. Interesting that they invited Walsh on board after Leinders, Yates, Sutton,Julich and De Jongh left.

My guess is they will have a bad season GC wise, blame it on Froome's Bilharzia and the Giro being too difficult for Wiggins, get Walsh to write glowing articles about them, get some good PR, and then revert back to UK Postal in 2014.

2014? Next olympics is 2016.

Unless your talking about winter olympics. Maybe Kerrison could take a look at winter team gb. Surely there are some cx skiiers around who never knew they had the potential to get Gold and bronze in Sochi. Maybe they havent taken up the sport yet is all. But a year is plenty of time for Kerrison. Froome only found out he could tt 10 months before London 2012.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Shocking admission.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=EAAF6C65ccg#t=110s

 

[Libertine Seguros]

2014? Next olympics is 2016.

Unless your talking about winter olympics. Maybe Kerrison could take a look at winter team gb. Surely there are some cx skiiers around who never knew they had the potential to get Gold and bronze in Sochi. Maybe they havent taken up the sport yet is all. But a year is plenty of time for Kerrison. Froome only found out he could tt 10 months before London 2012.

Britain does have one promising young XC skier in Andrew Musgrave. He placed quite highly in a race at the Norwegian U23 nationals last year and has been decent on the World Cup circuit this year. Still young enough to be improving.

I think many eyebrows would be raised if he started wiping the floor with Cologna and Northug next year, mind.

 

[the asian]

2014? Next olympics is 2016.

Unless your talking about winter olympics. Maybe Kerrison could take a look at winter team gb. Surely there are some cx skiiers around who never knew they had the potential to get Gold and bronze in Sochi. Maybe they havent taken up the sport yet is all. But a year is plenty of time for Kerrison. Froome only found out he could tt 10 months before London 2012.

Sucking for 3 years will not be accepted. Besides it will cast too much doubt on 2012. They can blame one off year on various reasons but not 3.

 

[King Of The Wolds]

Just read the piece. Roughly what could be expected, given that I expect this is to be the first in a series. Those who expected in see the photos of empty vials and used syringes in the hotel room bins in article no.1, or even see him ask about Leinders, Rogers and Yates, are somewhat naive. Walsh has papers to sell - he's not going to shoot his load in the opening scene.

 

[cineteq]

A real question now, do Kimmage and Walsh have some sort of relationship? Friends? Good collegues? I know it was back in the time of Rough Ride, but what is the status now?

You be the judge.

@PaulKimmage
My father always said 'Credit where it's due.' Congrats to Sir Dave Brailsford and Sir Bradley Wiggins for today's piece in the Sunday Times

 

[Arnout]

Link expired. Anyone have another way to read the article?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

My guess is they will have a bad season GC wise, blame it on Froome's Bilharzia and the Giro being too difficult for Wiggins, get Walsh to write glowing articles about them, get some good PR, and then revert back to UK Postal in 2014.

The Gilbert way?

No. my fear is a Giro Tour double for SKY. But nowhere in hell I can understand how trekkie Jim can survive the Dolemites.

Why then do we go to all the trouble of the whereabouts system, biological passport and doping tests if the UCI can simple hire your expertise?

Guess my expertise is too expensive Jan. How about yours?

You be the judge.

@PaulKimmage
My father always said 'Credit where it's due.' Congrats to Sir Dave Brailsford and Sir Bradley Wiggins for today's piece in the Sunday Times

Kimmage reads this site, no doubt.

 

[Wiggo Warrior]

give you credit there. Its an interesting theory and has some merit. Could explain some of his improvement, don't know if all of it.

Some follow up questions though. Did porte frome and rogers also just learn how to suffer. Also is ip really that weak? i thought it was 1 of the most painful disciplines out there and have heard it described as simply 4 minutes of pain- in contrast to.other track events where tactics play a bigger role.

Also as far as this goes

From what wiggins said himself it certainly doesn't look like he didn't bother to try. He thought he would win both the prologue and the tt in 2007 and was furious to find out vino doped as it cost him a place. He talked like he would win both tts easy if there was no doping (though ironically cadel Evans who wiggins now declares is a clean rider was one of the guys who beat him)

I don't know if it explains all of it either, like I said, this is all just speculation based on much reading about the subject.

In answer to your questions, looking at the difference between Porte's 2010 and 2011 results it looks like he may have either over trained or over raced in 2011 resulting in comparitively poor form. After the longer recovery period of the off-season he seems to have gained form again quite quickly, in fact possibly too quickly as he claimed to have actually reached peak form in February. He appeared to be putting in more miles on the front in the Dauphine than the Tour which sort of backs that up. I think given his 2010/2011 results he certainly knew how to suffer already.

Rogers and Froome, both seem to have got over an illness/parasite that was holding their performance back, there doesn't seem to be any lack of suffering in their past results. In fact the famous Froome zigzag video shows that he definitely has that one down, only beaten in my view by the feat of making it to the top of the Bola del Mundo in the Vuelta this year on a bike that had a flat for the last 1.5km and then collapsing as he passed the line. The guy is stubborn.

Froome discovering the bilharzia (I read somewhere that up to 40% of Kenyans have it, of course most of them aren't endurance athletes) and treating it and Rogers getting fit again with specific training after a period of illness doesn't seem particularly suspicious to me although I am sure it does to others. Given Rogers domestique role his strength on the key stages was impressive but not in my opinion extra-terrestrial and there were plenty of stages where he wasn't used so hard for him to recover.

Cav, again in his book, differentiates track 'hurt' from road 'suffering', because of the limited time spans. In his example he says Chris Hoy can go 110% into his reserves for 1 minute in the Kilo but ask him to go at 80% for ten minutes and he can't do it, on page 191 he is talking about Ed Clancy and Chris Hoy, and contrasting them with himself and Geraint Thomas who have, he reckons, the hunger and ability to suffer on the road. He also links it to passion and says that when you have passion the ability to suffer is automatic, so I guess he was saying in the epilogue that Brad has no passion either which would tend to cast doubt on any ego driven need to win. Cav certainly seems to separate the 'winner' mentality that he possesses from the 'performance anxiety' mentality that many of the more physically gifted athletes have, and which Brad seems to have had at times. Maybe Steve Peters really is the secret weapon, turning gifted non-'winners' into winners by reprogramming their brains

I am sure Brad did believe he could win the prologue in 2007 but this is also consistent with him finding cycling generally 'easy', if this was his first major road 'target' then he would have certainly believed he was capable of doing it if he put the work in as he'd never failed in anything he'd set his mind to and had probably put in more specific training than he ever had on the road before, though it was a country mile from the amount/sort of training they are doing now. He still isn't the best over prologue distance after all as he seems to need some distance to 'wind up' to a decent rhythm resulting in the second halves of his time trials this year being faster than the first in the main. I am not sure where he came in the main TT in 2007 and who else finished ahead of him so cannot speculate about how many at that stage were likely to be dope affected. Cadel's performance in the TT's at the Tour this year certainly seems to have been well below his usual standards going by the surprise of the commentators, so I have no problem believing a clean and on form Cadel could beat Brad at that stage of his development.

Also in 2007 Brad had that solo breakaway of 191.5km and judging by the speed he was going when the peloton swallowed him up he certainly experienced suffering that day even if it didn't help him learn that he could still win while he was doing it This promising almost lesson in suffering was then derailed when his team-mate was popped and he swore off the road again and headed back (mentally) to the track for 2008.

So no definitive answers, just a theory that seems to me to be consistent with the facts we have.

 

[cineteq]

Link expired. Anyone have another way to read the article?

I think it did because it becomes a paid feature, although not entirely sure though. I have it as pdf.

 

[Cycle Chic]

Seriously, I have been watching cycling for 31 years now and I know what is a doper and what is not a doper.
Do NOT insult people. Froome is a friggin fraud, Wiggins was a great trekkie at 85 kilograms who dopes nowadays to be succesfull on the road, Porte is laughable, do I need to go into Rogers and Zivtzov?

EBH and the the little fokker that knows how to sprint are more or less the real deal.

Please endulge me and open your friggin eyes when u watch cycling.

And really, pardon me French.

Good Post. About time it was put so simply.

 

[Mellow Velo]

About time it was put so simply.

Fearless is definitely the man for that job.

 

[Rambo1970]

Yes, that is very simple

 

[taiwan]

Shocking admission.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=EAAF6C65ccg#t=110s

Lol. Chars.