Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Wallace and Gromit]

Sometimes they "coasted home" while laughing as they rode through the debris of contenders.

Not sure how they would do this having peeled off the front of the pack. Did they drop back for a breather, get overtaken by "the debris of contenders", then speed up again, to catch and overtake them? Seems unlikely as most contenders broadly matched Froome and Wiggo in the mountains, so for Rogers and Porte to be overtaking these contenders, they'd be finishing off climbing faster than Froome and Wiggo. Perhaps I misunderstand the detail behind your point. I obviously get the point your trying to make.

But anyway, as I said, they could all be doping, but the issue is the claims that haven't been made on Rogers' and Porte's behalf re Hinault-like ability, other than by their knockers. Rogers and Porte did not display Hinault-like or even contender-like performance levels in the Tour.

 

[Parrulo]

Not sure how they would do this having peeled off the front of the pack. Did they drop back for a breather, get overtaken by "the debris of contenders", then speed up again, to catch and overtake them? Seems unlikely as most contenders broadly matched Froome and Wiggo in the mountains, so for Rogers and Porte to be overtaking these contenders, they'd be finishing off climbing faster than Froome and Wiggo. Perhaps I misunderstand the detail behind your point. I obviously get the point your trying to make.

But anyway, as I said, they could all be doping, but the issue is the claims that haven't been made on Rogers' and Porte's behalf re Hinault-like ability, other than by their knockers. Rogers and Porte did not display Hinault-like or even contender-like performance levels in the Tour.

that's exactly what rogers did on the PDBF

 

[del1962]

Same old same old, Sky did well in Tour so to some they must be doping, no need to contradict or you are a skybot, fanboy or whatever they say.

No real evidence of doping though, just idle speculation, nvm, can't proove a negative

where are the witness to doping, like Emma, where are the failed tests with TUE's suddenly put in, where are the super human Siestrieres

All we hear is the noise that some riders improoved so they must be doping

 

[mastersracer]

Funny how all these guys, Wiggins, Froome, Rogers, Porte, all discovered they are the equivalents of Hinault, LeMond, Fignon, and Mottet. That does not even pass the laugh test. We are not talking about generalized performances by generalized riders. We are talking about Chris Freakin' Froome, a nobody at large who was barely good enough to be hired by a Pro Tour team; Mick "Ferrari and Freiberg" Rogers, who now performs better than than he did when he was under the care of The Myth; Brad "Too Cool for School" Wigans, who deceives the public by using an off-season fat weight to claim he lost twelve kilos; and D!ck Porte, whose biggest achievement is placing high in the Giro as the result of the leaders allowing a fifty-six man break to get away. Yet, masterracer would have us believe that these chumps suddenly found out that they are all the physical equivalents of legends in the sport.

This isn't problematic in the least. IQ is at least as heritable as endurance capacity, and yet for at least a century, IQ has been rising approximately a standard deviation every generation. This is well-documented. It is known as the Flynn effect. The exact same causal factors - individual and social multipliers - operate over generations of cyclists to increase both individual and average performance. Flynn and Dickens illustrate this with basketball and the same can be applied to inter-generational change in cycling.

 

[coinneach]

I am the only one who finds this re-hashing of last years races/arguements boring?

Its all been covered earlier in the thread, ad-naseum. Nobody looks like they are willing to change their opinion, despite/ becasue of the shouting getting louder.

I´d be delighted if it was put to bed, and we started a 2013 thread, based on anything new that comes up

 

[del1962]

I am the only one who finds this re-hashing of last years races/arguements boring?

Its all been covered earlier in the thread, ad-naseum. Nobody looks like they are willing to change their opinion, despite/ becasue of the shouting getting louder.

I´d be delighted if it was put to bed, and we started a 2013 thread, based on anything new that comes up

Yeah but the moderators are cheering them on

 

[Benotti69]

Same old same old, Sky did well in Tour so to some they must be doping, no need to contradict or you are a skybot, fanboy or whatever they say.

No real evidence of doping though, just idle speculation, nvm, can't proove a negative

where are the witness to doping, like Emma, where are the failed tests with TUE's suddenly put in, where are the super human Siestrieres

All we hear is the noise that some riders improoved so they must be doping

Patience, it was a few years before it all started to leak. Not even a year yet.

We hear more than noise about improved riders, there is a major doping doctor in amongst ex dopers and other less desirables.

 

[coinneach]

Yeah but the moderators are cheering them on

They should be doing their job, rather than cheering them on

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

that's exactly what rogers did on the PDBF

Wasn't that the day that Eddy Bosen Hagen had everyone in the red-zone before they even got to the final climb?

If memory serves (and the cycling news report is correct) Rogers dropped off the pace before Bosen Hagen did, as the former wasn't in the lead group with 4k to go. (It was only a 6k climb, so if Rogers did any work on it, this was quite limited, and the cycling news report doesn't mention him in the latter stages, whereas mention of EBH is prominent.)

Rogers most likely benefitted from having ridden a more even pace, and overtook riders who'd seriously overcooked it following EBH. EBH finished over 7 minutes down, paying the price for his efforts on the run-in to the final climb.

Rogers was only 30s ahead of that known mountain goat Cancellera at the finish, so there's nothing obviously superhuman about his climbing that day.

 

[BroDeal]

They should be doing their job, rather than cheering them on

Oh, noes. The dastardly moderators are using their uber powers to attack my favorite team.

Time to get the ol' tin foil hat adjusted, me thinks.

 

[D-Queued]

Same old same old, Sky did well in Tour so to some they must be doping, no need to contradict or you are a skybot, fanboy or whatever they say.

No real evidence of doping though, just idle speculation, nvm, can't proove a negative

where are the witness to doping, like Emma, where are the failed tests with TUE's suddenly put in, where are the super human Siestrieres

All we hear is the noise that some riders improoved so they must be doping

Implausible / impossible performances, like a full year peak?

Check.

Implausible / impossible performances, like coming back from a near death disease?

Check.

Implausible / impossible performances, like your DS screaming at you to stop going so fast?

Check.

Implausible / impossible performances, like going from a donkey to a racehorse after the age of 30?

Check?

Resignations from Sky that are ex-dopers/facilitators?

Check.

Wiggins toking it up?

Check.

Wiggins flaming at the media?

Check.

UCI increasingly shown to be fully complicit in doping coverups and winner selection?

Check.

Barring of journos known to have critical insight on doping behavior?

Check.

More than enough smoke to indicate fire.

Dave.

 

[DirtyWorks]

where are the witness to doping, like Emma, where are the failed tests with TUE's suddenly put in, where are the super human Siestrieres

You finally posted something other than a personal attack! Congratulations.

In order:
Leinders isn't sufficient? Motoman+Sky+Postal-Yates isn't either? I suppose you are waiting for someone to call it out. Give it a few years when some of the staff just let go are down on their luck. I suspect you'll be back with a few more personal attacks then.

Indeed, where are the failed tests? There aren't any. At all. Because the bio-passport is a sham. Somehow, NONE of Wonderboy's suspicious samples were routed to experts from Saugy's lab during the Wonderboy comeback. Why would Sky's samples be routed any differently? Does the phrase "never tested positive" still work on you? It must....

Ignoring the results of the Ashenden/UCI skirmish doesn't make your case any better.

And, finally, super-human performances. Wiggo and Froome crushing all contenders over an entire season, a one-year performance record not matched in the entire recent history of cycling covers super-human very well.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Same old same old, Sky did well in Tour so to some they must be doping, no need to contradict or you are a skybot, fanboy or whatever they say.

No real evidence of doping though, just idle speculation, nvm, can't proove a negative

where are the witness to doping, like Emma, where are the failed tests with TUE's suddenly put in, where are the super human Siestrieres

All we hear is the noise that some riders improoved so they must be doping

If that was all then you may have a point.

Sky were the ones to make noise, by saying they had a zero tolerance policy.
Having guys like Leinders and Barry on your books and they way Sky have dealt with it means it is more than just idle speculation.

 

[mastersracer]

You finally posted something other than a personal attack! Congratulations.

In order:
Leinders isn't sufficient? Motoman+Sky+Postal-Yates isn't either? I suppose you are waiting for someone to call it out. Give it a few years when some of the staff just let go are down on their luck. I suspect you'll be back with a few more personal attacks then.

Indeed, where are the failed tests? There aren't any. At all. Because the bio-passport is a sham. Somehow, NONE of Wonderboy's suspicious samples were routed to experts from Saugy's lab during the Wonderboy comeback. Why would Sky's samples be routed any differently? Does the phrase "never tested positive" still work on you? It must....

Ignoring the results of the Ashenden/UCI skirmish doesn't make your case any better.

And, finally, super-human performances. Wiggo and Froome crushing all contenders over an entire season, a one-year performance record not matched in the entire recent history of cycling covers super-human very well.

I would be interested in how exactly Leinders fits into the Sky doping conspiracy. Wiggins 2009 Tour performance is supposedly indicative of doping (it isn't for reasons I've mentioned, such as Coggan's power profile, but lets play along). Leinders was hired winter of 2010. So, who was running Wiggins' doping program 2008-2010? If he already had a doping program in place, why hire Leinders? The dates don't work.

 

[del1962]

You finally posted something other than a personal attack! Congratulations.

In order:
Leinders isn't sufficient? Motoman+Sky+Postal-Yates isn't either? I suppose you are waiting for someone to call it out. Give it a few years when some of the staff just let go are down on their luck. I suspect you'll be back with a few more personal attacks then.

Indeed, where are the failed tests? There aren't any. At all. Because the bio-passport is a sham. Somehow, NONE of Wonderboy's suspicious samples were routed to experts from Saugy's lab during the Wonderboy comeback. Why would Sky's samples be routed any differently? Does the phrase "never tested positive" still work on you? It must....

Ignoring the results of the Ashenden/UCI skirmish doesn't make your case any better.

I had hoped you would follow up your threat to put me on ignore

If evidence comes out that sky doped I will except it, I don't think it will because I don't think their doping.

Leinders is under investigation by Belgium authorities, I think he will tell all, which will be his Rabobank days, if he knows anything about doping at Sky, I think he will tell too. But I doubt he was involved in doping at Sky, I may be wrong, but I suspect I am right.

If nothing comes out about Sky in the next ten years will the accusers who are so confident in their "knowing" sky are doping apologise.

People like Yates arent a flag, they will just go with team policy as I suspect Leinders does and hide their pasts, but we hear the same accusations again and again without any real substance.

 

[DirtyWorks]

If nothing comes out about Sky in the next ten years will the accusers who are so confident in their "knowing" sky are doping apologise.

Yup. Happy to do it. I've been wrong before.

So, you are just going to ignore the fact UCI testing is a sham? "Never tested positive" 2012 as a carbon-copy replication of the Wonderboy myth on a smaller scale works for you?

 

[del1962]

Yup. Happy to do it. I've been wrong before.

So, you are just going to ignore the fact UCI testing is a sham? "Never tested positive" works for you?

I don't think testing is a complete sham, but it is obvious that not all dopers will test positve,

I think testimonies are more likely to show doping, but testing will catch some dopers.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I would be interested in how exactly Leinders fits into the Sky doping conspiracy. Wiggins 2009 Tour performance is supposedly indicative of doping (it isn't for reasons I've mentioned, such as Coggan's power profile, but lets play along). Leinders was hired winter of 2010. So, who was running Wiggins' doping program 2008-2010? If he already had a doping program in place, why hire Leinders? The dates don't work.

A doping team needs a day to day needle man.
That was Leinders role on Rabobank - the top guys still went off to Fuentes or Humanplasma and the needle man is to keep the rest of the dopers on the team topped up and to make sure there are no or few health issues.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Same old same old, Sky did well in Tour so to some they must be doping, no need to contradict or you are a skybot, fanboy or whatever they say.

No real evidence of doping though, just idle speculation, nvm, can't proove a negative

where are the witness to doping, like Emma, where are the failed tests with TUE's suddenly put in, where are the super human Siestrieres

All we hear is the noise that some riders improoved so they must be doping

Where were you when Juan José Cobo needed you?

 

[mastersracer]

A doping team needs a day to day needle man.
That was Leinders role on Rabobank - the top guys still went off to Fuentes or Humanplasma and the needle man is to keep the rest of the dopers on the team topped up and to make sure there are no or few health issues.

That didn't answer the question though, did it?

 

[Benotti69]

I don't think testing is a complete sham, but it is obvious that not all dopers will test positve,

I think testimonies are more likely to show doping, but testing will catch some dopers.

The testing is a cpmplete sham. That has been proven countless times in the last few years!

Look at who got popped(not by anti doping) for working with Ferarri last year.

Look at what we learnt from Hamilton.

Look at how UCI handled Armstrongs blood tests. Why would they not do the same for Riis, Lefevere, Och and others?

 

[thehog]

I would be interested in how exactly Leinders fits into the Sky doping conspiracy. Wiggins 2009 Tour performance is supposedly indicative of doping (it isn't for reasons I've mentioned, such as Coggan's power profile, but lets play along). Leinders was hired winter of 2010. So, who was running Wiggins' doping program 2008-2010? If he already had a doping program in place, why hire Leinders? The dates don't work.

He fitted in perfectly. The won the Tour and everything else in 2012.

2010 and 2011 were doping failures. They needed to get someone in with experience at team wide programs.

It worked.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That didn't answer the question though, did it?

If thats your best rebuttal, then I actually think it answered it too well.

But if you wish to clarify and ask a question, feel free.

 

[mastersracer]

He fitted in perfectly. The won the Tour and everything else in 2012.

2010 and 2011 were doping failures. They needed to get someone in with experience at team wide programs.

It worked.

actually, it doesn't.

Wiggins' supposed transformation took place two race seasons prior to Leinders coming to Sky.

If 2011 was a doping failure in your words, then it doesn't fit with the fact that Leinders was with Sky that season.

 

[thehog]

actually, it doesn't.

Wiggins' supposed transformation took place two race seasons prior to Leinders coming to Sky.

If 2011 was a doping failure in your words, then it doesn't fit with the fact that Leinders was with Sky that season.

Wiggins didn't finish the Tour in 2011.

Two season prior was 2010 without Leinders and you saw how that went for Wiggins.

2012 with Leinders - Victory!