Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[del1962]

No. Performance isn't proof. It is cause for suspicion, but you can't censure a rider for racing fast, you need more. Of course it can cement opinion, like the one you hold. But your conviction that he is doping doesn't count for anything beyond message boards and twitter, and it certainly won't get the rider suspended.

I think if anyone road Alp D'Huez in under 35 minutes that would be evidence, however none of Froomes performances have been anywhere near that, so Jimmy don't fall for answereing a strawman argument.

 

[Benotti69]

I think it's an ironic comment on the histrionics here immediately in the aftermath of the Prati di Tivo climb. You can't hold up performances like that as definitive proof of doping then not expect others to respond in kind when the same riders have a terrible day.

Performance is not proof, either way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fgIhtJtsfo

 

[Benotti69]

No. Performance isn't proof. It is cause for suspicion, but you can't censure a rider for racing fast, you need more. Of course it can cement opinion, like the one you hold. But your conviction that he is doping doesn't count for anything beyond message boards and twitter, and it certainly won't get the rider suspended.

Your total assertions that forums cant convict or influence the cleanliness begs the question, why do you bother coming in here to defend Sky when posters are not judge and jury on your beloved Sky?

I guess the answer is either,

a) you work for Skyborgs

b) you are fanatical in your devotion to Sky and brit cycling and cling to the hope they are not like the last 25 years of the sport where this type of performance was the result of doping.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I think if anyone road Alp D'Huez in under 35 minutes that would be evidence, however none of Froomes performances have been anywhere near that, so Jimmy don't fall for answereing a strawman argument.

You're right, my mistake

 

[JimmyFingers]

Your total assertions that forums cant convict or influence the cleanliness begs the question, why do you bother coming in here to defend Sky when posters are not judge and jury on your beloved Sky?

I guess the answer is either,

a) you work for Skyborgs

b) you are fanatical in your devotion to Sky and brit cycling and cling to the hope they are not like the last 25 years of the sport where this type of performance was the result of doping.

This is silly. I like riding bikes, I like watching people ride bikes, I like talking to people about bikes, about riding bikes and bike racing. For me that doesn't translate into an endless turf war, and certainly not partisan fanaticism. I don't know you so there's no reason to get into a ruck because our opinions differ over cycling.

 

[Benotti69]

Since when has performance been proof?

Lots on here have expressed their disbelief at Armstrong on Sestriere, Walsh told the story of all the press laughing at the finish while watching it on a screen, then having to write a lie about the cancer jesus and his miralce performance, because their editors expressed it the better story.

Posters are expressing their opinons. They are entitled to that, the clinic is influential in that a lot of very imformed, inside and outside the sport contribute to it. Hence all the trolling by Armstrong fans and now the Sky fans.

The clinci has been called an echo chamber, postrs referred to the clinic 12 apostles etc etc.

Dont try and kid posters that Sky have lots and lots of questions to answer, just like Banesto, Once, Kelme, Mapei , Festina, USPS and all the others.

That they refuse to answer tells what the history of the sport has liad bare. When there are questions over performances and the answers are about avoidance rather than addressing there is doping going on.

Sky have been avoiding answering the questions.

So to all you Sky fans, go ask your team of miracle grupetto to podiums the hard questions and come back here with the answers then we can take Sky and their 'harder training', 'margianl gains', 'warm downs', 'swimming coach techniques', 'better saddle sore doctors' seriously.

But until then. Sky are doping their riders, not all maybe but they have won a lot of races early season and shown team dominance that in this sport equals doping.

 

[Trudgin]

Since when has performance been proof?

Lots on here have expressed their disbelief at Armstrong on Sestriere, Walsh told the story of all the press laughing at the finish while watching it on a screen, then having to write a lie about the cancer jesus and his miralce performance, because their editors expressed it the better story.

Posters are expressing their opinons. They are entitled to that, the clinic is influential in that a lot of very imformed, inside and outside the sport contribute to it. Hence all the trolling by Armstrong fans and now the Sky fans.

The clinci has been called an echo chamber, postrs referred to the clinic 12 apostles etc etc.

Dont try and kid posters that Sky have lots and lots of questions to answer, just like Banesto, Once, Kelme, Mapei , Festina, USPS and all the others.

That they refuse to answer tells what the history of the sport has liad bare. When there are questions over performances and the answers are about avoidance rather than addressing there is doping going on.

Sky have been avoiding answering the questions.

So to all you Sky fans, go ask your team of miracle grupetto to podiums the hard questions and come back here with the answers then we can take Sky and their 'harder training', 'margianl gains', 'warm downs', 'swimming coach techniques', 'better saddle sore doctors' seriously.

But until then. Sky are doping their riders, not all maybe but they have won a lot of races early season and shown team dominance that in this sport equals doping.

Thank you....

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

You serve this as though it happened in a flash.

It did, he became 2nd in the Vuelta out of absolutely nowhere

 

[JimmyFingers]

usual rant

Meh. History will judge Team Sky, not the clinic.

 

[thehog]

It did, he became 2nd in the Vuelta out of absolutely nowhere

He did win the Atomic Jock Race before the 2nd in the Vuelta.

 

[Ferminal]

He looked good in June.

 

[airstream]

It did, he became 2nd in the Vuelta out of absolutely nowhere

True, but you bring Contador in the discussion, implying that in the 11 Vuelta wasn't at his level, right?


Sky had by far better initial material to work with and make a GT podium finisher. Why did they choose exactly Froome, in your opinion?

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Froome was a mediocre rider with no real palmares before he suddenly hit the podium at the Vuelta and the Tour. The guy couldn't climb in a straight line.

He's an absolute fraud, as is Team Sky. Porte's words today echoed the same tired arguments Armstrong made a decade ago about training his **** off and working hard and riding clean. Exactly the same garbage.

And exactly like the American fans who bought this stuff, now the Brits, desperate for a cycling hero, are buying the same nonsense.

 

[blackcat]

Froome was a mediocre rider with no real palmares before he suddenly hit the podium at the Vuelta and the Tour. The guy couldn't climb in a straight line.

He's an absolute fraud, as is Team Sky. Porte's words today echoed the same tired arguments Armstrong made a decade ago about training his **** off and working hard and riding clean. Exactly the same garbage.

And exactly like the American fans who bought this stuff, now the Brits, desperate for a cycling hero, are buying the same nonsense.

good debut in the Tour in about 07.

 

[thehog]

good debut in the Tour in about 07.

About?......

 

[SundayRider]

Froome is doing to other riders what Condator did a few years ago...

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Since when has performance been proof?

Just a few:

* Indurain
* Rominger
* Capucino
* Ariostea/Gewiss
* Carrera
* Telekom
* Festina
* USPS
* Kelme
* Rabo
* Vino/Kacheskin
* Phonak
* ONCE

Just a few I said, whereas performance was proof for anyone with eyes in their heads.

Really, there was nothing to see at those teams.

 

[Escarabajo]

Froome was a mediocre rider with no real palmares before he suddenly hit the podium at the Vuelta and the Tour. The guy couldn't climb in a straight line.

He's an absolute fraud, as is Team Sky. Porte's words today echoed the same tired arguments Armstrong made a decade ago about training his **** off and working hard and riding clean. Exactly the same garbage.

And exactly like the American fans who bought this stuff, now the Brits, desperate for a cycling hero, are buying the same nonsense.

This is becoming sickening. It is amazing. Don't these idiots know US Postal history? The same words that Armstrong used to say. But that was Armstrong the cheater we are clean, really, he was lying we are not, really!

“Credibility and results, for me, they have to go hand in hand,” Porte says, “and people can say what they want on Twitter. I’m training harder than most people can imagine and I’m riding up Col d’Èze in 19 minutes and I’m doing it clean. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.”

“There’s not that much you can do to defend yourself either. I can point to the tests and that I was tested three times in two days at Paris-Nice ...

Porte explains that Sky’s dominance is partly down to the new techniques they’ve employed since 2010

 

[Escarabajo]

If eating rice cakes and cooling down on rollers make you a GT contender from a day to another everybody would be doing it. That is an insult to the rest of the peloton and their coaches. That was part of the reason that doomed Armstrong, people got ****ed off about his answers. Don't you think that Riis and Contador don't know what these guys are doing?

 

[uphillstruggle]

No. Performance isn't proof. It is cause for suspicion, but you can't censure a rider for racing fast, you need more. Of course it can cement opinion, like the one you hold. But your conviction that he is doping doesn't count for anything beyond message boards and twitter, and it certainly won't get the rider suspended.

Would you at least admit that they are doping if anyone from Sky climbs alpe D'huez in 37 minutes?

 

[JimmyFingers]

This is becoming sickening. It is amazing. Don't these idiots know US Postal history? The same words that Armstrong used to say. But that was Armstrong the cheater we are clean, really, he was lying we are not, really!

Selective quoting, but is he supposed to say exactly?

“There’s not that much you can do to defend yourself either. I can point to the tests and that I was tested three times in two days at Paris-Nice but I know that’s not everything. But what more can I say? I comply with the standards and rules and at the end of the day we just get on with our jobs.”

Seems a reasonable assessmemnt to me. Once again you're taking out your ire on the wrong target. If riders are clean it's all they can do is race and be tested. The problem, as Porte pointed out but you chose to misrepresent, is that being tested means little, and that's the UCI's fault, not Sky's or the riders

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Everyone knows what these guys are doing, just like everyone knew what US Postal was doing in 1999. That's when cycling had a chance to follow a cleaner route post-Festina, but Armstrong went full-doping. Everyone else had to follow.

I fear the same thing will happen now. After Armstrong's disgrace, cycling does have a chance again, but Sky appear to be following the same US Postal playbook and dragging the sport back into the mud.

Geert Leinders? How can a "clean" team justify hiring this guy? How can average riders suddenly become GT contenders. Foome is the poor man's Isidro Nozal, nothing more. Neither should have been anywhere near a podium at a GT.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Ritchie was just 1 minute 40 faster on Col d'Eze compared to last year, whoopee do.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Would you at least admit that they are doping if anyone from Sky climbs alpe D'huez in 37 minutes?

As has been pointed out, this is a strawman. Back in your box

 

[Benotti69]

Meh. History will judge Team Sky, not the clinic.

Just like....

Just a few:

* Indurain
* Rominger
* Capucino
* Ariostea/Gewiss
* Carrera
* Telekom
* Festina
* USPS
* Kelme
* Rabo
* Vino/Kacheskin
* Phonak
* ONCE

Just a few I said, whereas performance was proof for anyone with eyes in their heads.

Really, there was nothing to see at those teams.

Sky will join the list. I have no doubt that.

As for your 'Meh', it belies your dediction to all things sky in the clinic. You pontificate that the clinic is not important but you have spent a lot of time in here in sky threads defending them. Meh, yeah right.