Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[JimmyFingers]

While its nice that you clarify that now - there was no way to deduce that from your original post:
JimmyFingers
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.



See, thats where you go wrong, you speak about yourself and assume its personal.

nothing personal here - I dont care about you, that is not a mean statement (I care for every poster here) but I wish to read your argument not about you, I judge on what information is provided regardless of who its from and I agree or disagree with the poster on that info, not on who they are.

I have clarified the point on several occasion to say performance isn't sufficient to censure a rider.

As I said, it wasn't directed at you, and if you approach every post objectively and in a non partisan manner then chapeau first of all, but it also means you are in a minority here. In life in general in fact!

And it has got personal, down to receiving PMs threatening me with physical violence and extremely distasteful references to a fantasied sexuality involving Sky team members. Clearly he was in the minority and unfortunately he still posts here but that for me crossed the line in a very big way.

 

[JimmyFingers]

So performance can be proof?

What are the fastest Froome should be able to climb Alpe d'Huez this summer? 39, 40, 41 or 42?

Check my other post for the answer to the first, and as for the second I guess we'll see this July

 

[JimmyFingers]

This has already been discussed at length regarding Contador's time on Verbier and the ensuing inferences of a VO2max of almost 100 ml/kg/min. Whether or not this a sound analysis has been much debated, but it is at least involving performances that are suspect. So far, the Sky performances aren't anywhere near this. The performances this year - in themselves - don't raise this sort of a red flag.

This is the irony of performance as proof: the current peloton simply aren't hitting these sort of numbers. So it changes to relative performances: performances contrasted with other riders and from previous years. This are valid for the sake of debate, but it isn't conclusive.

 

[JimmyFingers]

IMO you are by far the most reasoned of all the Sky supporters. You have shown the ability to actually wanting to understand others. That is also the reason why I ask questions to you.

I appreciate you saying this, I have been questioning my presence here so it validates it to a point. I generally do my best not be a ****** and try to be reasoned with my logic. I do fail on a regular basis I know.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I have clarified the point on several occasion to say performance isn't sufficient to censure a rider.

As I said, it wasn't directed at you, and if you approach every post objectively and in a non partisan manner then chapeau first of all, but it also means you are in a minority here. In life in general in fact!

And it has got personal, down to receiving PMs threatening me with physical violence and extremely distasteful references to a fantasied sexuality involving Sky team members. Clearly he was in the minority and unfortunately he still posts here but that for me crossed the line in a very big way.

I know it wasn't - I didn't take it personally i replied to your post , thats all.

As for receiving Pms, well I had the same - but it was just an idiot trolling.
I din't even report it as it was laughable.
But, and this is sincere friendly advise, if someone says bad things about Team Sky, it is not directed at you.

 

[DirtyWorks]

...Sky's recent performances in T-A, none of which reached those ludicrous levels.

IMHO, the logical problem here is the assumption since the riders aren't breaking/nearing doped tests, be they TT's or some measured hill climb, that means they aren't doping. That is a failed assumption to a close observer. To a casual observer though, it appears the athlete is dope-free. Which, IMHO, is the UCI's goal.

If one assumes historical doping practices are still the state of the art and on-going, then I'd even agree that there's much less doping. But the state of the art in doping has moved on. Peptide doping is another huge field of opportunities for even the amateur doper. Lose fat, gain power and keep muscle mass down all without the on/off cycles of steriods.

Indeed physiological limits is more the argument used by Vaughters and the pro-Sky observers that they aren't doping, because their performances aren't so extreme that they trip the switch that would scream doping.

Except they do behave as other dopers and go into hiding for weeks at a time only to reappear absolutely dominant. Dopers also shatter their historic performance norms at times, then return to them when the race is not a priority. Both things are done by Sky's grand tour squad and are fully consistent with a doped team.

It's unfortunate that the discussion remains stuck on the riders themselves when it is absolutely the case the federation is enabling the doping.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I know it wasn't - I didn't take it personally i replied to your post , thats all.

As for receiving Pms, well I had the same - but it was just an idiot trolling.
I din't even report it as it was laughable.
But, and this is sincere friendly advise, if someone says bad things about Team Sky, it is not directed at you.

Point taken. Often I simply rail at the injustice of things rather than seeing it as something personal. Sometimes I feel like a defense lawyer defending the indefensible, but I do feel it is necessary there are people here to point out inconsistencies, exaggerations and contradictions in people's arguments.

As people do to my arguments in turn of course.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Where does this come from? A juiced up Landis the slowest? I thought it was hard enough estimating power outputs for single climbs never mind a whole tour.

It is from someone Jonathan Vaughters is a big fan of.

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

It is from someone Jonathan Vaughters is a big fan of.

Jonathan Vaughters then? Seriously, you got a link?

 

[JimmyFingers]

IMHO, the logical problem here is the assumption since the riders aren't breaking/nearing doped tests, be they TT's or some measured hill climb, that means they aren't doping. That is a failed assumption to a close observer. To a casual observer though, it appears the athlete is dope-free. Which, IMHO, is the UCI's goal.

Except they do behave as other dopers and go into hiding for weeks at a time only to reappear absolutely dominant. Dopers also shatter their historic performance norms at times, then return to them when the race is not a priority. Both things are done by Sky's grand tour squad and are fully consistent with a doped team.

But surely you can see the innate ambiguities in the performance as proof argument, even with further circumstantial and anecdotal evidence considered. This boils back down to the need for a governing body and a testing regime the fans can have a modicum of trust in.

Which we clearly don't have now, and this is what fundamentally needs to change.

I want cycling to be clean by the by. It's perhaps not obvious but I'm not just here to throw up a smokescreen. My opinion is different to yours on the current state of the peloton and if I am proved to be wrong I will admit it and bow to your superior insight, but ultimately we are on the same side

 

[Netserk]

However for us as observers, we don't need a court of law to confirm our suspicions, so when cementing our opinion on whether a rider is juiced or not, performance, particularly as extreme as the one you cited, is sufficient.

Thanks.

What time up Alpe d'Huez for Froome this summer would be the tipping point, where if he goes any faster than that, is sufficient for you to think that Froome is doping?

In '89 Fignon did 41'50, and in '87 Luis Herrera also did 41'50. In the other end of the scale Pantani did 37'35 in '97.

 

[BYOP88]

This may have already been said by others, but for me the distrust of Wiggins/Sky is this. 5,6,7 years ago when he was a member of the autobus, Wiggins was very vocal in his dislike of those who were robbing him. Since he made the quantum leap from autobus to top step of GT podium, the very people he agreed with 5-7 years ago are now c***s, w*****s etc. Why the change, is it because he's now one of the robbers?

 

[mastersracer]

IMHO, the logical problem here is the assumption since the riders aren't breaking/nearing doped tests, be they TT's or some measured hill climb, that means they aren't doping. That is a failed assumption to a close observer. To a casual observer though, it appears the athlete is dope-free. Which, IMHO, is the UCI's goal.

If one assumes historical doping practices are still the state of the art and on-going, then I'd even agree that there's much less doping. But the state of the art in doping has moved on. Peptide doping is another huge field of opportunities for even the amateur doper. Lose fat, gain power and keep muscle mass down all without the on/off cycles of steriods.



Except they do behave as other dopers and go into hiding for weeks at a time only to reappear absolutely dominant. Dopers also shatter their historic performance norms at times, then return to them when the race is not a priority. Both things are done by Sky's grand tour squad and are fully consistent with a doped team.

It's unfortunate that the discussion remains stuck on the riders themselves when it is absolutely the case the federation is enabling the doping.

To reiterate the argument: This forum is full of doping claims based on recent performances - Froome at T-A, Porte at P-N the latest. The absolute performance #s ARE NOT being used to claim these performances are clean. They are being used to show that these PERFORMANCES IN THEMSELVES are not evidence of doping. The performances are entirely consistent with non-doping. If riders are doping, they are not getting much benefit from it - certainly not enough to reject the null hypothesis if you want to think of it that way.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Thanks.

What time up Alpe d'Huez for Froome this summer would be the tipping point, where if he goes any faster than that, is sufficient for you to think that Froome is doping?

In '89 Fignon did 41'50, and in '87 Luis Herrera also did 41'50. In the other end of the scale Pantani did 37'35 in '97.

You're backing me into a bit of a corner here. I have actually stated my suspicions of Froome in the past. Him and Mick Rogers were the stand outs from Sky last season.

I do think contrasting different riders from different eras is difficult. The equipment has changed significantly since the late 80s for example, and also climate and weather conditions will vary which will effect the times. I suppose I would expect something in the realms of 40+ minutes.

Research did reveal this:

1 36' 50" Marco Pantani 1995 Italy
2 36' 55" Marco Pantani 1997 Italy
3 37' 15" Marco Pantani 1994 Italy
4 37' 36" Lance Armstrong 2004 United States
5 37' 40" Jan Ullrich 1997 Germany
6 38' 05" Lance Armstrong 2001 United States
7 38' 10" Miguel Induráin 1995 Spain
8 38' 10" Alex Zulle 1995 Switzerland
9 38' 15" Bjarne Riis 1995 Denmark
10 38' 20" Richard Virenque 1997 France

Which is the proverbial rogue's gallery

 

[Roude Leiw]

Tour de France, the ranking of the 2000s (W / kg)

1 Lance Armstrong | 2003 | 6.18 W / kg
2 Alberto Contador | 2009 | 6.17 W / kg
3 Lance Armstrong | 2004 | 6.09 W / kg
4 Lance Armstrong | 2005 | 6.09 W / kg
5 Lance Armstrong | 2001 | 6.07 W / kg
6 Bradley Wiggins | 2012 | 5.98 W / kg
7 Lance Armstrong | 2000 | 5.97 W / kg
8 Lance Armstrong | 2002 | 5.97 W / kg
9 Alberto Contador | 2007 | 5.92 W / kg
10 Carlos Sastre | 2008 | 5.85 W / kg
11 Alberto Contador | 2010 | 5.78 W / kg
12 Cadel Evans | 2011 | 5.68 W / kg
13 Floyd Landis | 2006 | 5.67 W / kg

Where do you find this kind of data? Call me ignorant, but i would be happy to have a link or any other accessible source to read up on it

 

[BYOP88]

You're backing me into a bit of a corner here. I have actually stated my suspicions of Froome in the past. Him and Mick Rogers were the stand outs from Sky last season.

I do think contrasting different riders from different eras is difficult. The equipment has changed significantly since the late 80s for example, and also climate and weather conditions will vary which will effect the times. I suppose I would expect something in the realms of 40+ minutes.

Research did reveal this:

1 36' 50" Marco Pantani 1995 Italy
2 36' 55" Marco Pantani 1997 Italy
3 37' 15" Marco Pantani 1994 Italy
4 37' 36" Lance Armstrong 2004 United States
5 37' 40" Jan Ullrich 1997 Germany
6 38' 05" Lance Armstrong 2001 United States
7 38' 10" Miguel Induráin 1995 Spain
8 38' 10" Alex Zulle 1995 Switzerland
9 38' 15" Bjarne Riis 1995 Denmark
10 38' 20" Richard Virenque 1997 France

Which is the proverbial rogue's gallery

4 and 6 shouldn;t be on that list, after all that guy was never there

 

[DirtyWorks]

My opinion is different to yours on the current state of the peloton and if I am proved to be wrong I will admit it and bow to your superior insight, but ultimately we are on the same side

And I the same. To keep the honeymoon going, I too appreciate your comments.

 

[Netserk]

4 and 6 shouldn;t be on that list, after all that guy was never there

A lot of guys were never there

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

To reiterate the argument: This forum is full of doping claims based on recent performances - Froome at T-A, Porte at P-N the latest. The absolute performance #s ARE NOT being used to claim these performances are clean. They are being used to show that these PERFORMANCES IN THEMSELVES are not evidence of doping. The performances are entirely consistent with non-doping. If riders are doping, they are not getting much benefit from it - certainly not enough to reject the null hypothesis if you want to think of it that way.

Wouldnt it be nice to spike/dope and stay just within that 'humanly possible'?

Yet scientists do not know what that is.

edit:
Gladly we know Brad knows

 

[psycholist]

The Sky argument relies on nobody in the peloton doping. That is something I find difficult to believe.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Wouldnt it be nice to spike/dope and stay just within that 'humanly possible'?

Yet scientists do not know what that is.

Just for balance, while I agree with masterracer in principle, rather than PEDs focusing on boosting performance, given there are limits to performance which are convincing, a clever programme would focus far more on recovery. So rather than flat out speed, endurance and the ability to perform to a certain level day after day would be the gauge.

Which still leaves us some way sort of being conclusive about Sky's performance, since post Prati di Tivo they looked tired at T-A.

 

[thehog]

Research did reveal this:

1 36' 50" Marco Pantani 1995 Italy
2 36' 55" Marco Pantani 1997 Italy
3 37' 15" Marco Pantani 1994 Italy
4 37' 36" Lance Armstrong 2004 United States
5 37' 40" Jan Ullrich 1997 Germany
6 38' 05" Lance Armstrong 2001 United States
7 38' 10" Miguel Induráin 1995 Spain
8 38' 10" Alex Zulle 1995 Switzerland
9 38' 15" Bjarne Riis 1995 Denmark
10 38' 20" Richard Virenque 1997 France

Which is the proverbial rogue's gallery

So the “cut off” for doping and not doping is 38 minutes?

So a guy who used to go sideways up mountains and could only win the atomic jock race starts winning at 41 minutes is not doping? And a 4 time Grand Tour winner with a highly regarded junior pedigree wins in 41 minutes is not doping?

There is no threshold to doping. The entire field in 2001 wasn’t climbing at 37 minutes but 95% of them were doping.

Froome went from sideways to mountain goat. Not normal.

As you say… “performance, is not always the indicator”. Often you’ll find it relative to your competitors on the day.

And past performances compared to new performances is always a good indication of doping.

 

[JimmyFingers]

And I the same. To keep the honeymoon going, I too appreciate your comments.

Chapeau, appreciated.

 

[the sceptic]

so Vino was clean then. I always knew he was just a scapegoat.

 

[JimmyFingers]

So the “cut off” for doping and not doping is 38 minutes?

So a guy who used to go sideways up mountains and could only win the atomic jock race starts winning at 41 minutes is not doping? And a 4 time Grand Tour winner with a highly regarded junior pedigree wins in 41 minutes is not doping?

There is no threshold to doping. The entire field in 2001 wasn’t climbing at 37 minutes but 95% of them were doping.

Froome went from sideways to mountain goat. Not normal.

As you say… “performance, is not always the indicator”. Often you’ll find it relative to your competitors on the day.

And past performances compared to new performances is always a good indication of doping.

Generally I'll concede this: Froome has gone from Domestique to GT contender with little in his palmares to suggest it is plausible that he is operating at the level he is. But I'll also maintain it's not conclusive in itself, to my mind anyway. That said I am suspicious of Froome. Less so of Bradley because I don't feel he's in the same league of climbing as Froome or even Nibali and I feel (although others dispute this) his track palmares compensates for the lack of them on the road.

Although I am aware that this is inconclusive too.