Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

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.

Of course doping is recovery Jim. That is what it is mostly about. Train harder than others, day after day. You remember what pharmstrong did?

SKY were not tired at Tirreno, you can not control a race like yesterday. Rain, cold, short steep climbs. Not even Gewiss could do that.

They also had 3 guys abondoning I believe.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

You keep ignoring my question on that as all riders are not crossing this magical number it means they can all be declared clean - but this post appears to tacitly admit the answer is "no".

If so - then what I am basing my suspicions on is their (overall/team) performance relative to their current peers in the peloton.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Of course doping is recovery Jim. That is what it is mostly about. Train harder than others, day after day. You remember what pharmstrong did?

SKY were not tired at Tirreno, you can not control a race like yesterday. Rain, cold, short steep climbs. Not even Gewiss could do that.

They also had 3 guys abondoning I believe.

I agree that yesterday's stage was brutal and uncontrollable, but Froome was really struggling and unable to counter moves. Whether that was down to the weather, his gearing or fatigue is difficult to gauge, but if you're going to point at Sky's performance there as a clear indicator of PED use I'd argue it's inconclusive and open to interpretation at best. Froome put in a modest time trial at the end even.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Of course doping is recovery Jim. That is what it is mostly about. Train harder than others, day after day. You remember what pharmstrong did?

SKY were not tired at Tirreno, you can not control a race like yesterday. Rain, cold, short steep climbs. Not even Gewiss could do that.

They also had 3 guys abondoning I believe.

This is being ignored to a large degree.

Yesterday was a total 'bizarro world' stage, even admitted to by the organizer and promissed never to be repeated.

 

[JimmyFingers]

This is being ignored to a large degree.

Yesterday was a total 'bizarro world' stage, even admitted to by the organizer and promissed never to be repeated.

In which Sagan and Nibali managed to ride away from the world's top GT contenders fighting for overall classification.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

In which Sagan and Nibali managed to ride away from the world's top GT contenders fighting for overall classification.

The course benefited those riders, and Purito. A GT climber isn't necessarily going to be strong at a short 30% climb, especially if it's done 3X; nor is a GT climber going to be reknowned for b*lls-out descending ability.

Sagan and Nibali are known to be awesome descenders, and the vast majority of Froome's time was lost on the descent. With those three off the front working together, and they were obviously driving it, a chase group doesn't have much of a chance to bring them back in a few kms.

Yesterday wasn't representative of much apart from who can fight their way up a retardedly steep col, and who can pull off risky descents.

Besides, I'm in no way saying anyone on the podium yesterday is clean.

I still love cycling, but the sport is going to have to do a lot more before I think any of the elites are riding paniagua...

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

This is being ignored to a large degree.

Yesterday was a total 'bizarro world' stage, even admitted to by the organizer and promissed never to be repeated.

It was a deja vue to the Olympic Road Race, where the Italians/Swiss/Spanjards and VINO went gungho against Team Brittain. Uncontrollable with 4 domestiques.

In which Sagan and Nibali managed to ride away from the world's top GT contenders fighting for overall classification.

I was mostly impressed by the ease of Rodriguez. But this is those guys terrain. L-B-L/la Fleche Walonne profile. Why was for instance Mollema right up there? Or Poels? Evans? Sanchez?

Uran could have been up there if he wouldnt have had to play the domistique.

But who said those guys are clean? Their carreer path is just somehow more gradient/believable.

 

[Galic Ho]

Certain posters are fond of aggrandising this place, themselves and its role, when the reality is its a vaguely bonkers place full of aggressive trolls, subjective analysis of data, entrenched partisan factions and a confusing bias that seems to accept certain riders doping while being scathing of others. If there ever was a serious side to the clinic I think it's been lost. That said there are plenty of posters here I have both time and respect for, even though I disagree with them fundamentally. And then there's Gallic Ho.

So who is a troll? Grow a sack and fill it champ. Name a name or two. It's not like plenty of people haven't been called trolls directly on the forum this week. I've lost count of the people, mods included who've called people names. I note you even copied me one day standing up to a mod (in your case the mod was right but still it's progress)...makes me proud to know you pay attention and can learn!

Your tone here is the problem. Also your thinking. The Clinic people you are referring to, of whom the bulk majority are a part and coincidentally are in unison that your team is dirty, ARE NOT CONFUSED AT ALL. Nor are they biased. That would be you. We get what Sky are. Take a look on the Facebook post for the cylingnews article about Tirreno that just went up. Nobody in the comments thinks they are clean. Nobody. Compare that to last year post Tour. People are waking up. Sky ain't fooling anyone. BTW nobody confused your misguided patriotism. Did that come with free cookies?

That brings this discussion to those I've heard referred to as Skybots. Don't presume your opinion counts for squat above anyone else. I'll have you know Richie said I was entitled to my opinion! All I hear from your end today is a dull monotonous tone of someone twisting excuses for their purpose and trying to justify their relevancy and purpose in remaining in the Clinic. A tone that is drowned out by a faint fap. There it is again. Fap. Do you hear that Jimmy? Fap! Sounds like it's time to break out the kleenex again!

Step your game up and wipe your tears. Sit back and quit worrying about us nasty Clinic folk. Watch those bike riders you like watching race. Don't worry about us liking racing, that ain't your business. You take care of Jimmy and go join one of the Sky fan clubs. There was this guy on this forum...Dimspace, use to be known as TeamSkyFans. You should give him a call and his new forum. They'd love you!

You're been sloppy posting here today. Don't worry the Clinic disagrees on your thinking in every way, shape and form. You can't change that. Repeating it for ANOTHER 10K posts won't change diddly squat. Liking the odd post to not appear as what you really are, which is Polish but the UK variant, doesn't change the fact that the neurons in your brain ain't gonna realign and make you suddenly wake up and get that Sky are dirty and you've been playing the fool card. When they bust Sky, you'll arguably go into full meltdown mode. And they will bust Sky.

We've seen it before. With Polish. Mind you wasn't he banned about the time you popped up here? So stop wasting your time beating a dead horse and you take care of Jimmy. Enjoy the ride 2013 brings. It's all gonna go pop soon! So buy some Kleenex!

 

[BroDeal]

I agree that yesterday's stage was brutal and uncontrollable, but Froome was really struggling and unable to counter moves. Whether that was down to the weather, his gearing or fatigue is difficult to gauge...

For a team that is so much more methodical, scientific, and conscientious than all the other teams, how is it that Sky gets the simple things like gearing wrong so often?

You blokes need to come up with another excuse. Sky keeps blowing the current one.

 

[Galic Ho]

For a team a team that is so more methodical, scientific, and conscientious than all the other teams, how is it that Sky gets the simple things like gearing wrong so often?

You blokes need to come up with another excuse. Sky keeps blowing the current one.

When they put Froome in a wind tunnel AND get his gearing right, we all better prepare for something BIG!!!!!!!

Heaven knows that when team sky tick off all their check boxes, big stuff happens!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

In which Sagan and Nibali managed to ride away from the world's top GT contenders fighting for overall classification.

How many GTs do you expect Sagan to win?
I didn't get to see yesterday's stage til after work but I saw comments here first and thought the was a savage MTF at the end, there wasn't it was a series of walls. Perfect for JRod &Sagan.
Contador was just meters behind Nibs at the top, but on a stage like that it all that's needed.

 

[xcleigh]

So stop wasting your time beating a dead horse and you take care of Jimmy. Enjoy the ride 2013 brings. It's all gonna go pop soon! So buy some Kleenex!

Sounds like you've been spending all your time beating more than just a horse. You'll be the one popping one soon by the sounds of it That why you have all those Kleenexes handy I presume? Good god we're talking about cycling here, remember. Yours sincerely Skybot/Fanboy/fanboi. Bye.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

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

Richie himself perhaps can't do any more, but a team that has built a rod for its back by promising transparency may have more expected of them, eg test results being published if received, power data made available and so on. It's part of the problem that a team like Sky have, because they haven't set out to be a new revolutionary team, they've set out to be a new revolutionary CLEAN team, and have gone out of their way to stress that, including claims of total transparency and openness which, as you know, have not been fulfilled or even close.

That isn't Richie Porte's fault, but it is also part of why he's also only half-right.

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.

I always made the comparison to Santiago Pérez, but you may be nearer the mark. Santi's palmarès before the 2004 Vuelta is better than Froome's pre-2011.

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.

Remember that unlike most of those winners Landis had a stage where he bonked completely and lost several minutes, and a stage where they soft-pedalled so much they came in half an hour behind because Phonak, who were nothing like as strong as USPS 2000-5, CSC 2008, Astana 2009 or Sky 2012, wanted to offload the maillot jaune.

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

Also they must all have stopped doping in a very short timeframe to allow for the extreme increase in performance. Otherwise, why were the Sky improvements so sudden, and why were they the only team that benefited?

 

[Escarabajo]

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.

Jimmy,
It has been stated here already, numbers at or below 5.9-6.0 w/kg are not suspicious. What is suspicious is most of the team members hitting it at the same time. Sometimes driving up the mountains in group together at this power output (read Michael Rogers comments last year) is just suspicious because of statistical selection. A person hitting that number is a very special athlete, let alone most of the team doing it. In the 80's the only riders that were doing it were the Tour champions usually or some special mountain goats. This is not proof but is suspicious.

What Acoggan said about the natural freaks could be true, but if a fan were to choose between 1- doping and 2- natural freak, given the doping history of the sports, which one do you think the fan is going to pick? So don't get emotional over people suspecting doping on team Sky.

 

[blackcat]

and cadence.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I'm asking if climbing Alpe under 35 (as an example of an extraordinary performance) also isn't proof. Or how about 40?

Is there a number for W/kg, where you'd say 'That is impossible clean'. IF someone did 6.5 W/kg for an entire climb, would that be possible clean?

I'm simply asking if there is any limit to the 'performance isn't proof'.

It's isn't just the performance in absolute terms. It's also who is putting in that performance. If some guy steps out of nowhere, say one that has the Anatomic Jock Race or the Tour de Sesame Street as their main palmares, well that's going to raise eyebrows. Froome never showed the kind of talent required to pull of the types of climbing feats he has performed. Neither had Wiggins.

 

[jilbiker]

Interesting quote from Nibali on Sky

"Sky has a certain way of interpreting the race. Lets call it scientific, even if it's perhaps not the right term. "

I laughed, call it scientific, the cyclists are trying to be politically correct....keep it real!...its "logical and clinical approach" as I quote CN....ha-ha

 

[BYOP88]

. There was this guy on this forum...Dimspace, use to be known as TeamSkyFans. You should give him a call and his new forum. They'd love you!

I don't think Dim is a 'Sky fan boy'. Also on that forum there is a 'clinic' section and Sky take alot of flak there too.

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

Remember that unlike most of those winners Landis had a stage where he bonked completely and lost several minutes, and a stage where they soft-pedalled so much they came in half an hour behind because Phonak, who were nothing like as strong as USPS 2000-5, CSC 2008, Astana 2009 or Sky 2012, wanted to offload the maillot jaune.

That may well be true, I stopped watching cycling in the early 2000s for a number of reasons, Lance being the main one, so I didn't see that tour. Still my point remains, where does that info come from, how is it compiled and how much can we read into the numbers?

 

[Froome19]

All I hear from your end today is a dull monotonous tone of someone twisting excuses for their purpose and trying to justify their relevancy and purpose in remaining in the Clinic. A tone that is drowned out by a faint fap.

These two sentences made my day

 

[lavieclaire]

Froome never showed the kind of talent required to pull of the types of climbing feats he has performed. Neither had Wiggins.

Just out of the mildest of interest, what metric are you using for this judgement?

 

[willbick]

Froome never showed the kind of talent required to pull of the types of climbing feats he has performed. Neither had Wiggins.

what complete nonsense. are u seriously suggesting that being by far the best 4km pursuit rider in the world is not a good indication that Wiggins could go up a mountain pretty well (especially if he lost a few kgs)

 

[willbick]

That may well be true, I stopped watching cycling in the early 2000s for a number of reasons, Lance being the main one, so I didn't see that tour. Still my point remains, where does that info come from, how is it compiled and how much can we read into the numbers?

sportsscientists. com - its all on there

 

[the sceptic]

Just out of the mildest of interest, what metric are you using for this judgement?

common sense

 

[rghysens]

what complete nonsense. are u seriously suggesting that being by far the best 4km pursuit rider in the world is not a good indication that Wiggins could go up a mountain pretty well (especially if he lost a few kgs)

About as good as the indication that usain bolt can beat David rudisha on the 800m track and field. Or the Indication that David Rudisha can beat Ezekiel Kemboi on the 3000m steeple.