Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Netserk]

yes! i forgot 2012 was track year

did G not ride the junior roubaix race? it's not as though he is a stranger

to such races as suggested by yourself

Mark L

Do you know how many times Boonen - Best cobbles rider in history - won the junior edition?

 

[ebandit]

?

Do you know how many times Boonen - Best cobbles rider in history - won the junior edition?

would it make a difference?..................above i stated that as much as i

would like to see it i don't see G winning ronde

Mark L

 

[the sceptic]

Last year? Huh? Think that was in your Sky fantasy. G-Dawg was riding track last year.

Which apparently is the perfect build-up to winning Flanders!

I think he can become a grand tour winner when he stops focusing on the track. That 140th place he got in his first tour shows potential.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Do you know how many times Boonen - Best cobbles rider in history - won the junior edition?

When did the junior edition first start?

 

[martinvickers]

And when he morphs into 2012 Mick Rogers at the Tour, what will you say then?

Remember Thomas was a ''6'' on the suspicion index.

Remember LL Sanchez and Frank Schleck were a 2. Michael Barry and Chris horner a zero.

That list isn't worth sh!t, and if someone tried to claim others were clean based on it, you'd roast them. and you know it.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Remember LL Sanchez and Frank Schleck were a 2. Michael Barry and Chris horner a zero.

That list isn't worth sh!t, and if someone tried to claim others were clean based on it, you'd roast them. and you know it.

It's also worth reading how JV said the index was explained to him as well. Whether you believe him or what they told him is another matter and most people will have made their mind up prior to reading it I suspect.

 

[The Chicken]

If Thomas does follow Cancellara and Sagan tomorrow I am giving up on pro cycling. If he drops them both I'm calling the police. Enough is enough.

 

[The Hitch]

Remember LL Sanchez and Frank Schleck were a 2. Michael Barry and Chris horner a zero.

That list isn't worth sh!t, and if someone tried to claim others were clean based on it, you'd roast them. and you know it.

Why would Barry not be a 0?

Also wouldn't the method of getting frank schlecks score be different to everyone else because he crashed out at the start? Or were everyones scores based on pre tour values?

 

[martinvickers]

Why would Barry not be a 0?

Also wouldn't the method of getting frank schlecks score be different to everyone else because he crashed out at the start? Or were everyones scores based on pre tour values?

You sound perilously like I do, here, hitch

Barry, perhaps is a fair point - i just don't think that list is much more than a 'hunch' index - and as a UCI hunch index, it's worth even less - Maybe that's Froomie's secret. He's not even on it - He's the Dark Phantom "a man who does not exist..." .

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

If Thomas does follow Cancellara and Sagan tomorrow I am giving up on pro cycling. If he drops them both I'm calling the police. Enough is enough.

And if Chavanel follows Cancellara would you do the same thing then?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

You sound perilously like I do, here, hitch

Barry, perhaps is a fair point - i just don't think that list is much more than a 'hunch' index - and as a UCI hunch index, it's worth even less - Maybe that's Froomie's secret. He's not even on it - He's the Dark Phantom "a man who does not exist..." .

Either that or Froome is the Spinal Tap of the UCI suspicion index.

 

[martinvickers]

It's also worth reading how JV said the index was explained to him as well. Whether you believe him or what they told him is another matter and most people will have made their mind up prior to reading it I suspect.

Much like everything else, i suppose. ah well, such is cycling...

 

[martinvickers]

Either that or Froome is the Spinal Tap of the UCI suspicion index.

Excellent!! chapeau

 

[enrecul]

Thomas is clean

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I think he can become a grand tour winner when he stops focusing on the track. That 140th place he got in his first tour shows potential.

You say that but I do remember some new British July fans back in 2010 who got very enthusiastic about Thomas getting into the white jersey and kept enquiring about his chances of taking it all the way to Paris, and got very upset at the 'arrogant regular posters' saying that those chances were exactly zero.

 

[roundabout]

And if Chavanel follows Cancellara would you do the same thing then?

would people be claiming that he is clean?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

would people be claiming that he is clean?

Possibly. You would have to ask people.

 

[roundabout]

there were a lot of mentions of Thomas in 2007. I didn't get what the deal was then to be honest.

 

[roundabout]

Possibly. You would have to ask people.

that's a bit evasive. how about making a best guess instead?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

that's a bit evasive. how about making a best guess instead?

I honestly think you would get a mixed response. He tends to do well in Spring classics without dominating or winning monuments. Consistently good at prologues as well.

 

[hrotha]

Remember LL Sanchez and Frank Schleck were a 2. Michael Barry and Chris horner a zero.

That list isn't worth sh!t, and if someone tried to claim others were clean based on it, you'd roast them. and you know it.

There's a difference between having suspicious values and not having them: you can tamper your values to make them not look suspicious, but you can't tamper them to make them look suspicious except by doping. Just like you wouldn't claim someone is clean because they didn't test positive, but the opposite doesn't apply: a positive test IS pretty much proof of doping.

 

[roundabout]

I honestly think you would get a mixed response. He tends to do well in Spring classics without dominating or winning monuments. Consistently good at prologues as well.

I don't have many reasons to believe that the status quo in the classics has changed much in the last few years.

So anyone stepping up is likely due to medical reasons.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I don't have many reasons to believe that the status quo in the classics has changed much in the last few years.

So anyone stepping up is likely due to medical reasons.

I would also think you need to factor in the style of the win. If you just cycle away from everyone else you are more likely to come under suspicion then if you happen to be in a break that ends up staying away due to nobody chasing.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Excellent!! chapeau

Ba dum tsshhh... I'll be here all week

 

[Galic Ho]

Why would Barry not be a 0?

Also wouldn't the method of getting frank schlecks score be different to everyone else because he crashed out at the start? Or were everyones scores based on pre tour values?

JV talked about it last week in his thread. He said Barredo had a 10 because he literally had not been tested at all. That was what they were told in a meeting I assume with the UCI. Some of the numbers are high because the riders needed to be tested. Others because they were dodgy. JV's tone made the latter seem less emphasized.

So Horner having zero means little. Menchov's 9 however I don't think was down to little testing. Same with Rogers 8 and Thomas 6. I think they were iffy blood values. Same with Matt Lloyd. Had big contract issues around then...I think he was doing something Lotto didn't like. The Pope said that year he had either 45 or 60 tests both in and out of competition. Can't remember which but it was a lot. So scrap not having blood values for him. They'd have had a lot. JV did say though that Barredo having the highest number was down to no testing. For everyone else it could be one of three options. Testing, blood values OR both. Which leaves a lot of combinations. It's fair to say though that a lot of the guys who had been racing and more so winning, would have had a lot of samples over someone who hadn't been racing.

Either way we will never know. But run the numbers and stats on all the Sky guys who were over 2. There were a lot of their current squad and last years ranks who were mid to high. The odds of all of them not having been tested? Low. Really low. Someone there had dodgy blood values...but it's just guesswork figuring out who. Waste of time. Either way, no tests doesn't scream you're clean either. You could be super dirty, they just don't have blood values to see. Also note ALL the GC riders were 4-6 pretty much. If they weren't getting tested prior to the race...that is woeful. But if they were and they still had mid scores...that's still bad.