Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[blackcat]

If it's touted as a reason for cleaning up at the Olympic games, and Sky are no different than any other team in terms of becoming sick / unwell, then it seems disingneuous to offer it as a "marginal gain".

I'm simply pointing out DB spins things, and the media mostly lap them up.

There's no evidence anything he says is true, other than results. You know, BC and Sky smash most other riders.

So it's evidence that this washing of hands "properly" "marginal gain" is most probably a red herring, yes.

transcends marginal gains


sniag lanigram

 

[Clausfarre]

You are an ADMINISTRATOR and your reply to Hogs post is a conflict of interest and bias.

Stating that not everyone has a well developed sarcasm detector is just helpful information.

 

[oldcrank]

http://youtu.be/5ewVvVCRWxE

A lovely bunch of lads, good to see they haven't slowed
down at all since I last saw them Christmas Eve 1977.

 

[horsinabout]

A lovely bunch of lads, good to see they haven't slowed
down at all since I last saw them Christmas Eve 1977.

Daddy wouldn't have let me then...later on they did make me dress beyond the ordinary, they had that influence on some of us.

 

[armchairclimber]

Here's one for you Sir Dave Brailsford....with xx

http://youtu.be/5ewVvVCRWxE

I can't work out whether that's depressing or brilliant. Even if it's cabaret, it's still a pretty good noise.

The Android quote was funny yesterday....androids clearly don't do corners.

 

[Winterfold]

There's no evidence anything he says is true, other than results.

Lolz

What other truth is there?

 

[horsinabout]

Lolz

What other truth is there?

None....other than the GMT time on the forum has not yet been put at British summertime....

 

[Ferminal]

None....other than the GMT time on the forum has not yet been put at British summertime....

I think that always happens. Go to User CP -> Edit Options, fiddle around with the time zone settings.

 

[horsinabout]

I can't work out whether that's depressing or brilliant. Even if it's cabaret, it's still a pretty good noise.

The Android quote was funny yesterday....androids clearly don't do corners.

Definately cabaret......like Sky all for show, a truthful farce.

 

[RownhamHill]

There have over the last few pages been a few interesting contributions, especially lanarks about the history of "superior training". Yet the only respnse you and a bunch of other sky fans have offered have been the same lame sarcastic "oh even my dog must be doping according to the clinic : smiley."

Lanark's post was very interesting and very relevant to the discussion considering how popular the belief is that sky brought in superior training. Do any of you have any opinion on it, or would that not be part of the game?

Just catching up here, you make a fair point, apologies for sarcasm over the cold stuff, which perhaps I started - mainly because it's such a fatuous point given the prevailing arctic weather conditions in Northern Europe this Spring.

But to your substantive point, I guess I don't really know what the historical example actually adds to the sum of this discussion. We're discussing a successful cycling team, so by definition - given the prevailing historical context - there are countless examples from history of similarly successful cycling teams having their success turn out to be built on dope. That's just a given as far as I'm concerned.

But the difficulty, for me, is that the comparison doesn't take us anywhere new. This is because the two different variables - doping versus superior training techniques - aren't mutually exclusive to success. Indeed, in an environment where everyone is taking the same dope, if you could add a superior (non-doping) training technique then you'd absolutely expect to see a relative performance advantage.

So applying this to Sky. They seem to have some kind of performance edge. This because they could have the same basic training, and a superior doping regime. It could be because they have the same doping regime as rivals but superior training techniques. It could be because they have both superior doping and superior training. And they could have no doping regime at all, but superior training that is enough to overcome any conferred advantage of their rivals doping regimes (if indeed their rivals are on doping regimes at all, which is another unknown and unknowable variable).

Which is it? I have no idea. I am interested in the answer. I would like it - for the sake of the sport - for it to be the final scenario, and given that I'm a glass half full kind of guy, in the absence of anything that I consider compelling* evidence otherwise I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. YMMV.

But let's be clear, whatever view you take on Sky's cleanliness of course what you expect them to say in public is 'we are mint, we win because we do stuff better'. Obviously they're either lying or their not, but the historical comparison that a team in the past was lying, in my opinion, doesn't shed any light on the question of whether Sky are lying too right now. Indeed the suggestion is just going around the houses (again) on the 'they're a successful cycling team so they must be doping' meme. Don't get me wrong, that's a strong argument to make, and I understand why lots of people take that view. But endlessly recycling it and arguing the toss over it just doesn't really get us anywhere, no?

*I've read most of this thread, I'm familiar with most of the 'evidence' presented here.

(And yeah, I suppose I forgot to mention 'innate physiological talent' as an important variable affecting relative performance above, although in all honesty, I'm not sure what such a variable even means in the context of elite sport, as it's not as if any of these riders just rock up off the street on a fixie, and happen to be able to ride the tour. . .)

 

[Dear Wiggo]

What I don't understand is why the hyperbole in all the "we are clean" statements from the team?

After claiming from the start to be different, to be open and transparent, why not just publish blood values?

 

[horsinabout]

I think that always happens. Go to User CP -> Edit Options, fiddle around with the time zone settings.

tis done thankyou...

 

[Cycle Chic]

Admin propoganda

@thehog; I have learned to automatically assume the EVERYTHING you write is sarcastic. Therefore, I take nothing you write as serious. Oh, occasionally, I take you seriously, but still with a grain of salt. However, not everyone else has made this adaptation. So, I would suggest you add a smirk smiley to your sig - or just to those posts where you are using sarcasm. Just a friendly suggestion - it might help cut down the number of complaints we get about your posts.

An ADMINISTRATOR is tainting the Hog. Hiero2 should lose his position as administrator. How can we trust his judgement after writing the above post. !!!!

 

[peterst6906]

An ADMINISTRATOR is tainting the Hog. Hiero2 should lose his position as administrator. How can we trust his judgement after writing the above post. !!!!

theHog taints theHog these days.

I wouldn't worry about Heiro though. Hog has thick skin (and mods are surely allowed their own opinions too).

 

[SeriousSam]

What I don't understand is why the hyperbole in all the "we are clean" statements from the team?

After claiming from the start to be different, to be open and transparent, why not just publish blood values?

Because it's good PR. It works well for its target audience (newish British cycling fans, not Clinic Posters)

 

[JimmyFingers]

Just catching up here, you make a fair point, apologies for sarcasm over the cold stuff, which perhaps I started - mainly because it's such a fatuous point given the prevailing arctic weather conditions in Northern Europe this Spring.

But to your substantive point, I guess I don't really know what the historical example actually adds to the sum of this discussion. We're discussing a successful cycling team, so by definition - given the prevailing historical context - there are countless examples from history of similarly successful cycling teams having their success turn out to be built on dope. That's just a given as far as I'm concerned.

But the difficulty, for me, is that the comparison doesn't take us anywhere new. This is because the two different variables - doping versus superior training techniques - aren't mutually exclusive to success. Indeed, in an environment where everyone is taking the same dope, if you could add a superior (non-doping) training technique then you'd absolutely expect to see a relative performance advantage.

So applying this to Sky. They seem to have some kind of performance edge. This because they could have the same basic training, and a superior doping regime. It could be because they have the same doping regime as rivals but superior training techniques. It could be because they have both superior doping and superior training. And they could have no doping regime at all, but superior training that is enough to overcome any conferred advantage of their rivals doping regimes (if indeed their rivals are on doping regimes at all, which is another unknown and unknowable variable).

Which is it? I have no idea. I am interested in the answer. I would like it - for the sake of the sport - for it to be the final scenario, and given that I'm a glass half full kind of guy, in the absence of anything that I consider compelling* evidence otherwise I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. YMMV.

But let's be clear, whatever view you take on Sky's cleanliness of course what you expect them to say in public is 'we are mint, we win because we do stuff better'. Obviously they're either lying or their not, but the historical comparison that a team in the past was lying, in my opinion, doesn't shed any light on the question of whether Sky are lying too right now. Indeed the suggestion is just going around the houses (again) on the 'they're a successful cycling team so they must be doping' meme. Don't get me wrong, that's a strong argument to make, and I understand why lots of people take that view. But endlessly recycling it and arguing the toss over it just doesn't really get us anywhere, no?

*I've read most of this thread, I'm familiar with most of the 'evidence' presented here.

(And yeah, I suppose I forgot to mention 'innate physiological talent' as an important variable affecting relative performance above, although in all honesty, I'm not sure what such a variable even means in the context of elite sport, as it's not as if any of these riders just rock up off the street on a fixie, and happen to be able to ride the tour. . .)

Good post. Reasoned, cohesive and relatively objective

 

[horsinabout]

Just catching up here, you make a fair point, apologies for sarcasm over the cold stuff, which perhaps I started - mainly because it's such a fatuous point given the prevailing arctic weather conditions in Northern Europe this Spring.

But to your substantive point, I guess I don't really know what the historical example actually adds to the sum of this discussion. We're discussing a successful cycling team, so by definition - given the prevailing historical context - there are countless examples from history of similarly successful cycling teams having their success turn out to be built on dope. That's just a given as far as I'm concerned.

But the difficulty, for me, is that the comparison doesn't take us anywhere new. This is because the two different variables - doping versus superior training techniques - aren't mutually exclusive to success. Indeed, in an environment where everyone is taking the same dope, if you could add a superior (non-doping) training technique then you'd absolutely expect to see a relative performance advantage.

So applying this to Sky. They seem to have some kind of performance edge. This because they could have the same basic training, and a superior doping regime. It could be because they have the same doping regime as rivals but superior training techniques. It could be because they have both superior doping and superior training. And they could have no doping regime at all, but superior training that is enough to overcome any conferred advantage of their rivals doping regimes (if indeed their rivals are on doping regimes at all, which is another unknown and unknowable variable).

Which is it? I have no idea. I am interested in the answer. I would like it - for the sake of the sport - for it to be the final scenario, and given that I'm a glass half full kind of guy, in the absence of anything that I consider compelling* evidence otherwise I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. YMMV.

But let's be clear, whatever view you take on Sky's cleanliness of course what you expect them to say in public is 'we are mint, we win because we do stuff better'. Obviously they're either lying or their not, but the historical comparison that a team in the past was lying, in my opinion, doesn't shed any light on the question of whether Sky are lying too right now. Indeed the suggestion is just going around the houses (again) on the 'they're a successful cycling team so they must be doping' meme. Don't get me wrong, that's a strong argument to make, and I understand why lots of people take that view. But endlessly recycling it and arguing the toss over it just doesn't really get us anywhere, no?

*I've read most of this thread, I'm familiar with most of the 'evidence' presented here.

(And yeah, I suppose I forgot to mention 'innate physiological talent' as an important variable affecting relative performance above, although in all honesty, I'm not sure what such a variable even means in the context of elite sport, as it's not as if any of these riders just rock up off the street on a fixie, and happen to be able to ride the tour. . .)

Sky's media modus operandi gives the game away. We have gone past the discussion in modern sport “are they or aren’t they” argument. It is very immature to pretend otherwise. Modern sport is upholding a myth, this is it. It is more a question of why so many people are agreeing with the direction modern sport is going in.

Cycling is a damned hard sport. Anyone who has participated in it will know just how you suffer, can't be avoided. To improve just small amounts is difficult and hard, there is no magic training it's just hard, plain and simple. Pre doping / sports science days peaking was an art form.
So any winning that comes out of this is a noble feat par excellence.

However, doping has changed this – it is a game changer. It has moved the goal post into the stratosphere. Corruption in the sport has done nothing to level the playing field, quite the opposite.

It has become a toy for rich businessmen. And DB is pimping their ride. His lies and that of prominent cyclists show just how ignoble doping is, can't ever be or will not ever be anything else. This is what your sport has now become. You may like it that way, this is your choice. But count me out.

 

[JimmyFingers]

An ADMINISTRATOR is tainting the Hog. Hiero2 should lose his position as administrator. How can we trust his judgement after writing the above post. !!!!

I'm thinking Hog is more than capable of fighting his own battles.

But then so is Hiero, so perhaps I should retire gracefully with my Chambord and gin

 

[Catwhoorg]

What I don't understand is why the hyperbole in all the "we are clean" statements from the team?

After claiming from the start to be different, to be open and transparent, why not just publish blood values?

Because you get armchair hematologists with no real understanding of the science leaping on noise and claiming it as proof of doping.


That said I still think its a good idea.

There are also possible privacy concerns under EU law, so it would require a strong opt-in from each rider. Some may just not be comfortable with that level of sharing, and it would be important to be seen to not discriminate against those riders in hiring and firing decisions.

 

[xcleigh]

Sky's media modus operandi gives the game away. We have gone past the discussion in modern sport “are they or aren’t they” argument. It is very immature to pretend otherwise. Modern sport is upholding a myth, this is it. It is more a question of why so many people are agreeing with the direction modern sport is going in.

Cycling is a damned hard sport. Anyone who has participated in it will know just how you suffer, can't be avoided. To improve just small amounts is difficult and hard, there is no magic training it's just hard, plain and simple. Pre doping / sports science days peaking was an art form.
So any winning that comes out of this is a noble feat par excellence.

However, doping has changed this – it is a game changer. It has moved the goal post into the stratosphere. Corruption in the sport has done nothing to level the playing field, quite the opposite.

It has become a toy for rich businessmen. And DB is pimping their ride. His lies and that of prominent cyclists show just how ignoble doping is, can't ever be or will not ever be anything else. This is what your sport has now become. You may like it that way, this is your choice. But count me out.

That's a perfectly understandable opinion to hold, one I don't agree with though. I don't think you can label the whole sport corrupt and I for one enjoy participating and spectating despite the woes of 'our' sport. That is, as you say, my choice. I hope you find a sport/activity/hobby to watch and participate in that doesn't dissapoint you. Goodbye and goodluck.

 

[RownhamHill]

Sky's media modus operandi gives the game away. We have gone past the discussion in modern sport “are they or aren’t they” argument. It is very immature to pretend otherwise. Modern sport is upholding a myth, this is it. It is more a question of why so many people are agreeing with the direction modern sport is going in.

Cycling is a damned hard sport. Anyone who has participated in it will know just how you suffer, can't be avoided. To improve just small amounts is difficult and hard, there is no magic training it's just hard, plain and simple. Pre doping / sports science days peaking was an art form.
So any winning that comes out of this is a noble feat par excellence.

However, doping has changed this – it is a game changer. It has moved the goal post into the stratosphere. Corruption in the sport has done nothing to level the playing field, quite the opposite.

It has become a toy for rich businessmen. And DB is pimping their ride. His lies and that of prominent cyclists show just how ignoble doping is, can't ever be or will not ever be anything else. This is what your sport has now become. You may like it that way, this is your choice. But count me out.

I don't doubt that you may well be right.

But yeah, you see those houses over there? We're going around them again. And again. And again. You may like it that way, this is your choice. But count me out.

 

[JimmyFingers]

That's a perfectly understandable opinion to hold, one I don't agree with though. I don't think you can label the whole sport corrupt and I for one enjoy participating and spectating despite the woes of 'our' sport. That is, as you say, my choice. I hope you find a sport/activity/hobby to watch and participate in that doesn't dissapoint you. Goodbye and goodluck.

Agree. At the end of the day it boils down to your opinion and level of cynicism. Plenty that have been burnt too many times in the past think that the sport cannot and will not ever be clean, others hope for a better day and hope that what we're seeing is a cleaner peloton and a more honest sport. Like Rowanhill said, I'm a glass-half-full guy, I'll give people the benefit of the doubt until its proved to me otherwise. Not naive however, it's a conscious decision made with my eyes open.

 

[RownhamHill]

Because you get armchair hematologists with no real understanding of the science leaping on noise and claiming it as proof of doping.

Have you got any particular armchair hematologists in mind when you write that?

 

[bobbins]

That's a perfectly understandable opinion to hold, one I don't agree with though. I don't think you can label the whole sport corrupt and I for one enjoy participating and spectating despite the woes of 'our' sport. That is, as you say, my choice. I hope you find a sport/activity/hobby to watch and participate in that doesn't dissapoint you. Goodbye and goodluck.

I'm starting to think that when Skys classics riders refer to the classics as 'real races' - they are saying it with the knowledge that the evil empire haven't found a way of destroying the classics the way they have with stage races.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Have you got any particular armchair hematologists in mind when you write that?

*pleads the 5th*