Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[martinvickers]

Faith smaith, it is the reality. When did that reality change? Faith is believing the clean teams BS PR, that's faith. Cult is following Sky's marginal gains BS, and you sir are a fully paid up member of the cult.

Yawn. Save it for the choir, preacher.

 

[Benotti69]

Yawn. Save it for the choir, preacher.

You being the choirboy here, I think i'll take a pass.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Does Sky do an equivalent of pantani, riis, ullrich, basso, landis, beloki and USPS.

I tend to be of the opinion those you mention never had the clean British [ fill in the nation u want ] Winner of The Tour Mantra.

 

[goggalor]

I tell you even more, the hours that you all spend here on the clinic if you used them by rding a bike you'd all be pro cyclists

Can't think of a less appealing profession.

 

[blackcat]

I tend to be of the opinion those you mention never had the clean British [ fill in the nation u want ] Winner of The Tour Mantra.

I dont think they are clean. they are dirty top to bottom. but i dont seem them as overt egregious as others here. cycling has never been without l'dopage. if it did, it would be unique years.

 

[The Hitch]

So long career builds are dirty, but sudden improvements are dirty. Where later bloomers are dirty, but young prodigy's are dirty.

Well sudden improvements and late bloomers are way more suspicious than long career builds and young prodiy's.

And sky and all their fans argue themselves that you can work out how dirty someone is based on their career when they say that attacking is dirty and following wheels is clean.

 

[martinvickers]

Well sudden improvements and late bloomers are way more suspicious than long career builds and young prodiy's.

And sky and all their fans argue themselves that you can work out how dirty someone is based on their career when they say that attacking is dirty and following wheels is clean.

Do they?

Wasn't Ullrich a prodigy? Pantani? Hell, Mercx if we want to go back that far.

To be frank, nothing, NOTHING historical is altogether useful as a comparative tool.

 

[The Hitch]

Do they?

Wasn't Ullrich a prodigy? Pantani? Hell, Mercx if we want to go back that far.
.

Did i say anywhere that young prodigy's wouldn't dope

Oh and you yourself said that you thought Makhloufi was suspicious because he came out of nowhere, whereas bolt not so much because he was a talent at 15

 

[Dear Wiggo]

i dont see sky sooo egregious as those on here. heck, garmin are putting up a fight, and they do not have the doctors with the medical program and blood bags on tap. they have to do it in the fire break plausible deniability and degrees of separation, and maintain you biopassport parameters. so sky cannot be that bad if they are not showing garmin a clean set of heels.

With all due respect, CQ points difference between Sky and Garmin from 2012 is the very definition of clean set of heels - for me at any rate.

Although given the cheapies JV picks up vs the Lottery funded hiring by Sky, perhaps comparatively is what you mean.

Not sure whether that paints Sky in a good light or ... ;-)

As for the doctors, etc advantage: keep in mind that JV had 1-2 years of BP practice before it was implemented across the peloton. To my mind that is a significant advantage to anyone on the team seeking to set up baseline parameters and experiment with how the system works, all without much worry for recrimination. Possibilities, at any rate.

 

[Trudgin]

Wiggins winner of 3GT's

Ok, getting my rant on. Apropos of nothing at all, I'm just getting worked up by the casualness of conversations implying that it is a given that Wiggins will win all 3 GT's?

Eh, sorry did I miss the tablets of stone from heaven, he's won 1 GT FFS, he won a watered own TdF with no real opposition (sorry nibbles) and a sensational team round about him. Fact?

There is now talk of Uran, Henao, and Froome leaving.. As with the previous Great White Hope AKA Mark Cavendish... Take way the superior lead out train & he becomes human again.. And more enjoyable to watch.

I don't believe Wiggins will ever be enjoyable to watch, but without them... Hahahaha.

Now Porte, with that lead out he could win a GT, but on his own, he'll be back to domestic duties, cleaning the toilets & dragging wiggins uphill.

Now if the miracle does happen and wiggins gets all 3 GT's, I predict that he will then contract cancer, survive & cure cancer & retire to a ranch in Texas, a bigger ranch than his mentor.

This is all as speculative as Wiggins winning 3 GT's and all my own opinion, raging inside me in the shower before a wee ride..

However, Uran, Henao & Froome..... Good luck to you all....

 

[burning]

Ok, getting my rant on. Apropos of nothing at all, I'm just getting worked up by the casualness of conversations implying that it is a given that Wiggins will win all 3 GT's?

Eh, sorry did I miss the tablets of stone from heaven, he's won 1 GT FFS, he won a watered own TdF with no real opposition (sorry nibbles) and a sensational team round about him. Fact?

There is now talk of Uran, Henao, and Froome leaving.. As with the previous Great White Hope AKA Mark Cavendish... Take way the superior lead out train & he becomes human again.. And more enjoyable to watch.

I don't believe Wiggins will ever be enjoyable to watch, but without them... Hahahaha.

Now Porte, with that lead out he could win a GT, but on his own, he'll be back to domestic duties, cleaning the toilets & dragging wiggins uphill.

Now if the miracle does happen and wiggins gets all 3 GT's, I predict that he will then contract cancer, survive & cure cancer & retire to a ranch in Texas, a bigger ranch than his mentor.

This is all as speculative as Wiggins winning 3 GT's and all my own opinion, raging inside me in the shower before a wee ride..

However, Uran, Henao & Froome..... Good luck to you all....

He definitely didnt have a superior train in sky, I think you are mistaken with this:

 

[JimmyFingers]

Do they?

Wasn't Ullrich a prodigy? Pantani? Hell, Mercx if we want to go back that far.

To be frank, nothing, NOTHING historical is altogether useful as a comparative tool.

This +10000

 

[Cimber]

Do they?

Wasn't Ullrich a prodigy? Pantani? Hell, Mercx if we want to go back that far.

To be frank, nothing, NOTHING historical is altogether useful as a comparative tool.

Here is a historical comparative tool that is useful: Cycling is and always has been dirty

 

[Benotti69]

Do they?

Wasn't Ullrich a prodigy? Pantani? Hell, Mercx if we want to go back that far.

To be frank, nothing, NOTHING historical is altogether useful as a comparative tool.

The UCI 'historicially' ignores the doping in the sport at best and enables riders to cheat at worst. Nothing has changed.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I dont think they are clean. they are dirty top to bottom. but i dont seem them as overt egregious as others here. cycling has never been without l'dopage. if it did, it would be unique years.

Well, opinions differ of course but I saw a Tour Time Trial last year from 14 k's out of la Planche des Belle Filles to Peyragudes.

Nice word though, egregious.

Do they?

Wasn't Ullrich a prodigy? Pantani? Hell, Mercx if we want to go back that far.

To be frank, nothing, NOTHING historical is altogether useful as a comparative tool.

Yeah, lets just discard results at the Tour the l'Avenir, Baby Giro, young riders classifications et all. They mean nothing. Never meant nothing.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

He definitely didnt have a superior train in sky, I think you are mistaken with this:

I thought that was Trudgin's point - without the HTC train Cav looks more fallible, whether at Sky ("only" 15 wins last year) or OPQS.

Cav's train in the Tour could be quite tasty with Martin and Boonen in the ranks!

 

[martinvickers]

Did i say anywhere that young prodigy's wouldn't dope

Oh and you yourself said that you thought Makhloufi was suspicious because he came out of nowhere, whereas bolt not so much because he was a talent at 15

I think I made a cooment about turkish middle distance women too. And russians. And I wasn't wrong.

But track & field is not cycling. I suppose I agree with you broadly on what is more suspect, but cycling has been so distorted for its entire history, its all but impossible to find a trustworthy control of what 'clean' is.

Track had an 'eoo' style age, especially women - the gdr era. Now to be clear the yanks and brits had plenty bad boys too, esp at 100m. But the GDR regime makes Lance look paniagua. And in a perverse way, that gives us a 'control'. Many of those obscene records have never been challenged, never mind beaten.

The dope is still there, but it ain't near as good. Thats just incontrovertible. And over time we have built an idea of what might, only might, be clean.

But tge whole of cycling history is the gdr years. Epo made a huge difference, but only in scale, not quality. We can be relatively confident the dope now aint what it used to be. W/kg suggests as much. But arguments based on subjective comparisons with no clean control, just seem meaningless as a genuine attempt, rather than a broad smear/sneer, to get some answers.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Nice word though, egregious.Yeah, lets just discard results at the Tour the l'Avenir, Baby Giro, young riders classifications et all. They mean nothing. Never meant nothing.

And there's the rub really: when comparing riders you can't be certain whether they are clean or doping, how long they have been doping for, what cocktails of drugs they may have been using, when in the year they used the most and how naturally talented they might actually be.

Clearly there is an easy accusation that Sky are doping and their training etc is PR guff, usually accompanied with an appropriate sarcasm remark (not necessarily from yourself), yet you have to be suspicious of the entire pro-tour: there is no team or riders out there you can say for certain are clean. So Sky are dirty by beating them.

Yet if everyone is doping including Sky, and Sky are winning, then Sky's training is working, so it's marginal gains plus doping.

Or its they've found some next-gen **** no-one else has got yet. Which is pure speculation and neither provable or deniable.

You ever watched a dog chase its tail? This is what we do here. Until doping controls improve and we have governance we can believe in we will continue to chase our tails, examining every utterance, every performance, all their body language and blending them into a narrative that suits our perspective. But ultimately it's a rather perverse exercise in futility, although it certainly does hone the debating skills.

So I'm taking the long view, confident that empires crumble and fall, like Lance's did, given enough time and enough whispering. The truth will out, eventually, and I owe you a tall, cold one if you're right and I'm wrong

 

[thehog]

I think I made a cooment about turkish middle distance women too. And russians. And I wasn't wrong.


The dope is still there, but it ain't near as good. Thats just incontrovertible. And over time we have built an idea of what might, only might, be clean.

.

??

The dope isn't as good? It's better. Now no one tests positive. Doping is much better. You can dope, not test positive and keep the performances looking too ridiculous sans Froome.

 

[SundayRider]

And there's the rub really: when comparing riders you can't be certain whether they are clean or doping, how long they have been doping for, what cocktails of drugs they may have been using, when in the year they used the most and how naturally talented they might actually be.

Clearly there is an easy accusation that Sky are doping and their training etc is PR guff, usually accompanied with an appropriate sarcasm remark (not necessarily from yourself), yet you have to be suspicious of the entire pro-tour: there is no team or riders out there you can say for certain are clean. So Sky are dirty by beating them.

Yet if everyone is doping including Sky, and Sky are winning, then Sky's training is working, so it's marginal gains plus doping.

Or its they've found some next-gen **** no-one else has got yet. Which is pure speculation and neither provable or deniable.

You ever watched a dog chase its tail? This is what we do here. Until doping controls improve and we have governance we can believe in we will continue to chase our tails, examining every utterance, every performance, all their body language and blending them into a narrative that suits our perspective. But ultimately it's a rather perverse exercise in futility, although it certainly does hone the debating skills.

So I'm taking the long view, confident that empires crumble and fall, like Lance's did, given enough time and enough whispering. The truth will out, eventually, and I owe you a tall, cold one if you're right and I'm wrong

Good sensible, post.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

??

The dope isn't as good? It's better. Now no one tests positive. Doping is much better. You can dope, not test positive and keep the performances looking too ridiculous sans Froome.

If you follow that line then EPO pre 2000 was the best as there wasn't a test for it, so there was absolutely no risk of a positive test. In addition, the best climbing performance in that era were a lot better than they are now. All the best climbing performances now are the ones that Froome has yet to do.

What I think you mean is that the benefit in the current era from knowing the right people is a bigger relative advantage than has been seen before, though Lance's performances set a very high benchmark for performance advantages derived from knowing the right people.

 

[Bala Verde]

Looks like leinders was consulting exclusively for wiggins.

 

[thehog]

Looks like leinders was consulting exclusively for wiggins.

Bit of slow cadence today.

This is the peril or hiding away in Tenerife.

Sky's tactics go to poo the minute something unexpected happens.

Froome was the same at TA.

Is there a drug that can assist with being scared on descents?

 

[Bala Verde]

Bit of slow cadence today.

This is the peril or hiding away in Tenerife.

Sky's tactics go to poo the minute something unexpected happens.

Froome was the same at TA.

Is there a drug that can assist with being scared on descents?

Cocaine right?

 

[thehog]

Cocaine right?

Contador mental note.

Attack on the descents. Just add rain.