Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[mikehammer67]

that stuff from david walsh in the ST about the hiring of leinders and his role in the team is so funny it's silly

 

[zlev11]

the captain (veloclinic) made a post comparing sky at this giro to discovery at the 2005 tour, when they all famously got dropped on the rasmussen stage only to come back after the rest day and team time trial up all the climbs in the last two weeks. watching sky cause that carnage on the 1st climb today showed he was absolutely spot on, it was a perfect comparison. cataldo and zandio couldn't even get up a category 3 in the first week. sivtsov exploded halfway up that cat 2 on stage 4. and there they all were today, blowing the peloton and the defending champ to pieces.

too bad the first week of the tour doesn't look very hard, they can probably get their re-fills before the pyrenees.

 

[Freddythefrog]

that stuff from david walsh in the ST about the hiring of leinders and his role in the team is so funny it's silly

Got to agree. 2 little pearls that made my day:

"Leinders claimed de Rooy’s words had been misinterpreted and"

"I could have grilled him and grilled him but when someone assures you that he has not been involved in doping, that doesn’t seem appropriate,” says Peters. "

 

[Benotti69]

the captain (veloclinic) made a post comparing sky at this giro to discovery at the 2005 tour, when they all famously got dropped on the rasmussen stage only to come back after the rest day and team time trial up all the climbs in the last two weeks. watching sky cause that carnage on the 1st climb today showed he was absolutely spot on, it was a perfect comparison. cataldo and zandio couldn't even get up a category 3 in the first week. sivtsov exploded halfway up that cat 2 on stage 4. and there they all were today, blowing the peloton and the defending champ to pieces.

too bad the first week of the tour doesn't look very hard, they can probably get their re-fills before the pyrenees.

And Walsh cant see it!!!!

Sky have scored a massive pr coup with Walsh tweeting about Sky.

 

[BroDeal]

And Walsh cant see it!!!!

Sky have scored a massive pr coup with Walsh tweeting about Sky.

Walsh had a look at what has happened to Kimmage then decided he wants no part of that. There is no profit in being journalist pariah, especially when cycling is becoming more popular in the UK. After helping take Armstrong down, he needs to show he not anti-cycling like many feel Kimmage is. What better way than supporting the official British team?

We have a new Liggett in the making.

 

[mikehammer67]

Got to agree. 2 little pearls that made my day:

"Leinders claimed de Rooy’s words had been misinterpreted and"

"I could have grilled him and grilled him but when someone assures you that he has not beeninvolved in doping, that doesn’t seem appropriate,” says Peters. "

The front line, the drawbridge at the Sky ramparts of whitedom is a guy who says this and allows Walsh to quote it. It is 2012 and you could not make this stuff up and certainly not sell it to any publisher.

Comedy gold.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heB2g0IvOMg

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Walsh had a look at what has happened to Kimmage then decided he wants no part of that. There is no profit in being journalist pariah, especially when cycling is becoming more popular in the UK. After helping take Armstrong down, he needs to show he not anti-cycling like many feel Kimmage is. What better way than supporting the official British team?

We have a new Liggett in the making.

Yep. Close to retirement too.

The golden goose is shot.

Time for a new book: ''Sir Brad against the Evil Southern Europeans''.

 

[andy1234]

Free Gift!

Here is a free gift for anyone that wants it.
It's a free copy and paste footer to put in your sig.
I'm hoping it may save some people a F**k load of posting time.....

***************************************************************
Every possible race scenario can, and will, be interpreted as proof of doping.

Winning? It's Dope
Not Winning? It's Dope
Got it? Good.
****************************************************************

 

[Dalakhani]

2009 Jayco Herald Sun Tour. Sure, it was decided almost entirely by the time trial, and Garmin were by far the strongest team in the race, but as far as I can tell Geert Leinders didn't work for Garmin-Slipstream.

Excellent! That's even better than him having never won a stage race without Leinders.

(A bit like Froome having won the 2009 Anatomic Jock Race pre-Leinders.)

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Here is a free gift for anyone that wants it.
It's a free copy and paste footer to put in your sig.
I'm hoping it may save some people a F**k load of posting time.....

***************************************************************
Every possible race scenario can, and will, be interpreted as proof of doping.

Winning? It's Dope
Not Winning? It's Dope
Got it? Good.
****************************************************************

Lance called, he needs you on twittter.

 

[andy1234]

Lance called, he needs you on twittter.

Silly me, I knew there was something else.....

***************************************************************
Every possible race scenario can, and will, be interpreted as proof of doping.

Winning? It's Dope
Not Winning? It's Dope
Sooner or later I'm going to bring Armstrong into this.
Got it? Good.
****************************************************************

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Silly me

Now we're getting somewhere.

New heroes are born quick.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Here is a free gift for anyone that wants it.
It's a free copy and paste footer to put in your sig.
I'm hoping it may save some people a F**k load of posting time.....

***************************************************************
Every possible race scenario can, and will, be interpreted as proof of doping.

Winning? It's Dope
Not Winning? It's Dope
Got it? Good.
****************************************************************

Winning a GT when you've never shown the potential to do so? It's [strike]Dope[/strike] highly suspicious considering what we've learned about doping in professional cycling.
Not Winning or dominating when you once showed you were head and shoulders above everyone for an extended period? It's [strike]Dope[/strike] suspicious evidence you were on dope, but not conclusive.
[strike]Got it?[/strike] Simplifying the points you oppose is never Good for your points, nor to refutation of opposing points.

 

[Granville57]

Here is a free gift for anyone that wants it.
It's a free copy and paste footer to put in your sig.
I'm hoping it may save some people a F**k load of posting time.....

***************************************************************
Every possible race scenario can, and should, be interpreted as proof of doping.

****************************************************************

Fixed that for ya'. No charge.

 

[blackcat]

by deduction, no scenario is proof of not doping

 

[blackcat]

but.

i perceive sky wishing fans to perceive themselves as clean.

i can believe in this perception of sky wishing fans perceive them as clean.

but i think they are dirtier than a pair of mud wrestlers at yellow rose

 

[ChewbaccaD]

by deduction, no scenario is proof of not doping

Nice use of deductive reasoning.

 

[ianfra]

but.

i perceive sky wishing fans to perceive themselves as clean.

i can believe in this perception of sky wishing fans perceive them as clean.

but i think they are dirtier than a pair of mud wrestlers at yellow rose

At least Blackcat you say "I think ....." You have not made a definitive statement. It is your opinion. My opinion is opposite to yours. But I appreciate the way you have posted your opinion unlike many libelous statements that precede yours. To me, that is the way this discussion should be carried on. Its OK to think what you like. I think that there is absolutely no evidence that Sky dopes and indeed, I think that it would be a very stupid and dangerous thing for Sky to be involved in because they are so closely linked to british Cycling and the whole edifice would collapse. We should be celebrating the growth of our sport (worldwide) not continually making direct accusations with no evidence and no proof. But thinking is ok ......(lol) we are all entitled to our opinions but we do not have the right to make accusations without the burden of proof.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

At least Blackcat you say "I think ....." You have not made a definitive statement. It is your opinion. My opinion is opposite to yours. But I appreciate the way you have posted your opinion unlike many libelous statements that precede yours. To me, that is the way this discussion should be carried on. Its OK to think what you like. I think that there is absolutely no evidence that Sky dopes and indeed, I think that it would be a very stupid and dangerous thing for Sky to be involved in because they are so closely linked to british Cycling and the whole edifice would collapse. We should be celebrating the growth of our sport (worldwide) not continually making direct accusations with no evidence and no proof. But thinking is ok ......(lol) we are all entitled to our opinions but we do not have the right to make accusations without the burden of proof.

I know your entitled to your opinion and all that - but what burden of proof is needed on an internet forum, m'Lord?

 

[sittingbison]

...It is your opinion. My opinion is opposite to yours. But I appreciate the way you have posted your opinion....To me, that is the way this discussion should be carried on. Its OK to think what you like...

This kernel of your post is excellent ianfra, I agree completely.

...it would be a very stupid and dangerous thing for Sky to be involved in because they are so closely linked to british Cycling and the whole edifice would collapse...

This is also a telling observation, but I would hazard a guess everyone from all sides agrees, it is not in dispute.

...I think that there is absolutely no evidence that Sky dopes...We should be celebrating the growth of our sport (worldwide) not continually making direct accusations with no evidence and no proof...

I agree you are entitled to your opinion ianfra, my (and I am sure many others) opinion is that there is plenty of "evidence" - circumstantial evidence - the nature of which was discussed at great length about 17000 posts ago. Certainly enough evidence to ask pointed questions that have not received satisfactory answers.

The problem with "proof" is the UCI have been exposed as totally corrupt, with vested interests in Team Sky (and TeamGB) success - Olympics, expanding cycling into virgin territory (Great Britain), a new GB Tour for ASO to operate etc etc the original business model of which we have all seen in operation during the USPA/Disco years. My opinion (as well as many others no doubt) is we will never see the proof you are demanding until the usual conflagration down the track because Hein and Fat Pat will cover it up like they have done many times previously (Lance, Bertie etc)

 

[ebandit]

proof

I agree you are entitled to your opinion ianfra, my (and I am sure many others) opinion is that there is plenty of "evidence" - circumstantial evidence - the nature of which was discussed at great length about 17000 posts ago. Certainly enough evidence to ask pointed questions that have not received satisfactory answers.

[/QUOTE]

to me no proof is required to ask questions...after all this is cycling

but the point made by ianfra which i too often state is that here conjecture
is presented as fact

remember it is the right of members to forward their ideas in posts...also
it is the right of other members to point out flaws in reasoning and question those ideas

Mark L

 

[andy1234]

Winning a GT when you've never shown the potential to do so? It's [strike]Dope[/strike] highly suspicious considering what we've learned about doping in professional cycling.
Not Winning or dominating when you once showed you were head and shoulders above everyone for an extended period? It's [strike]Dope[/strike] suspicious evidence you were on dope, but not conclusive.
[strike]Got it?[/strike] Simplifying the points you oppose is never Good for your points, nor to refutation of opposing points.

Well that's one post my freebie sig could have saved you.

Tell your friends, and do something charitable with the time it saves you!

 

[ebandit]

corrupt

I agree you are entitled to your opinion ianfra, my (and I am sure many others) opinion is that there is plenty of "evidence" - circumstantial evidence - the nature of which was discussed at great length about 17000 posts ago. Certainly enough evidence to ask pointed questions that have not received satisfactory answers.

The problem with "proof" is the UCI have been exposed as totally corrupt, with vested interests in Team Sky (and TeamGB) success - Olympics, expanding cycling into virgin territory (Great Britain), a new GB Tour for ASO to operate etc etc the original business model of which we have all seen in operation during the USPA/Disco years. My opinion (as well as many others no doubt) is we will never see the proof you are demanding until the usual conflagration down the track because Hein and Fat Pat will cover it up like they have done many times previously (Lance, Bertie etc)

to me no proof is required to ask questions...after all this is cycling

but the point made by ianfra which i too often state is that here conjecture
is presented as fact

remember it is the right of members to forward their ideas in posts...also
it is the right of other members to point out flaws in reasoning and question those ideas

i disagree re the uci being shown to be 'totally' corrupt yes! there are serious doubts over the actions of the uci but describing them as 'totally' corrupt is
rather wayward

we are yet to discover if team sky have been given a 'free' pass by the uci

Mark L

 

[coinneach]

This kernel of your post is excellent ianfra, I agree completely.



This is also a telling observation, but I would hazard a guess everyone from all sides agrees, it is not in dispute.



I agree you are entitled to your opinion ianfra, my (and I am sure many others) opinion is that there is plenty of "evidence" - circumstantial evidence - the nature of which was discussed at great length about 17000 posts ago. Certainly enough evidence to ask pointed questions that have not received satisfactory answers.

The problem with "proof" is the UCI have been exposed as totally corrupt, with vested interests in Team Sky (and TeamGB) success - Olympics, expanding cycling into virgin territory (Great Britain), a new GB Tour for ASO to operate etc etc the original business model of which we have all seen in operation during the USPA/Disco years. My opinion (as well as many others no doubt) is we will never see the proof you are demanding until the usual conflagration down the track because Hein and Fat Pat will cover it up like they have done many times previously (Lance, Bertie etc)

Yes, but has there been anything new since those 17,000 posts?
And the fact that this thread keeps going without anything new??
In my opionion, its the perceived link to usps, and the hatred that remains towards Lance. Get over it guys!

 

[martinvickers]

I know your entitled to your opinion and all that - but what burden of proof is needed on an internet forum, m'Lord?

You're confusing burden and standard - burden is a 'whose', not a 'what'.

Burden of proof - who has to do the proving. "The burden lies with the prosecution; the burden lies on the defendant"
Standard of proof - how convincing do you have to be, what level of proof." the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The plaintiff must prove on the balance of probabilities (except in libel)"

pro bono, of course.