Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[The Hitch]

It is interesting that Sky can take on an immensely talented rider like EBH and do nothing for him, while at the same time turning a mediocre rider like Froome into the Tour de France favourite. I'm not sure the general public picked up on the doping angle of Kimmage's question though, since I reckon Sky is still generally regarded as a clean team. That might change this Tour if they unleash the Froome Dog on Ventoux or the Alpe.

Hopefully this was a bit of a wake-up call for EBH. Sky is not the team for him.

Anyone who doesn't raise their eybrows at Bradley Wiggins winning the Tour de France by 6 minutes from 3rd place, with his own teammate in 2nd, won't raise their eybrows no matter what. Froome can do Alpe in 20 minutes, it wont matter to them.

 

[the sceptic]

Dawg will win the tour by 10 minutes
(Hog is absent so someone had to do it)

 

[Ripper]

Well F*kc Me!

Gee wiz, le Tour starts tomorrow. I might need to bug out of the forum for the next 3 weeks.

It's gonna get full ***. I just don't know if I can handle the idiocy.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Dawg will win the tour by 10 minutes
(Hog is absent so someone had to do it)

Better than that, another 1-2 with third a loooonnnnnngggggg waaaayyyyyy baaaackkkk kkk kkkk kkk kk k. Anything less and this might be interesting.

 

[Race Radio]

Kimmage asked questions about why SKY's program did not work for EBH, whose form has dropped in the last 2 years.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/kim...eo-diary-inside-the-media-scrum-29382483.html

This is a very legitimate question, one that does not have to be about doping.

I expect he will be smeared for it, but I think that would be a mistake.

 

[ebandit]

sky

Kimmage asked questions about why SKY's program did not work for EBH, whose form has dropped in the last 2 years.

I expect he will be smeared for it, but I think that would be a mistake.

forum pages were mad with reactions yesterday

kimmage was correct to ask... why should cycle fans NOT know the truth

again my thoughts are that ebh was closer to reaching his potential whereas

wiggo and froomey had been under performing

Mark L

 

[The Hitch]

Matt Rendell full ***. Talking about how Wiggins being not so good this year is proof that sport is clean because amazing performances take their toll on riders.

Doesnt seem to enter his 3 braincells that Froome is performing even better this year

Also says Gilbert failing to back up 2011 is another example of this.

Umm yeah

 

[Miburo]

Matt Rendell full ***. Talking about how Wiggins being not so good this year is proof that sport is clean because amazing performances take their toll on riders.

Doesnt seem to enter his 3 braincells that Froome is performing even better this year

Also says Gilbert failing to back up 2011 is another example of this.

Umm yeah

Contador 2011 is another example. Clean sport man.

Seriously though i doubt there are bigger retards than cyclist journalists. It's just absolutely horrible, how can they be so bad?

 

[Alphabet]

Presumably because they're paid to do so.

 

[martinvickers]

It was wrong of Kimmage to ask because:
His personality.
He was only looking for attention.
EBH is nice and shy - don't say he is not progressing.
It is not how good journalists act.
Shameless self promotion.
He is an outcast.

Etc etc

Back on topic, Doc ;-)

It wasn't wrong of Kimmage to ask. Not at all. He can ask what he wants. It is odd so many expect him not to, or declare he shouldn't. He's entitled to speak his mind and hold his views.

I found it more amusing that several, including Daniel Benson, of this site, criticised Kennaugh for his response. Because he also wasn't wrong. He's entirely entitled to come to an opinion about Kimmage, and express it how he likes. He can ask what he wants. He's entitled to speak his mind and hold his views.

I just can't but find it amusing that so many fangirls on both 'sides' seem to think 'their guy' is immune from criticism and entitled to say anything, regardless of whether it's true or who it offences, but the 'other guy' is treated the exact opposite way for the exact same thing.

Of course, in fact, both sides might be right - could be they're all d!cks and deserve each other!

And note, please, I said 'could' - the present conditional - as in "it's possible" - that's all.

 

[Race Radio]

I found it more amusing that several, including Daniel Benson, of this site, criticised Kennaugh for his response. Because he also wasn't wrong. He's entirely entitled to come to an opinion about Kimmage, and express it how he likes. He can ask what he wants. He's entitled to speak his mind and hold his views.

He is certainly allowed to have his own views.....even if they are wrong.

Paul is far from a "disrespectful loser". He asked a legitimate question. Instead of addressing the question Kennaugh smeared the messenger. Stupid move. I can understand writing off a bunch of nobodies on twitter but Paul is not a nobody. He asked a question that most professional journalists have been wondering about for the last 18 months.

It is a big mistake to think that smearing Paul was the "Right" move. It wasn't.

 

[andy1234]

He is certainly allowed to have his own views.....even if they are wrong.

Paul is far from a "disrespectful loser". He asked a legitimate question. Instead of addressing the question Kennaugh smeared the messenger. Stupid move. I can understand writing off a bunch of nobodies on twitter but Paul is not a nobody. He asked a question that most professional journalists have been wondering about for the last 18 months.

It is a big mistake to think that smearing Paul was the "Right" move. It wasn't.

Criticising or "smearing" Kimmage isn't a big mistake.
Unless you think he would take that criticism as an excuse to be vindictive?
I'm sure a respectable journalist like Kimmage wouldn't dream of it.....

 

[Race Radio]

Criticising or "smearing" Kimmage isn't a big mistake.
Unless you think he would take that criticism as an excuse to be vindictive?
I'm sure a respectable journalist like Kimmage wouldn't dream of it.....

Of course you respond with more smearing.

Instead of addressing his very legitimate question they SKY, and their fans, smeared him. Paul is not a loser. He asked a legitimate question that many in the sport are interested in. That does not make him vindictive, it makes him a journalist.

Instead of smearing him the right thing to do would be to answer the question. Clearly something is wrong. It could very well be that this has nothing to do with doping. He could have personal issues. Maybe he has GI issues like Froome? Regardless asking why a Pro who was supposed to be huge falls off the map is a legit question. It is not vindictive. It is not wrong. Paul is not a loser

 

[gooner]

He is certainly allowed to have his own views.....even if they are wrong.

Paul is far from a "disrespectful loser". He asked a legitimate question. Instead of addressing the question Kennaugh smeared the messenger. Stupid move. I can understand writing off a bunch of nobodies on twitter but Paul is not a nobody. He asked a question that most professional journalists have been wondering about for the last 18 months.

It is a big mistake to think that smearing Paul was the "Right" move. It wasn't.

I agree about the question in the press conference. I have no problem in asking that.

Yet Kimmage said afterwards separately on Norwegian TV, he was surprised EBH stayed at Sky for so long and mentioned he must be on serious money. He immediately went on to say he wasn't ambitious enough as a rider which implies that he's just happy to sit on his wages. That can be seen as disrespectful as well and something I don't think he would be happy at seeing said. Like many have said, he hasn't fulfilled on his early potential as much as we all thought he would but that can be said for many people in various sports across the board. Early potential and success doesn't mean you will necessary have sustained good results for the rest of your career. It happens regurlarly in sport and it can't be just be put down to lack of ambition or because he is on huge money. There is nothing to suggest what Kimmage said here is true with EBH.

 

[the sceptic]

An athlete going to the highest bidder? Impossible

 

[Taxus4a]

I agree about the question in the press conference. I have no problem in asking that.

Yet Kimmage said afterwards separately on Norwegian TV, he was surprised EBH stayed at Sky for so long and mentioned he must be on serious money. He immediately went on to say he wasn't ambitious enough as a rider which implies that he's just happy to sit on his wages. That can be seen as disrespectful as well and something I don't think he would be happy at seeing said. Like many have said, he hasn't fulfilled on his early potential as much as we all thought he would but that can be said for many people in various sports across the board. Early potential and success doesn't mean you will necessary have sustained good results for the rest of your career. It happens regurlarly in sport and it can't be just be put down to lack of ambition or because he is on huge money. There is nothing to suggest what Kimmage said here is true with EBH.

Questions about EBH are ok, but the problem is the way the question is done:

Kimmage asked why Edvald Boasson had not developed into a Tour de France team leader under Brailsford's management at Team Sky, and asked why the team had instead brought in Froome.



He maybe was a good journalist, but this is not for a good journalist.

 

[the sceptic]

Whats wrong with that question?

please reply in less than 1000 words.

 

[gooner]

An athlete going to the highest bidder? Impossible

Can you add to this and show more substance to your point that EBH might be sitting on his wages?

I'm sure Brailsford would waste a Tour spot on a guy who was riding within himself due to him being happy with the money he's on. All this when he has Uran and Henao on the sidelines.

 

[Race Radio]

Questions about EBH are ok, but the problem is the way the question is done:

Kimmage asked why Edvald Boasson had not developed into a Tour de France team leader under Brailsford's management at Team Sky, and asked why the team had instead brought in Froome.



He maybe was a good journalist, but this is not for a good journalist.

It is a valid comparison. SKY have made a very public stance that their success is because of their system. Kimmage asked the very legit question of why did this system work for Froome but had the opposite effect to EBH?

Good question by a good journalist

 

[Race Radio]

I agree about the question in the press conference. I have no problem in asking that.

Yet Kimmage said afterwards separately on Norwegian TV, he was surprised EBH stayed at Sky for so long and mentioned he must be on serious money. He immediately went on to say he wasn't ambitious enough as a rider which implies that he's just happy to sit on his wages. That can be seen as disrespectful as well and something I don't think he would be happy at seeing said. Like many have said, he hasn't fulfilled on his early potential as much as we all thought he would but that can be said for many people in various sports across the board. Early potential and success doesn't mean you will necessary have sustained good results for the rest of your career. It happens regurlarly in sport and it can't be just be put down to lack of ambition or because he is on huge money. There is nothing to suggest what Kimmage said here is true with EBH.

I think Sky would rather Kimmage say EBH lack of success is based on him being lazy then because a change in his doping program.

kimmage is likely right.

 

[mikehammer67]

David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST 5h
Two Dutch journalists have written a sensational book on doping within Rabobank team, Blood Brothers, unfortunately not yet out in English.

David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST 4h
Many ask whether Geert Leinders is implicated in Blood Brothers. According to the authors, he was the central support figure to doping.

 

[the sceptic]

Can you add to this and show more substance to your point that EBH might be sitting on his wages?

I'm sure Brailsford would waste a Tour spot on a guy who was riding within himself due to him being happy with the money he's on. All this when he has Uran and Henao on the sidelines.

Maybe EBH is happy with being a domestique at sky while making more money than he would elsewhere, or maybe he thinks sky is the best place for him to develop. Who knows, but i dont think its unreasonable to think he wants to make as much money as possible.

Just because he wants to get paid doesnt mean he will not work hard for the team. And i dont think he is wasted on the team, they need someone for the flat train too.

 

[andy1234]

It is a valid comparison. SKY have made a very public stance that their success is because of their system. Kimmage asked the very legit question of why did this system work for Froome but had the opposite effect to EBH?

Good question by a good journalist

Sky's successful system is designed to win races.
It isn't to develop as many potential winners as possible.
One winner will do, and a team to back that winner up.

EBH may be able to develop into a tour winner, but while Sky has tour winners here and now, EBH is best used as a component in that system.

It's a truth, but not one that a team manager necessarily wants to discuss in front of EBH at a packed press conference.

If Kimmage thought about this for one minute, he could have come to that conclusion himself, unless he WAS chasing a doping angle.

Either way the question was bound to be met with an uncomfortable response.

Its the way Kimmage works, and It's why Kimmage asked it....

 

[martinvickers]

He is certainly allowed to have his own views.....even if they are wrong.

Paul is far from a "disrespectful loser".

And that is YOUR opinion, to which, equally, you're entitled. Doesn't mean you're right, either. See how this works?

He asked a legitimate question.

See above.

Instead of addressing the question Kennaugh smeared the messenger. Stupid move.

See above.

I can understand writing off a bunch of nobodies on twitter but Paul is not a nobody. He asked a question that most professional journalists have been wondering about for the last 18 months.

In MY OPINION, whether Paul Kimmage is a 'nobody' or not is irrelevant. You don't write people off because of their fame or lack thereof. You right them off if they talk sh!te. Nobodies who talk sh!te, superstars who talk sh!te all the same.

Or in more highfaluting language, I reject the fallacy of appeal to authority. Just 'cause Kimmo said it, doesn't of itself make it a worthwhile thing to be said. It rests on its merits. As does thinking Paul is, as you quoted a "disrespectful loser"..and a "walter" (?!)

Which Peter clearly thought of Paul. In HIS OPINION. to which, i think we've already established, he's entitled. Haven't we?

It is a big mistake to think that smearing Paul was the "Right" move. It wasn't.

Or maybe we haven't.

Still, see above.

 

[Race Radio]

SNIP

Thanks for proving my point.

No matter how you try to justify it is a stupid move for Sky, and their fans, to smear Kimmage for asking a legit question.