Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[del1962]

sigh. this has been spelled out to you tons of times.
katusha isn't on the high horse claiming transparency.

They are part of the MPCC though, isn't that a high horse organisation

 

[sniper]

The power data from before the Vuelta is irrelevant. It's going to be lower - you just need to look at his results to know that. The extra data will tell you nothing that you can't learn from looking at CQ Ranking.
A couple of files from his best performances at Barloworld may add something, but nothing Sky has will.

Power data tells you very little about doping, but it does provide something people who post about doping on the internet 24/7 to get excited about. And nothing is going to convince them anyway, so why bother?

if it's that simple, why does Sky claim the release of said data could give an advantage to Sky's opponents?

 

[Parker]

if it's that simple, why does Sky claim the release of said data could give an advantage to Sky's opponents?

Because knowing something about your opposition is better than not knowing it.
(And that comment by you had nothing to do with my comments so you can keep you rolling eyes to yourself. What do you expect to learn from pre-2011 Vuelta data that you can't work out from a results sheet? And would any data be capable of convincing you that you are wrong after posting about it 24/7 for a couple of years?)

 

[sniper]

They are part of the MPCC though, isn't that a high horse organisation

being a member of MPCC is not by far as "high horse" as Sky's PR rethorics has been.

and as soon as katusha start winning TdFs with USPS-style dominance, believe me, people will be on their necks askiong for more transparency.

 

[sniper]

Because knowing something about your opposition is better than not knowing it.
(And that comment by you had nothing to do with my comments so you can keep you rolling eyes to yourself. What do you expect to learn from pre-2011 Vuelta data that you can't work out from a results sheet? And would any data be capable of convincing you that you are wrong after posting about it 24/7 for a couple of years?)

again, ask brailsford, he's the one unwilling to release them.

 

[del1962]

being a member of MPCC is not by far as "high horse" as Sky's PR rethorics has been.

then there are other issues:
katusha wasn't cuddly close with UCI/ASO.
katusha isn't winning TdFs with USPS-style dominance.
katusha don't have walsh
and am probably forgetting some things

Katusha invited McQ to something a few years ago (so they where close then), though they subsequently fell out.

They also had the rider who got the most WT points, three out of the last 4 years (including last two years in a row).

 

[Ferminal]

Good to see my Katusha bumps finally paying dividends.

 

[Parker]

again, ask brailsford, he's the one unwilling to release them.

Brailsford doesn't know what your opinion is.

I'll phrase it differently.

There are two scenarios: either a) Froome's 2011 improvement is down to doping or b) it is not.

With that in mind, what data from 2010-2013 would lead you to conclusion a) and what to conclusion b).

Because if you can't explain the difference then releasing data to you and the rest of the public achieves nothing.

 

[sniper]

Brailsford doesn't know what your opinion is.

I'll phrase it differently.

There are two scenarios: either a) Froome's 2011 improvement is down to doping or b) it is not.

With that in mind, what data from 2010-2013 would lead you to conclusion a) and what to conclusion b).

Because if you can't explain the difference then releasing data to you and the rest of the public achieves nothing.

i'm not sure what you're saying or how it affects this being a major red flag.
this was/is/remains a nobrainer.
why would brailsford release one batch of data and not the other batch?
and why does the one batch of data start at the vuelta, where froome's peak form happened to start as well.
i can answer those questions.
can you?

 

[Benotti69]

Brailsford doesn't know what your opinion is.

I'll phrase it differently.

There are two scenarios: either a) Froome's 2011 improvement is down to doping or b) it is not.

With that in mind, what data from 2010-2013 would lead you to conclusion a) and what to conclusion b).

Because if you can't explain the difference then releasing data to you and the rest of the public achieves nothing.

Putting data in the public domain means that are willing to stand over it. It also shows transparency, which from the outset TeamSky promised.

Let the experts examine the data at their leisure.

 

[Parker]

i'm not sure what you're saying or how it affects this being a major red flag.
this was/is/remains a nobrainer.
why would brailsford release one batch of data and not the other batch?
and why does the one batch of data start at the vuelta, where froome's peak form happened to start as well.
i can answer those questions.
can you?

I can not only ask those questions, I can answer them. The earlier data is of little relevance. Due to injury/illness/form Froome was doing a completely different job for the team so his data will reflect that - it has no more relevance than his data on flat stages now. You need data from his better performances and the few of those were at Barloworld.

 

[sniper]

I can not only ask those questions, I can answer them. The earlier data is of little relevance. Due to injury/illness/form Froome was doing a completely different job for the team so his data will reflect that - it has no more relevance than his data on flat stages now. You need data from his better performances and the few of those were at Barloworld.

if they're of no relevance, it would at least be a PR victory for Sky to release them. You know, credibility and stuff.
And if they're of no relevance, why did they say the opponents would have an advantage by seeing them?
rolleyes.

his data will reflect that

Freeman disagrees.

 

[Parker]

Putting data in the public domain means that are willing to stand over it. It also shows transparency, which from the outset TeamSky promised.

Let the experts examine the data at their leisure.

They have said they are happy to give it all to the relevant authorities.

However, they are understandably weary of some of the self-appointed experts who are either not experts or not trustworthy and are all too keen to misrepresent the data for their own ends.

 

[JimmyFingers]

So if you say you are clean and claim transparency you are asked to prove it, if keep your head down and say nothing people will make assumptions but really don't care as much and generally you get a free ride.

Odd but hey ho

 

[Parker]

if they're of no relevance, it would at least be a PR victory for Sky to release them. You know, credibility and stuff.
And if they're of no relevance, why did they say the opponents would have an advantage by seeing them?
rolleyes.


Freeman disagrees.

No there is no PR 'victory' to be had. Those in the media that give a toss could then ask 20 experts their opinion - if 19 say everything looks fine but one says he has concerns, guess which one's opinion you will cling to for the next five years. And any journalist can easily find that one who will say whatever will get them in the papers.

 

[thehog]

So if you say you are clean and claim transparency you are asked to prove it, if keep your head down and say nothing people will make assumptions but really don't care as much and generally you get a free ride.

Odd but hey ho

Would you like to see the details?

In any case it's a gesture to show there's nothing to hide or untoward.

Horner released his and despite the proclamations that his passport looked like a Tour profile, it didn't. That was just rumour.

Thus far no one has stepped forward to say Horner's profile is that of a doper. I have my doubts on his profile but it did shut a few people up.

Sky should do the same considering ZTP and all that.

People call Sky's BS out because they make claim to being clean and ZTP but its just words.

They don't do themselves any favours.

But I guess that's why they have Walsh. To smooth over these cracks.

 

[sniper]

No there is no PR 'victory' to be had. Those in the media that give a toss could then ask 20 experts their opinion - if 19 say everything looks fine but one says he has concerns, guess which one's opinion you will cling to for the next five years. And any journalist can easily find that one who will say whatever will get them in the papers.

Believers like u showcase why db chose to only disclose the second batch.
otherwise i,d seriously have thought he lost his mind doing that.

 

[Parker]

Believers like u showcase why db chose to only disclose the second batch.
otherwise i,d seriously have thought he lost his mind doing that.

I've told you why he only released the second batch (did L'Equipe even ask for more). But you keep clinging on to the idea that the power data of a domestique not riding at full capacity is somehow indicitive of anything because the data we do have (actual and estimated) seems to have little to support your preformed opinions.

 

[sniper]

I've told you why he only released the second batch (did L'Equipe even ask for more). But you keep clinging on to the idea that the power data of a domestique not riding at full capacity is somehow indicitive of anything because the data we do have (actual and estimated) seems to have little

so what did the second batch show that the first batch will not show? Or vice versa?
They must show something different right? Or do they show the same?
i,m confused here.
freeman said there was no difference between batch 1 and 2
help me out here.

 

[romnom]

What would happen - in my opinion - is that all the people who are accusing of Froome of doping would continue to do so, and simply use the (at this point imaginary) non-suspicious profile as proof of the blood passport's ineffectiveness, and therefore evidence of corruption and omerta permeating the sport and governing body. (As per theHog's original post about Horner that I'm responding to)

Leaving aside whether or not that would be a sound judgement call, seen from the perspective of Chris Froome/TeamSky you can see why they lack motivation to do that - they're being asked to do something that they don't need to do, by people who are already openly accusing them of cheating, in order to probably face exactly the same accusations of cheating from the same people. So a bit of hassle for no real upside.

When faced with that calculus, regardless of whether they're clean or dirty, I'd always expect Sky not to bother, to be honest.

I wouldn't expect Sky to do any calculations based on how they expect the more cynical clinic-type audience reacts to their actions. More likely they focus on their own 'home audience'. The part of the people who are not asking questions that might even support them. To that crowd the upside of a data release seems pretty obvious. Shows they have nothing to hide and is a nice example of their transparency and openness. So assuming them clean, I think it's more likely they just don't want to expose the non-cynical side of the public to discussions that might follow the release of detailed blood data.

Seems sort of backwards to me to focus on the people who already accuse them. More interesting focus on the other side of the audience. Obviously they can be clean and still have their reasons not to release the data. As it is, their optimized PR approach leaves people asking questions and the people supporting their team defending the decision not to release the data. Sort of interesting I think.

 

[Parker]

so what did the second batch show that the first batch will not show? Or vice versa?
They must show something different right? Or do they show the same?
i,m confused here.
freeman said there was no difference between batch 1 and 2
help me out here.

The second batch will show Froome's power data on climbs was higher than in the first batch. I know this because he rode up them faster and got better results.

I have no idea what Freeman has to do with this. He was talking about blood data - none of that has been released to anyone (so no batch 1 and 2).

 

[RownhamHill]

I wouldn't expect Sky to do any calculations based on how they expect the more cynical clinic-type audience reacts to their actions. More likely they focus on their own 'home audience'. The part of the people who are not asking questions that might even support them. To that crowd the upside of a data release seems pretty obvious. Shows they have nothing to hide and is a nice example of their transparency and openness. So assuming them clean, I think it's more likely they just don't want to expose the non-cynical side of the public to discussions that might follow the release of detailed blood data.

Seems sort of backwards to me to focus on the people who already accuse them. More interesting focus on the other side of the audience. Obviously they can be clean and still have their reasons not to release the data. As it is, their optimized PR approach leaves people asking questions and the people supporting their team defending the decision not to release the data. Sort of interesting I think.

I think you're right that Sky focus on the 'home audience'. But through that lens I really can't see the upside of releasing data - at best you're reassuring people who don't need reassurance because they already believe in you, so in fact, as you point out, all you achieve is to possibly expose them to the discussions (and innuendo) that would follow release of the data. What's the point in that?

Whatever their PR approach they're still going to have 'people asking questions'. They only need to act if too many of the home audience join the group asking questions. Step outside the Clinic, and there's no groundswell of people in the UK pointing fingers, so what exactly does Sky gain by releasing data?

 

[Parker]

I wouldn't expect Sky to do any calculations based on how they expect the more cynical clinic-type audience reacts to their actions. More likely they focus on their own 'home audience'. The part of the people who are not asking questions that might even support them. To that crowd the upside of a data release seems pretty obvious. Shows they have nothing to hide and is a nice example of their transparency and openness. So assuming them clean, I think it's more likely they just don't want to expose the non-cynical side of the public to discussions that might follow the release of detailed blood data.

Seems sort of backwards to me to focus on the people who already accuse them. More interesting focus on the other side of the audience. Obviously they can be clean and still have their reasons not to release the data. As it is, their optimized PR approach leaves people asking questions and the people supporting their team defending the decision not to release the data. Sort of interesting I think.

I think you are vastly overestimating how many people give a toss about the data. It's only a section of the media and some internet obsessives. Most people - the 'home audience' and most of the 'road audience' aren't all that interested in doping at all and don't really think about it. The only way they will even notice the data is if someone uses it to make an accusation.

 

[RownhamHill]

I think you are vastly overestimating how many people give a toss about the data. It's only a section of the media and some internet obsessives. Most people - the 'home audience' and most of the 'road audience' aren't all that interested in doping at all and don't really think about it. The only way they will even notice the data is if someone uses it to make an accusation.

This, expressed much more eloquently than I managed above.

 

[Parker]

This, expressed much more eloquently than I managed above.

It's being first that counts. I look like I'm copying.