Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Dear Wiggo]

Nah, he is lying.

Nah he is talking about RR from 2012.

That your attitude has changed since is not evident in the posts I have read from you. Your account of your Monaco lunch with Richie, was glowing and effusive if anything.

He wrote that I think all of Sky performances are clean,

Based on RR of 2012. Since that single post, I have asked you to clarify. I note with much interest that rather than clarify, you continue to repeat my original post like it's some kind of example of dastardly behaviour, when it's an interpretation of what you said at the time in 2012.

when I have made it clear several times they are not.

They are not, or you think they are not? There's a massive difference. I looked and the best I could find from you was "I am not saying they are not doping".

You did go on a lot about Froome's tailwind, practically defending his speed up a climb and spend a lot more time dissing Horner. I wonder how you'd be if Froome had ever ridden with Lance...

Why intentionally post a lie like? I don't know what motivates several posters here to write such nonsense

In 2012, you didn't think there was anything wrong. "No smoking gun" = nothing obviously wrong.

At least, that's how I interpret it. Therefore what I wrote, based on that 2012 Race Radio, is the truth as I saw it.

I have asked, repeatedly, how else it could be interpreted, but for some reason, you continue to repeat the "he lied" mantra instead of setting the record straight.

 

[Netserk]

Come on, this statement certainly isn't true.

RaceRadio, however, believes Sky's riders and performances are all clean.

I have seen a lot of statements from RR, but never have I seen that "Sky's riders and performances are all clean".

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Come on, this statement certainly isn't true.

I have seen a lot of statements from RR, but never have I seen that "Sky's riders and performances are all clean".

How else would you interpret, "I see no smoking gun?" Which I cannot believe I have to ask again, having asked both RR and a couple of other people, more than once, and given I have also explained, countless times, that that is the source of my original claim.

Remember: we're talking RR in 2012, I have not seen anything else from him that suggests he thinks they are doping, ever. Happy to be proven wrong, but contrary to his accusation, I do have a life and don't read everything he or anyone else writes. I did have a quick search. Sky is only 3 letters but :-(

"I have asked around, noone's saying anything, I see no smoking gun." (paraphrased)

 

[gooner]

How else would you interpret, "I see no smoking gun?" Which I cannot believe I have to ask again, having asked both RR and a couple of other people, more than once, and given I have also explained, countless times, that that is the source of my original claim.

Remember: we're talking RR in 2012, I have not seen anything else from him that suggests he thinks they are doping, ever. Happy to be proven wrong, but contrary to his accusation, I do have a life and don't read everything he or anyone else writes. I did have a quick search. Sky is only 3 letters but :-(

"I have asked around, noone's saying anything, I see no smoking gun." (paraphrased)

DW, you took a post out of another thread and with a magic wand popped it in here when RR wasn't even in discussion on the topic of the thread. This just points to agenda driven nonsense on your part.

I'm not certain of RR's stance on Sky but he's more than entitled to express his opinion or keep it to himself on the matter as he sees fit than to be harassed into making a comment as I see now.

Give it a rest.

 

[Netserk]

How else would you interpret, "I see no smoking gun?"

That even though he might (or might not) think Sky are dirty as hell, he actually hasn't seen any proof, as he actually had with Postal. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Samson777]

How else would you interpret, "I see no smoking gun?"

If I should interpret, I would say that it means that there is "no smoking gun"> no clear evidence. How that should be the same, as saying that everybody at SKY is clean, I don't understand. Probably that's where the problem with your claim is.

 

[Race Radio]

How else would you interpret, "I see no smoking gun?" Which I cannot believe I have to ask again, having asked both RR and a couple of other people, more than once, and given I have also explained, countless times, that that is the source of my original claim.

Remember: we're talking RR in 2012, I have not seen anything else from him that suggests he thinks they are doping, ever. Happy to be proven wrong, but contrary to his accusation, I do have a life and don't read everything he or anyone else writes. I did have a quick search. Sky is only 3 letters but :-(

"I have asked around, noone's saying anything, I see no smoking gun." (paraphrased)

More lies.

Instead of "Paraphrased" you should use "Intentionally twisted"

 

[Dear Wiggo]

More lies.

Instead of "Paraphrased" you should use "Intentionally twisted"

More avoiding the request for clarification.

Are you scared to actually come out and tell people what you think? Your Richie love was evident. Your Froome defense went on for pages - tailwind has become a new Clinic meme.

I think Brad doped for 2009, 2011, 2012. Based solely on the Betsy protocol of seeing a non-climber climb rings around other dopers and known climbers.

What about you, Race Radio?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

If I should interpret, I would say that it means that there is "no smoking gun"> no clear evidence. How that should be the same, as saying that everybody at SKY is clean, I don't understand. Probably that's where the problem with your claim is.

Agreed, I should have restricted it to Wiggins in particular, the original source of my query.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

DW, you took a post out of another thread and with a magic wand popped it in here when RR wasn't even in discussion on the topic of the thread. This just points to agenda driven nonsense on your part.

I'm not certain of RR's stance on Sky but he's more than entitled to express his opinion or keep it to himself on the matter as he sees fit than to be harassed into making a comment as I see now.

Give it a rest.

If RR does not state clearly that he thinks Sky are doping the terrorists win.

 

[ebandit]

d wiggo

More avoiding the request for clarification.



What about you, Race Radio?

d wiggo when RR rides for team sky ask the question

otherwise please desist

Mark L

 

[Samson777]

d wiggo when RR rides for team sky ask the question

otherwise please desist

Mark L

hah. Don't think that would be a better time to ask. If you really wanna waste your time; ask someone riding for SKY ( or any other team) if they are doping.

 

[Daniel Benson]

Seriously, if this baiting of RR continues I'll start handing out bans directly. That's goes for anyone on here who consistently seems to be looking for an argument and fight. No debate, no argument, enough is enough.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

He wrote that I think all of Sky performances are clean, when I have made it clear several times they are not.

I think that message has not come through properly enough then.

Seriously, if this baiting of RR continues I'll start handing out bans directly. That's goes for anyone on here who consistently seems to be looking for an argument and fight. No debate, no argument, enough is enough.

Dont be such a drama queen, you should have been so harsh when 'legal' couldnt cope with the Joe Papp A hole.

No one is baiting RR here, just a matter of misinterpreting things.

 

[BYOP88]

I think that message has not come through properly enough then.

Dont be such a drama queen, you should have been so harsh when 'legal' couldnt cope with the Joe Papp A hole.

No one is baiting RR here, just a matter of misinterpreting things.

Amen!

10char

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think that message has not come through properly enough then.

RR mentioned it many times, but it was drowned out deliberately by a persistent group.

Dont be such a drama queen, you should have been so harsh when 'legal' couldnt cope with the Joe Papp A hole.

No one is baiting RR here, just a matter of misinterpreting things.

I wouldn't use the term baiting - but it certainly is bashing RR.

Funnily enough, you think DBs warning (another one) is 'harsh' and acting like a drama queen. Dans and the mods intervention is way too late, almost to the point of being inconsequential, if you think that is 'harsh' then your the Drama Queen.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I wouldn't use the term baiting - but it certainly is bashing RR.

Funnily enough, you think DBs warning (another one) is 'harsh' and acting like a drama queen. Dans and the mods intervention is way too late, almost to the point of being inconsequential, if you think that is 'harsh' then your the Drama Queen.

This topic isnt about RR and I am not taking your silly bait, sorry. Better luck next time.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This topic isnt about RR and I am not taking your silly bait, sorry. Better luck next time.

It was and you did. Thanks for playing.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

It was and you did. Thanks for playing.

Wow, you are a fast fella. Only needed a minute and a half for a reply. Was that baiting? Didnt you read Dan's memo? Ouch doccie. NO baiting please.

Really man, get a life.

 

[Samson777]

He wrote that I think all of Sky performances are clean, when I have made it clear several times they are not.

Of course the most interesting question then is: Have you now seen a smoking gun, since you can say that not all Sky's performances are clean?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Wow, you are a fast fella. Only needed a minute and a half for a reply. Was that baiting? Didnt you read Dan's memo? Ouch doccie. NO baiting please.

Really man, get a life.

Dans memo - ya, I read it.
It was cute to see it being heeded for a short-time, then you came along and ignored it.

Isn't that how you guys work it? A little test later to see which mods are around, and if you get a 'warning' and if not you troll again.
Although to be fair, BPC is on the other thread, so if your going to troll you will need to up your game.

 

[the sceptic]

Wow, you are a fast fella. Only needed a minute and a half for a reply. Was that baiting? Didnt you read Dan's memo? Ouch doccie. NO baiting please.

Really man, get a life.

Working as RRs internet body guard he has to respond to attacks fast.

 

[Samson777]

Dans memo - ya, I read it.
It was cute to see it being heeded for a short-time, then you came along and ignored it.

Isn't that how you guys work it? A little test later to see which mods are around, and if you get a 'warning' and if not you troll again.
Although to be fair, BPC is on the other thread, so if your going to troll you will need to up your game.

How is this discussion related to team SKY

 

[Dr. Maserati]

How is this discussion related to team SKY

It isn't - the post I responded wasn't either.
Simply put, if a person is allowed post off topic stuff and nothing is done, I will respond to it. My preference is to discuss it in an approprite thread, but of course a common tactic is to post OT stuff, because it has a higher chance of not being challenged, even when its BS.

It is up to the mods to start modding.

Working as RRs internet body guard he has to respond to attacks fast.

Good to see that you acknowledge this is just an attack on RR, and yes, if the mods are not going to protect RR from having any opinion he wants and then being slammed for it, I will have no hesitation in exposing their lies.

 

[peloton]

It isn't - the post I responded wasn't either.
Simply put, if a person is allowed post off topic stuff and nothing is done, I will respond to it.

And clog another thread with the OT BS? Please resist.

Back to the topic, I guess it's now possible to peak for 10 months...

“We’ve taken stock of that and we’re thinking more about building into the season and sustaining that for longer, rather than hitting it really hard early doors and dropping off in performance.”
Read more at http://www.teamsky.com/article/0,27290,17545_9151484,00.html.#Cbyi9DLFklTsfWcf.99