Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[The Hitch]

I find it hard to say who was most extreme of him and Froome. Wiggo had after all the '09 Giro as a middle step before the '09 Tour. Froome just came out of nowhere in '11.

You mean this middle step ?

35- Chris Froome -1 hr 15 minutes
(Twice as far down the list)
70-Bradley Wiggins -2 hrs 20 minutes.

 

[hrotha]

Yeah, at least Froome always was this "well-rounded guy who can climb and time-trial", even though obviously he did that at a completely ridiculous different level starting in September 2011. But he didn't change the type of rider he was. Wiggins? Totes did.

 

[Col Okey]

Why to a lesser extent Wiggins? His was the most extreme of the lot.

To be fair I did write a slightly lesser extent but because of the "years concentrating on the track", "favourable 2012 parcours", and the fact that his biggest transformation arguably didn't happen at Sky but at Garmin I suppose I find Wiggins slightly less ridiculous but I accept that this reasoning is pretty thin.
edit I was talking about their time at Sky.

 

[SundayRider]

I find it hard to say who was most extreme of him and Froome. Wiggo had after all the '09 Giro as a middle step before the '09 Tour. Froome just came out of nowhere in '11.

Froome arguably had better results from a younger age than BW did. Wasn't he 16th or something in the final ITT at the 08 Tour?

 

[Netserk]

I didn't mean that Wiggins transformation was smaller than Froome's (it wasn't), but that his transformation took (a little) longer than Froome's transformation (which was completely over night).

 

[The Hitch]

To be fair I did write a slightly lesser extent but because of the "years concentrating on the track", "favourable 2012 parcours", and the fact that his biggest transformation arguably didn't happen at Sky but at Garmin I suppose I find Wiggins slightly less ridiculous but I accept that this reasoning is pretty thin.
edit I was talking about their time at Sky.

Favourable parcors?

What you mean all those tt kilometers?

I wonder who would be the winner of the race if you take away all 3 time trial results and just look at the road stages.

Oh look. Still Bradley Wiggins

 

[DirtyWorks]

If people are doping LESS, then cleanER athletes will rise up the order.

No. Back up a few steps. What is "doping?" Getting caught is "doping." Everything else, it seems to many, is NOT doping.

Chris Horner proves the case that there is rampant doping even though he's "never tested positive" with a profile that is bright flashing red lights suspicious. Historically, we know the UCI won't open longitudinal cases on some favored riders. Others are not so lucky. Others are chased around the world.

Sky seemingly has some riders favored by the UCI.

 

[BYOP88]

Froome arguably had better results from a younger age than BW did. Wasn't he 16th or something in the final ITT at the 08 Tour?

Froome's final 7 stages TdF 2008

Stage 15: 127th @25'33 finished in a group of 40 riders only 6 riders finished after this group, including the noted climbers Chicchi and Casper)
Stage 16: 138th @31'56 (Part of the autobus)
Stage 17: 31st @11'41 Froome tried to on this stage.
Stage 18: 114th @7'07 Break wins the stage but Froome is in a group that drops 17 seconds to the main field.
Stage 19: 134th @3'08 Only 11 riders finished after.
Stage 20: 16th @3'00 Give it a go and finished behind riders like Voigt, Pate, Hesjedal. He did manage to hammer Amael Moinard by 4 seconds.
Stage 21: dead last @1'37

So Froome did ok on stage 20 but he'd been saving energy in the days building up to it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Do I think Cookson is going to clean up cycling? I'm going to say no.
Was McQuaid corrupt? yes or no Did SKY dominate under a corrupt UCI president? yes or no

I will use Lemonds lawyers definition and say yes, as well as the obvious yes to Sky.

I am not flaming you here, I literally do not get where this goes though.
You didnt answer my question, and the reason I asked it is if McQ is to brought in to the mix, then logically Sky falls apart (in direct proportion to how complicit McQ was) when Cookson arrives.
If you don't see things change when Cookson arrives, then it is not McQ thats corrupt, but the UCI.

And more importantly - if the answer is yes to "Did SKY dominate under a corrupt UCI president?" - then what makes what Sky does unique?
If he was corrupt then why only share that with Sky?

 

[Col Okey]

I will use Lemonds lawyers definition and say yes, as well as the obvious yes to Sky.

I am not flaming you here, I literally do not get where this goes though.
You didnt answer my question, and the reason I asked it is if McQ is to brought in to the mix, then logically Sky falls apart (in direct proportion to how complicit McQ was) when Cookson arrives.
If you don't see things change when Cookson arrives, then it is not McQ thats corrupt, but the UCI.

And more importantly - if the answer is yes to "Did SKY dominate under a corrupt UCI president?" - then what makes what Sky does unique?
If he was corrupt then why only share that with Sky?

I think I was probably guilty of arguing against something that you never said but the point I was trying to make is that a lot of people defend Sky while at the same time saying that McQuaid/UCI are/were corrupt and to me these thing are mutually exclusive (again I know you never said this)

As for why Sky I thought maybe Sky TV would become a big player in cycling coverage and that way they could have thrown £milllions into cycling under the guise of securing tv rights but they have shown no sign of doing this so the answer to your question is I don't know

 

[Benotti69]

Sky are Tramadol users

Jeremy Whittle ‏@jeremycwhittle 3h
Tramadol is in common use in the peloton, and Sky admit using it. The MPCC have asked WADA to ban it, but that hasn't happened...yet.

Jeremy Whittle ‏@jeremycwhittle 2h
Barry says Tramadol made him euphoric, legs were painless and could push harder than normal.

Jeremy Whittle ‏@jeremycwhittle 2h
...also says that some riders took Tramadol every time they raced....

Somehow Walsh missed this.

 

[red_flanders]

And more importantly - if the answer is yes to "Did SKY dominate under a corrupt UCI president?" - then what makes what Sky does unique?
If he was corrupt then why only share that with Sky?

London. Olympics. Promotion.

Another miracle for the home team. Felt like Barcelona in '92 and the amazing rise of Spain as a sporting power.

And all that comes with it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sky are Tramadol users



Somehow Walsh missed this.

Somehow Walsh did miss it.

And so did you - here is an article from last year where Sky discuss their use of tramadol and seeking it to be banned:

Farrell confirmed that Team Sky has used Tramadol in the past and would do in the future if the situation called for it but stated that the team would not use the drug in a training scenario.

“We would never have used it in training. It’s only a medication that we would have used very minimally and in a supervised environment. I just can’t believe people would use it in a training environment.”

“It’s definitely something that we would have as medication within the team but it would only be something that we’d use in the appropriate scenario.”

 

[martinvickers]

London. Olympics. Promotion.

Another miracle for the home team. Felt like Barcelona in '92 and the amazing rise of Spain as a sporting power.

And all that comes with it.

Except they did marginally better in China (market 1.x billion odd). Where was the Chinese cycling miracle? They'd pay better, they'd have more talent lying about, they'd be more willing to push the envelope Ma's army style? So where was their Beijing miracle?

 

[trevim]

Froome's final 7 stages TdF 2008

Stage 15: 127th @25'33 finished in a group of 40 riders only 6 riders finished after this group, including the noted climbers Chicchi and Casper)
Stage 16: 138th @31'56 (Part of the autobus)
Stage 17: 31st @11'41 Froome tried to on this stage.
Stage 18: 114th @7'07 Break wins the stage but Froome is in a group that drops 17 seconds to the main field.
Stage 19: 134th @3'08 Only 11 riders finished after.
Stage 20: 16th @3'00 Give it a go and finished behind riders like Voigt, Pate, Hesjedal. He did manage to hammer Amael Moinard by 4 seconds.
Stage 21: dead last @1'37

So Froome did ok on stage 20 but he'd been saving energy in the days building up to it.

I love it when people try to justify Foome's rise to the top based on previous results The reality was out there for so long and nobody could see how good Froome was.

 

[martinvickers]

Favourable parcors?

What you mean all those tt kilometers?

I wonder who would be the winner of the race if you take away all 3 time trial results and just look at the road stages.

Oh look. Still Bradley Wiggins

By 26 seconds.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

London. Olympics. Promotion.

Another miracle for the home team. Felt like Barcelona in '92 and the amazing rise of Spain as a sporting power.

And all that comes with it.

See, this is a discussion.
Thats actually good - and yet so is MVs answer.

My own opinion, ie merely a view or hunch is that corrupt officials do not really care who pays them, just as long as they are paid. And they are more interested in protecting the 'brand', so any big name if caught and they could get them out of a jam they would. (like Condator in 2010)

 

[roundabout]

I love it when people try to justify Foome's rise to the top based on previous results The reality was out there for so long and nobody could see how good Froome was.

For current Sky riders finishing top 10 and climbing consistently top 15-20 in your first GT as a neo professional is still not considered a sign of talent.

So I don't see what Froome should have done in 2008 to please the current skeptics.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

How about judging Leinders and Sky based on performances before him?

And of course no knowledge was gained during the time he was employed...

A very good question roundabout, but I guess it is not interesting for the vortex who has again hi - jacked a topic.

 

[hrotha]

By 26 seconds.

Those 26 seconds still mean he outclimbed everyone except for his own teammate.

 

[BroDeal]

Sky are Tramadol users

Somehow Walsh missed this.

Steve Tilford had a blog post about finisher bottles. He mentions how he did not understand why Porte would break the rules to give Froome a bottle so close to a race finish. But looking into finisher bottles (a bottle that contains Tramadol and crushed up caffeine pills), which Taylor Phinney mentioned were being used, made sense of it.

http://stevetilford.com/2013/10/14/racing-on-opiates/

It seems to me that use of this stuff indicates a way of thinking. A team that has no problem pumping its riders up with painkillers and stimulants at the end of a race will not have a problem with other kinds of doping.

 

[gooner]

It would have all changed on La Toussuire if Froome wasn't held back.

 

[gooner]

A very good question roundabout, but I guess it is not interesting for the vortex who has again hi - jacked a topic.

If it's all about knowledge, why didn't Lance remove Ferrari a lot earlier so?

Could have saved a lot of payments too.

Why did Floyd use del Moral in 2005?

 

[roundabout]

Congratulations on making one of the more inane comparisons.

Please think for a bit how those 2 situations are different.

 

[the sceptic]

By 26 seconds.

If Greipel wins the tour this year, will you believe in him?