Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[BroDeal]

Yep, you never mentioned at all except referencing JV.

I did not write about the Bosman rule. I wrote about thehog making a lot more sense because what he wrote contained his reasoning for his position. The people attacking him were not giving any reasoning for why he was wrong.

While searching for a post to pull out of context, you seem to have missed these:

I don't know anything about Bosman. JV was clear about his reasoning and the implications it would have for the sport if rich teams were allowed to run roughshod over poor teams. Walrus does not want to accept that JV knows why he made his own decision.

I just said that thehog was the one giving a reasoned opinion. All Andy was giving was, "No, no, no." thehog's argument sounded reasonable. It also included ways the ruling changed the market that go beyond the specifics of the ruling, something you guys have not addressed. Beyond that, from what we have seen, Skyborgs would deny smoking is harmful if they thought it would excuse Sky, so I have to trust in thehog, just like you should trust Samuel Adams (Always a good choice!).

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Translation: When making excuses for Sky's unexplainable transformation of its riders, we will claim that Sky's budget relative to other teams gives them a advantage except when it is pointed out that there are companies in cycling with much larger budgets and the aggregate spending of other teams dwarfs Sky's budget, in which case we will claim that a huge budget does not matter.

I think we can term this Team Sky apologists' Through the Looking Glass thinking.

“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?”

Nice of you to ignore every example I have posted.

Look I realise you were (are?) a big Landis fan and believed right to the bitter end that he was innocent. You felt like a fool but rather than just admit to yourself that you were duped you have to try and take it out on other people to try and make yourself feel better. A classic case of transference.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I did not write about the Bosman rule. I wrote about thehog making a lot more sense because what he wrote contained his reasoning for his position. The people attacking him, like you, were not giving any reasoning for why he was wrong.

Yes you did.

Ok back it up then. Post one attack that I made.

 

[BroDeal]

Could someone explain why Microsoft (whose revenues dwarf all those bike companies) seem to always miss the boat recently. They thought the internet was pretty much a fad, same could be said for search engines, mobile, tablets, etc... For all their money, history and expertise (within and bought) they still seem to design and produce sh!t products.

Yet a couple of guys in a garage surpassed them, Yahoo, Excite and all the others that have been left by the wayside.

You seem to have your analogy backwards. British Cycling is the monolithic Microsoft. Thousands of exercise and physiology PhDs and PhD candidates are the Internet or, more accurately, a huge free market where ideas are tested against each other.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

The people attacking him, like you, were not giving any reasoning for why he was wrong.

I imagine people were 'attacking' him because he was making things up that were untrue. Unlike Hoggy it must be said but true none the less.

You like to make it out that anyone that makes a point in Sky's favour is a Sky apologist yet often when LS or Hrotha make one of their many good posts I don't remember people trying to explain it away?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

You seem to have your analogy backwards. British Cycling is the monolithic Microsoft. Thousands of exercise and physiology PhDs and PhD candidates are the Internet or, more accurately, a huge free market where ideas are tested against each other.

Now you are just countering your original argument and confirming my point about there being no absolutes. At least you saved everyone some time.

 

[BroDeal]

Yes you did.

Ok back it up then. Post one attack that I made.

No I did not.

I am not going to search through posts, stalking you, for one post I can pull out of context to make an attack. That is your style, not mine.

The Sky apologists were just attacking thehog without making a cogent argument about why he was wrong, and your crew never dealt with the second part of his argument, which was how the market was transformed by the fallout from the ruling. To someone who is unfamiliar with European soccer, thehog was making a lot more sense. It was not until later, when more knowledgeable posters showed up, that the record was set straight with an explanation. Basically, I trust thehog a lot more than I trust you guys, with your "people were okay with Contador dominating but changed their views when Sky started winning" BS.

 

[BroDeal]

Now you are just countering your original argument and confirming my point about there being no absolutes. At least you saved everyone some time.

You are just dodging the point. What huge innovation have Sky come up with that no one ever thought of before, an innovation that can turn back of the pack chumps like Froome into champions?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

No I did not.

I am not going to search through posts, stalking you, for one post I can pull out of context to make an attack. That is your style, not mine.

Translation. There was no post where I attacked Hoggy.

You can't even find a post from then to 'pull out of context'.

I had forgotten how easy it was to pull apart your arguments.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

You are just dodging the point. What huge innovation have Sky come up with that no one ever thought of before, an innovation that can turn back of the pack chumps like Froome into champions?

Again, show me a single post where I have said or even implied that Froome's transformation is normal.

 

[BroDeal]

Look I realise you were (are?) a big Landis fan and believed right to the bitter end that he was innocent. You felt like a fool but rather than just admit to yourself that you were duped you have to try and take it out on other people to try and make yourself feel better. A classic case of transference.

Hey, look. Pedro is making stuff up again. First it was an imaginary legion of Contador fans that suddenly became fervent anti-dopers when Sky started winning. Now he thinks I was dumb enough to believe Landis. Next maybe you can accuse me of believing in Armstrong.

Talk about projection. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Just because you are naff enough to believe in Sky does not mean others here were naff enough to believe in Landis or Contador or whatever other boogeyman you can come up with.

I had forgotten how easy it was to expose your lies.

 

[MarkvW]

But for dope, Froome would be a "back of the pack chump?"

Has anyone, outside semi-anonymous Internet commentators, ever made that claim?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Hey, look. Pedro is making stuff up again. First it was an imaginary legion of Contador fans that suddenly became fervent anti-dopers when Sky started winning. Now he thinks I was dumb enough to believe Landis. Next maybe you can accuse me of believing in Armstrong.

Talk about projection. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Just because you are naff enough to believe in Sky does not mean others here were naff enough to believe in Landis or Contador or whatever other boogeyman you can come up with.

I believe you are dumb enough for many things. I am still waiting for all these Froome examples as well as the attacks on Hoggy.

I have given plenty of example of how money is not always the stem of innovation. You don't seem to be able to back any of you positions.

Keep digging.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I had forgotten how easy it was to expose your lies.

Ok, put your money where you mouth is (as it were)

Post the examples of my attacking Hoggy on the Bosman rule (obviously excluding the posts just now). If you can I will stop posting. However, if you cannot, you stop posting?

Let's see where the Brovado goes.

 

[BroDeal]

Again, show me a single post where I have said or even implied that Froome's transformation is normal.

Right after you show me a single post where I said I believed in Landis.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Ok, put your money where you mouth is (as it were)

Post the examples of my attacking Hoggy on the Bosman rule (obviously excluding the posts just now). If you can I will stop posting. However, if you cannot, you stop posting?

Let's see where the Brovado goes.

Come one Brodeal?

Or are you feeling like

 

[BroDeal]

I believe you are dumb enough for many things. I am still waiting for all these Froome examples as well as the attacks on Hoggy.

I have given plenty of example of how money is not always the stem of innovation. You don't seem to be able to back any of you positions.

Apparently you were too dumb to look at the second half of the argument. It is not just money. It is money plus a huge number of others looking for an advantage. There are thousands of PhDs searching to find something to publish. All the players in the field, professors, for-profit companies, coaches, teams, act as a free market. The chance that one player finds and maintains an advantage that gives the same step up as dope is remote.

The bottom line is this: If you want to claim a magic innovation that is equivalent to doping then what is it? You don't even have to be specific. name the area where such a gain is possible.

 

[BroDeal]

Still waiting for you to find evidence that I believed in Landis.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

 

[BroDeal]

 

[BroDeal]

Has anyone, outside semi-anonymous Internet commentators, ever made that claim?

He was a back of the pack chump. Brailsfraud himself rated Froome as the worst rider on the team and someone who was barely adequate for domestique duty at the World Tour level.

 

[hrotha]

Back to the "favourable parcours" thing, I'd like to point out I totally called it at the time.

 

[roundabout]

I remember him saying that in an interview. He still used and paid del Moral.

I see that you still fail to mention that Landis stated that he learned how to do transfusions on his own.

 

[gooner]

I see that you still fail to mention that Landis stated that he learned how to do transfusions on his own.

No, I didn't.

I remember him saying that in an interview.

He still used del Moral. Same with Lance in 2005 after he was supposed to have dropped Ferrari. Lance had knowledge too. You still need expertise. I don't deny Sky could be doing something on the side.

Regarding Sky, Farrell had little or no dealings with Leinders before taking over the main doctor role for the 2012 Tour onwards.

 

[gooner]

I'd forgotten that bit of "sportsmanship" by the Stiff Upper Lippers. Makes the incident even more distasteful.

I hope Horner, Contador, and Nibali are on Grade A, Prime #1 sh!t this year.

Why would anyone want to watch a sport dominated by one team of dopers? If there is going to be massive rider transformations from doping then the least we can hope for is more teams to do it so there will be some sort of vague entertainment value.

Then you're not in a position to decry it with Sky.

I actually think the Contador reference is a legit one. I can't remember anyone saying similar about wanting other riders to dope when he was hitting it off.