Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[mewmewmew13]

Where did ChewbaccaD mention you?

sockpuppet

 

[Tonton]

Sky's results (in stage races) improved dramatically after they hired Leinders.
You don't have to be a genius to figure out what that meant.

Michael Barry's latest book which is released in summer should be an interesting read.

So this goes back to my point (before the personal stuff ): if the UCI really wants to know, they can. It doesn't take millions to hire a PI agency, hack a computer (ask Floyd Landis, he'll hook you up), bug his phone, see who he meets and who he talks to. It's just a matter of allocating $ for what matters, i.e. cleaning/saving the sport before it becomes as credible as pro wrestling and sponsors/TV go away (like in Germany).

 

[DirtyWorks]

Sky's results (in stage races) improved dramatically after they hired Leinders.
You don't have to be a genius to figure out what that meant..

Oh, but there's no evidence of doping. At all. So your attacks are ... Insert+personal+attacks+here.

Some would have you believe since sky is 'clean' lienders is doing 'clean' doctor things. Except lienders left Rabbo because the bosses went clean.

Cleanest peloton ever... Until the doping disclosures..

 

[Tonton]

Oh, but there's no evidence of doping. At all. So your attacks are ... Insert+personal+attacks+here.

Some would have you believe since sky is 'clean' lienders is doing 'clean' doctor things. Except lienders left Rabbo because the bosses went clean.

Cleanest peloton ever... Until the doping disclosures..

Weird post of yours. Like you believe Peloton is right, and if so, why the personal+attacks stuff. Maybe I missed something. Sorry if I'm dumb: I was cheering for LA at first, Landis in his Eddy Merckx ride in 2006, so I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Well, except I believed l'Equipe, and the laboratory in Chatenay Malabry where I was tested years ago. And at the time didn't dare posting anything, since it was all a French conspiracy. So the 'no evidence', 'never tested positive' is lame to me. Isn't it sad that we are on a cycling website where a majority of people view 'the clinic'? Yikes. And we can't change a thing unless the powers-that-be investigate, expose, BAN. No Riis, no Vinos, done, gone...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Weird post of yours. Like you believe Peloton is right, and if so, why the personal+attacks stuff. Maybe I missed something. Sorry if I'm dumb:

Theory: the first line is sarcasm (a skybot parody), the second two are sincere. You're not dumb, emoticons were required.

 

[ebandit]

soda

I'm notifying the moderators now I wasn't responding to you.

.......................crushed

Mark L

 

[RownhamHill]

So all posts which say sky dope are the same? Libertine Seguros's award winning essays are the equivalent of the Bennoti posts to which Dr Mas is responding?

Pretty clearly not.

But to be fair, from what I remember about Libertine's and Race Radio's posts on the subject of Sky, I'm not sure they'd disagree too much with Dr Mas when he wrote his own view 'ie I strongly think they're doping, but I don't know how, and I can't point to any killer evidence'.

And really, that's all I meant by complimenting Dr Mas's post - in a line or two he sums (erm, distils it almost) up about where this tread has got to. That's all.

 

[gillan1969]

Pretty clearly not.

But to be fair, from what I remember about Libertine's and Race Radio's posts on the subject of Sky, I'm not sure they'd disagree too much with Dr Mas when he wrote his own view 'ie I strongly think they're doping, but I don't know how, and I can't point to any killer evidence'.

And really, that's all I meant by complimenting Dr Mas's post - in a line or two he sums (erm, distils it almost) up about where this tread has got to. That's all.

killer evidence???? What do you call Froome?

 

[RownhamHill]

killer evidence???? What do you call Froome?

Ermm, Chris?

 

[gillan1969]

Ermm, Chris?

there's none so blind as those who will not see....

 

[gooner]

there's none so blind as those who will not see....

Surely there's enough evidence for Rownham Hill to call him Chris.

 

[RownhamHill]

there's none so blind as those who will not see....

Christopher?

 

[gillan1969]

Christopher?

What evidence do you have that Christopher isn't doping?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What evidence do you have that Christopher isn't doping?

I know this wasn't directed at me - but the answer to that is none.
I am subject to correction - but I believe that will match your answer.

Which ultimately means you have a conclusion, which I agree with, but nothing more.

 

[RownhamHill]

What evidence do you have that Christopher isn't doping?

WTF?

You're trying to pick a fight with me because, in trying to compliment another poster's post (in fact, in trying to clarify it was a compliment to another poster who'd questioned it) I para-phrased what the original poster had said rather than directly quoting.

Is that really is what is going on here?

So, sorry to answer a question with a question, but what evidence do you have that I've ever made any claim that Christopher 'Chris' Froome isn't doping? If you can find me any evidence that I've ever said that, then maybe I'll look at what I said and see if I can find any evidence to back it up. Maybe.

Until then, in the interests of board harmony, do you want to just drop it?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Stannard admitted that he will be glad to have the extra racing of Tirreno-Adriatico in his legs ahead of the Classics – "I think the best way to race well is to go to races," he said – but suggested another important tweak for Sky’s approach to the monuments, namely, defining team leadership beforehand.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/stannard-believes-sky-should-have-fewer-leaders-at-classics

If Sky introduce this revolutionary, "go to races to (improve form and) race well", how long do you think it will be before everyone else starts to copy them?

Do you think Brailsford is upset at Stannard for sharing secret Team Sky training protocols?

Don't even get me started on the "team leader" marginal gain for monuments. Ai caramba!

I wouldn't be surprised if Stannard is kicked off Sky in 2015, for such impertinence.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

If Sky introduce this revolutionary, "go to races to (improve form and) race well", how long do you think it will be before everyone else starts to copy them?

Do you think Brailsford is upset at Stannard for sharing secret Team Sky training protocols?

Don't even get me started on the "team leader" marginal gain for monuments. Ai caramba!

I wouldn't be surprised if Stannard is kicked off Sky in 2015, for such impertinence.

This is another 'doperific' claim that has never stood up: Why race when you can have training camps?

The fact is that there are so many variables in a race (including ego, external pressure, team performance commitments, to say nothing of the fact that you're stuck with a bunch of other guys that want to kick your @ss), that there is no way you could ever actually execute perfect race simulation in training.

What a canard.

You don't race for two reasons. You're either scared of the truth racing exposes in your form, or you're busy doing "preparation".

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The difference in stress alone, between moving around a bunch of 200+ riders for the first hour vs 6 of your team mates would prove decisive when it comes to performing well in a classic, imo.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

.......................crushed

Mark L

Learn to read.

Cheers

 

[sittingbison]

You're trying to pick a fight with me...Until then, in the interests of board harmony, do you want to just drop it?

correctomundo RownhamHill

gillan1969, think a bit before your next post. Here, this will make it easier for you:

The Other Rules
If you break these rules, you're risking being banned. Think before you post.

...

• Cruising the boards looking for a fight

cheers
bison

 

[gillan1969]

correctomundo RownhamHill

gillan1969, think a bit before your next post. Here, this will make it easier for you:



cheers
bison

apologies, let harmony resume....

to be fair it was the paraphrasing I was questioning....and hence, as a discussion forum, it was meant to be a contribution to a round table discussion rather than having, or pickling a fight. Or at least a fight wasn't the intention so apologies again if that's what was picked up...

..the case of christopher is so ridiculous as to be killer evidence all on its own...we don't need test results, disgruntled employeees or stuff found in bins....he mocks (clean) cycling with every ridicuous 'attack' .......

 

[DirtyWorks]

Weird post of yours. Like you believe Peloton is right, and if so, why the personal+attacks stuff. Maybe I missed something. .

No worries sometimes I make no sense. It was supposed to read as a summary of two particularly weak factors some faithful use.

Weaker arguments when faced with the unpleasant reality of Sky's many inconsenstencies frequently devolve to a personal attack. For example, "That dirtyworks hates winners and is a conspiracy nut with all that nonsense about Sky."

In better cases, "there are no acceptable facts" to support Sky possibly doping because there are no positives. Why some need some official determination when the official source hides positives and is totally corrupt remains a strange thing.

There are better arguments, so it's not like *everyone* does this, but those are two worst cases roughly summarized.

 

[RownhamHill]

apologies, let harmony resume....

to be fair it was the paraphrasing I was questioning....and hence, as a discussion forum, it was meant to be a contribution to a round table discussion rather than having, or pickling a fight. Or at least a fight wasn't the intention so apologies again if that's what was picked up...

..the case of christopher is so ridiculous as to be killer evidence all on its own...we don't need test results, disgruntled employeees or stuff found in bins....he mocks (clean) cycling with every ridicuous 'attack' .......

So in other words you kind of agree with Dr Mas's original post. . .

 

[ChewbaccaD]

WTF?

You're trying to pick a fight with me because, in trying to compliment another poster's post (in fact, in trying to clarify it was a compliment to another poster who'd questioned it) I para-phrased what the original poster had said rather than directly quoting.

Is that really is what is going on here?

So, sorry to answer a question with a question, but what evidence do you have that I've ever made any claim that Christopher 'Chris' Froome isn't doping? If you can find me any evidence that I've ever said that, then maybe I'll look at what I said and see if I can find any evidence to back it up. Maybe.

Until then, in the interests of board harmony, do you want to just drop it?

apologies, let harmony resume....

to be fair it was the paraphrasing I was questioning....and hence, as a discussion forum, it was meant to be a contribution to a round table discussion rather than having, or pickling a fight. Or at least a fight wasn't the intention so apologies again if that's what was picked up...

..the case of christopher is so ridiculous as to be killer evidence all on its own...we don't need test results, disgruntled employeees or stuff found in bins....he mocks (clean) cycling with every ridicuous 'attack' .......

I feel like I'm in the middle of a sewing circle. WTF us up with this place? This is an intertubes forum, and civility will not be fu*king tolerated!

Now: LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!! Gentlemen, step back to your corners......FIGHT!!!

 

[RownhamHill]

I feel like I'm in the middle of a sewing circle. WTF us up with this place? This is an intertubes forum, and civility will not be fu*king tolerated!

Now: LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!! Gentlemen, step back to your corners......FIGHT!!!

<adopts cockney accent> Leave it Gill, he's not worth it</adopts cockney accent>