Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Graham_S]

Wow, thanks for all the responses. A lot there to digest. Everything I had previously read suggested cyclists were left to themselves for too much of their training.

Second thing that bothers me is the omerta thing, I understand how it worked before... say.... 2010ish as so many Journalists and fans were prepared to proactively turn a blind eye. But now? There are a lot of journalists who would love to blow Sky apart and a lot of cycling fans ready to listen. If there were obvious holes in the bilharzia then I would expect to see interviews with the world expert in the parasite splashed accross every website and sportspage, it's be a carreer maker. But all we get are anonymous people in forums. Same with getting the scoop from any ex-sky employee, carreer maker.

How many people would be in the know and be keeping quiet for Sky to be running an organised doping program? I imagine there would be serious money in the book deal for whoever spilled the beans first.


p.s For the guy who didn't realise, was being toungue in cheek about Quintana, his performance at such a young age was if anything more impressive than Froome's.

 

[Froome19]

Wow, thanks for all the responses. A lot there to digest. Everything I had previously read suggested cyclists were left to themselves for too much of their training.

That depends on the team. I have mentioned reading some scary articles from BMC riders about their training regimes and the laid back nature of it. David Millar has also spoken about it. However, Movistar have been much better and most other teams are fast jumping on the bandwagon, including now also BMC considering the interviews they have done this season. Nevertheless one thing which can't be disputed is that Sky were first to monitor and scrutinise their rider's training intensely.

It will be interesting to see how the arms race now evolves with other team's catching on, but what is for sure is that Sky have a significant head start.

 

[peloton]

It will be interesting to see how the arms race now evolves with other team's catching on, but what is for sure is that Sky have a significant head start.

Sky's results (in stage races) improved dramatically after they brought in Dr. Leinders.

Now riddle me that.

 

[Graham_S]

Sky's results (in stage races) improved dramatically after they brought in Dr. Leinders.

Now riddle me that.

They were a young team that improved quickly over just a couple of years, fairly reasponable time scale to get over teething problems. Bit desperate to try to pin it all on Leinders.

 

[Netserk]

Nevertheless one thing which can't be disputed is that Sky were first to monitor and scrutinise their rider's training intensely.

And that is indisputable? Really? It never, ever happened before Sky?

 

[SundayRider]

Sky's results (in stage races) improved dramatically after they brought in Dr. Leinders.

Now riddle me that.

Can just imagine him saying this 'Christoper/Bradley you are a great rider, you have the potential to be a champion you just have to be more healthy and professional'

 

[Graham_S]

Is this 2001?? Change Sky to USPS and Froome to Armstrong and we are right back thirteen years!

Yes. Back with a dominant team that is innocent until proven guilty. But with a lot more people looking for mud to sling but not finding anything beyond a handfull of employees with dodgey pasts.

 

[Graham_S]

As much as I enjoy the comparison to the new earth nonsense

Thank you, I was very pleased with myself for that.

And there's no guarantees that we'll ever find out one way or the other.

Sadly true, but I didn't have some faith in the current generation I riders I wouldn't be able watch pro cycling.

 

[SundayRider]

Yes. Back with a dominant team that is innocent until proven guilty. But with a lot more people looking for mud to sling but not finding anything beyond a handfull of employees with dodgey pasts.

Wiggins breakout performance in 2009 Tour de France, look at all the riders who finished either just in front or behind him, how can you possibly believe that was done squeaky clean? Especially since prior to that Wiggins had never ever shown any ability (beyond riding in the gruppetto) at challenging at Grand tour level.Wiggins was 29 years old in 2009 also.

 

[ebandit]

well

Especially since prior to that Wiggins had never ever shown any ability (beyond riding in the gruppetto) at challenging at Grand tour level.Wiggins was 29 years old in 2009 also.

what do olympic gold medals mean to anyone anyway.........completely
overated!

Mark L

 

[Graham_S]

Wiggins breakout performance in 2009 Tour de France, look at all the riders who finished either just in front or behind him, how can you possibly believe that was done squeaky clean? Especially since prior to that Wiggins had never ever shown any ability (beyond riding in the gruppetto) at challenging at Grand tour level.Wiggins was 29 years old in 2009 also.

2009 was the year he lost a load of weight, previously he still looked like a track rider. If he had just been competing on the road for 10 years and came good at 29 you would have a point, but I think you are deliberately ignoring the obvious (although I am sure you think it is me ignoring the obvious!).

 

[The Hitch]

New here. Sky seem to have mainly been convicted on this board solely down to their performances .

Wow, your first full sentence and youve already discredited yourself. That's a record, I think.

 

[the sceptic]

2009 was the year he lost a load of weight, previously he still looked like a track rider. If he had just been competing on the road for 10 years and came good at 29 you would have a point, but I think you are deliberately ignoring the obvious (although I am sure you think it is me ignoring the obvious!).

Damn it, why didnt anyone tell Riis and Armstrong about this? If only they knew that losing weight can make one of the worst climbers in the peloton into one of the best in 1 year they could have won clean too.

 

[Red Lobster]

was being toungue in cheek about Quintana, his performance at such a young age was if anything more impressive than Froome's.

Really, ya think? Honestly, the same is true of most of the peloton.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes. Back with a dominant team that is innocent until proven guilty. But with a lot more people looking for mud to sling but not finding anything beyond a handfull of employees with dodgey pasts.

They may be 'innocent' as regards sanctions- but that does not mean they do not dope.

The handful of employees with a dodgy past is actually a very good place to start - particularly when Team Sky said they had no plans on ever hiring such people.

 

[The Hitch]

David Millar has also spoken about it

Wait, did you really try to point to the words of millar as evidence of something?? The **** is this, redundant argument day?

 

[The Hitch]

Wiggins became good because the peloton became clean.

2009 tour de France
1 Contador - doping
2
3 Lance Armstrong doping
4 Wiggins
5 Frank Schleck - doping
6 Andreas Kloeden - doping
7
8 Kreuziger - doping

KOM Delfino - doping

Crashed out contenders
Levi Leipheimer - doping
Denis Menchov - doping.

 

[The Hitch]

what do olympic gold medals mean to anyone anyway.........completely
overated!

Mark L

You're right. What are the odds on Michael Phelps to win the Tour de France ?

 

[SundayRider]

2009 was the year he lost a load of weight, previously he still looked like a track rider. If he had just been competing on the road for 10 years and came good at 29 you would have a point, but I think you are deliberately ignoring the obvious (although I am sure you think it is me ignoring the obvious!).

Armstrong and Ullrich looked like track riders all of their careers didn't do them much harm. Even at their racing weights they were arguably bigger built than Wiggins was during his track years.

 

[Graham_S]

The handful of employees with a dodgy past is actually a very good place to start - particularly when Team Sky said they had no plans on ever hiring such people.

Yep, good place to start. But it is getting old now and hasn't really turned up anything substantial to suggest these guys were up to their old tricks.

I think it is clear that the sponsors believe in the recruitment policy more than the team do. Team seem more focused on the now than the past.

 

[SundayRider]

what do olympic gold medals mean to anyone anyway.........completely
overated!

Mark L

Not sure if your being sarcastic or not but track medals don't mean a lot in terms of road performance. Wiggins was hardly winning road time trials left right and centre was he.

 

[SundayRider]

Wiggins became good because the peloton became clean.

2009 tour de France
1 Contador - doping
2
3 Lance Armstrong doping
4 Wiggins
5 Frank Schleck - doping
6 Andreas Kloeden - doping
7
8 Kreuziger - doping

KOM Delfino - doping

Crashed out contenders
Levi Leipheimer - doping
Denis Menchov - doping.

Think we can rule out A Schleck being clean also.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yep, good place to start. But it is getting old now and hasn't really turned up anything substantial to suggest these guys were up to their old tricks.

I think it is clear that the sponsors believe in the recruitment policy more than the team do. Team seem more focused on the now than the past.

How long does it normally take?

There was a guy called Dr. Leinders who was with Rabo, and he was doping there throughout -he was only publicly outed in 2012.
It can be a slow process.

 

[Graham_S]

Armstrong and Ullrich looked like track riders all of their careers didn't do them much harm. Even at their racing weights they were arguably bigger built than Wiggins was during his track years.

Yep, certainly a big tick in favour of Wiggo being clean.

 

[romnom]

Thank you, I was very pleased with myself for that.



Sadly true, but I didn't have some faith in the current generation I riders I wouldn't be able watch pro cycling.

Obviously nothing wrong with that. Just good to remember that the amount of science in these discussions is rather limited. Very unlike arguing the age of the earth. Here science gets used more in a similar fashion to infomercials. Lots of people (and teams) making claims of their own scientific superiority with very little evidence to to back those claims up. And as you point out, some people always have their reasons to have more faith than others...