Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[del1962]

Good post.

Of course the evidence the bots are looking for is a positive test, so this is just another way of saying "never tested positive"

How does a bot look for evidence.

Example of one of sceptics typical troll posts

 

[Graham_S]

Cos Mullah Graham and the cycling Taliban say so.

Thank you for making this new member feel so welcome.

 

[Graham_S]

Actually, they are. Not even in question.

ev·i·dence

noun
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Performances are however not proof. People do seem to get those words confused pretty often. The powers that be have decided that performances are not enough evidence to sanction anyone, and that's the correct decision. But evidence they are, and in some cases the evidence is overwhelming.

I sit corrected.

But I do not think the evidence against Sky is overwhelming. Someone has to be the best.

 

[Netserk]

I sit corrected.

But I do not think the evidence against Sky is overwhelming. Someone has to be the best.

But do they have to ride as fast as dopers?

 

[bobbins]

Watch Chris (pack fodder) Froome sprint up Ventoux and tell me that something dodgy isn't going on!

 

[Graham_S]

But do they have to ride as fast as dopers?

Armstrong Era dopers? They said it was doable when the team launched and they appear to have nailed it. Have they found 15 things making a 1% difference each or are they using the same 1 thing? The former feels right to me.

 

[Graham_S]

Watch Chris (pack fodder) Froome sprint up Ventoux and tell me that something dodgy isn't going on!

Something dodgey isn't going on.

 

[Netserk]

Armstrong Era dopers? They said it was doable when the team launched and they appear to have nailed it. Have they found 15 things making a 1% difference each or are they using the same 1 thing? The former feels right to me.

What 15 things?

 

[the sceptic]

Armstrong Era dopers? They said it was doable when the team launched and they appear to have nailed it. Have they found 15 things making a 1% difference each or are they using the same 1 thing? The former feels right to me.

you appear to be deep in fantasy land. how much of a riders overall performance is made up of sleeping habits, washing hands, warming down etc? If you find 15 things to improve by 1%, it doesnt mean you become 15% better as a rider.

 

[red_flanders]

Armstrong Era dopers? They said it was doable when the team launched and they appear to have nailed it. Have they found 15 things making a 1% difference each or are they using the same 1 thing? The former feels right to me.

Why does it mean anything to you that they said they were going to do it? How have they done it? How specifically have they gotten riders (who were not elite riders in the peloton) to ride as fast (and faster) as Armstrong era dopers? Particularly since no one ever has bridged the massive gap between clean and blood doped/EPO riders, or even come close?

The 1% notion is completely erroneous. Please read this article from the Science of Sport for a more realistic view of the improvement modern doping can give riders.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/the-effect-of-epo-on-performance/

I have to say if your information on cycling consists of re-stating Sky PR, you have a lot to learn about cycling. Kudos to you for coming here and asking questions. I hope the above information is helpful.

 

[MartinGT]

Something dodgey isn't going on.

Wait on.

Are you Chris Froomes dad?

 

[Graham_S]

What 15 things?

In reality there are probably more than 15 things that have improved on the bikes since the Armstrong Era and another bunch'o'stuff around understanding and using power meter data in training and racing. And yes many details around warming down and recovery. Aerodynamics (obv not so important for climbing).

In every sport where humans race we go faster each year, it was never about if clean riders could go faster than Armstrong era dopers but when. Sky are just a little ahead of shedule.

 

[Netserk]

In reality there are probably more than 15 things that have improved on the bikes since the Armstrong Era and another bunch'o'stuff around understanding and using power meter data in training and racing. And yes many details around warming down and recovery. Aerodynamics (obv not so important for climbing).

In every sport where humans race we go faster each year, it was never about if clean riders could go faster than Armstrong era dopers but when. Sky are just a little ahead of shedule.

So what 15 things that can give a 1% benefit each?

 

[MartinGT]

In reality there are probably more than 15 things that have improved on the bikes since the Armstrong Era and another bunch'o'stuff around understanding and using power meter data in training and racing. And yes many details around warming down and recovery. Aerodynamics (obv not so important for climbing).

In every sport where humans race we go faster each year, it was never about if clean riders could go faster than Armstrong era dopers but when. Sky are just a little ahead of shedule.

Man you are one sucker for PR BS from Sky!

MY games teacher made us warm down 16 years ago, it aint new!!!

You think other teams dont use their power meteres in training?

"Wait on lads, these power metre things, why dont we use them in training instead of just races?"

Pffft Hook line and sinker.

 

[MartinGT]

Some of the riders who have been with Sky (Rogers for example) generally if a rider of his age and experience if they got 2% improvement on their best it would be amazing, but 15%

Haha, you crack me up Graham lad, nice one.

 

[bobbins]

And out of the 15 things, how many haven't been done for years?

Marginal gains is a smokescreen.

Controlling the media and the narrative is part of convincing people that they are clean.

How do most people know Sky are clean? Sky told them they are. Not much meat in that argument but it seems to satisfy most.

 

[The Hitch]

Dude gave himself away when he went to "why do you watch cycling if you think its doped".

The account is rehasing comments such as the one above, that have only ever been made by trolls, buttressing it every few posts with faux politeness and alleged attempts at discussion.
Its like water in the desert though. As the Joachim account last year no matter how much you think you are about to convince him with an argument that no sane person could reject, bam he comes out with a new comment and on the cycle continues and it doesn't stop.

Surprised so many of you think you can win this for us. Type in "like playing chess with a pigeon" into google images. There is a long list of troll arguments he is working off. If people keep thinking they will check mate him, this discussion has a long way to go.

 

[red_flanders]

In reality there are probably more than 15 things that have improved on the bikes since the Armstrong Era and another bunch'o'stuff around understanding and using power meter data in training and racing. And yes many details around warming down and recovery. Aerodynamics (obv not so important for climbing).

In every sport where humans race we go faster each year, it was never about if clean riders could go faster than Armstrong era dopers but when. Sky are just a little ahead of shedule.

I think people are willing to grant that a team could come into cycling and have some innovative ideas and get a 1% performance. There's precious little evidence that this has actually happened, but it's possible.

The objection you hear is on several levels. The first is that 1% is fantasy. The difference between clean times of the past and the times immediately following from EPO and BB boosted riders is on the order of 15%, which is absolutely stunning, a massive increase.

The second is that Sky knows this. They'd be completely uninformed if they didn't, quite the opposite of the position they hold publicly that they're smarter than everyone else. That means that for them to promote the idea that the difference is small enough to be eliminated by warming down and bringing their own pillows means that they are lying. They can't possibly believe that such massive differences can be made up by "training improvements" in a sport where training improvements have been constant and happened for decades.

Which is why you get the reaction you see from people who understand what is and what isn't possible.

Sky's PR is meant to appeal to the British nationalistic idea that "we're smarter and we're doing it better than they are, we do it with fair play and that's why we win." A very compelling argument to the British, who have historically believed this about their own national character versus the continentals for centuries. It plays all day long.

It does however break down instantly on examination of the facts.

 

[martinvickers]

Either way it doesn't look good for sky, they either A) Doped him or B) Were very very careless which completely goes against the teams 'highly scientific, no stone unturned' principles.

I agree, to a point. It appears to be either A) or B). But that point, I think is a fairly important point.

The difference, morally, between A) and B) is pretty darn big. If the worst one could pin on sky was B) it wouldn't mean all that much in the big scheme of Clinic things.

I can't, for the life of me, see why Sky, or any team, would help dope a rider who is NOT on their team but that they intend to sign, to very considerable success all year, and then, when they actually sign him, etheir stop doping him, or change his previously very succesful doping regime, in either case leading to the fact that he absolutely sucks all year long.

It may be technically possible to have done it on the timescales suggested, but it makes absolutely no sense why they'd do it. A basic Ockham failure.

On the other hand, can I understand the 'why' in Sky showing interest in a hitherto unknown British cyclist, with a charming Froome-esque backstory of overcoming illness, a blistering year as a tier 2 rider, and no blood passport to check (or fail), and their desire to have discovered the next Brit revelation overcoming their commonsense in asking how - a commonsense their previous hires suggest is not all there anyway?

No problem at all. It's decidedly careless, bordering if not entering negligent, but unlike the other option, it passes a basic 'why' test. Ambition and greed overcoming good sense is as old as the hills.

I've no proof, either way, of course. I'm not arguing I'm right. But I think it's a fair argument to make about what's realistically plausible.

 

[therhodeo]

Sky's PR is meant to appeal to the British nationalistic idea that "we're smarter and we're doing it better than they are, we do it with fair play and that's why we win." A very compelling argument to the British, who have historically believed this about their own national character versus the continentals for centuries. It plays all day long.

It does however break down instantly on examination of the facts.

I wonder if this type of thing could work in America? Maybe create an image of working harder and having more heart than the competition.

 

[martinvickers]

Why shouldn't I be able to enjoy doped performances?

Because those performances lead directly to the graveyard. It's ghoulish, if nothing else.

 

[Netserk]

Because those performances lead directly to the graveyard. It's ghoulish, if nothing else.

So no one should've been able to enjoy anything from the 90's (cycling wise)?

 

[red_flanders]

I agree, to a point. It appears to be either A) or B). But that point, I think is a fairly important point.

...

Sorry to pull a Hog, but:

Or C) Saw what he was doing, realized (as anyone would) that there was a decent chance he was doping to get those results and weren't bothered by it.

 

[red_flanders]

I wonder if this type of thing could work in America? Maybe create an image of working harder and having more heart than the competition.

No chance. I've never seen anything like that done. Certainly not in the recent history of cycling.

 

[therhodeo]

No chance. I've never seen anything like that done. Certainly not in the recent history of cycling.

Yeah because surely if we'd all witnessed something like this happen in one country we wouldn't be so easily fooled if someone tried it in another country right?