Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[blackcat]

Basically, the things you demonise him for are:

3. Backing his friends in an argument (Barry)

you mean, the guy who rode that Hamilton World Championship like a different rider?

 

[Parker]

you mean, the guy who rode that Hamilton World Championship like a different rider?

No. I mean if you have friends - you back them up. You may be wrong in the long run. But you back them up.

Some posters on here need to a) play sport and b) be part of a team.

 

[the sceptic]

This is what we are dealing with here...mother of god

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrT-KqBPipw

this guy is probably a prophet on BikeRetard. cant believe its possible for people to be this dumb. jeez.

 

[peloton]

this guy is probably a prophet on BikeRetard. cant believe its possible for people to be this dumb. jeez.

Unreal.
It's literally back to the 2000's, just this time it's with a British accent instead of the American one...

 

[RobbieCanuck]

I’ve always been a bit of a fan of Lance and have sided on the side of innocent until proven guilty with him. There isn’t an athlete or a cyclist out there that isn’t more tested than he is, certainly since his comeback, he’s probably been the most tested cyclist in the pro peloton and you take that on face value and that he’s never failed a drugs test and until he does he’s clean. That’s how I’ve always had as a stance on Lance.”

The fallacy of your belief is that LA intentionally set out to beat the tests, by hiring Ferrari to teach him and his team-mates how to cleanse the PEDs from their bodies before a test. In some cases in LAs case it almost didn't work as when he was caught in the Tour de Suisse and when Hincapie warned him off a test so LA withdrew from a race. He was also caught in the 1999 tour with cortisone and scrambled to get a questionable TUE.

WADA, and all the national anti-doping agencies are aware or should be aware that cyclists who cheat have to find ways to beat the tests and therefore consult doctors, pharmacologists, and perhaps physiotherapists to learn how to do so. They are not so naïve as to believe beating tests is by any measure the mark of a clean cyclist. Marion Jones in the USA is the classic example of a doping test beater. (The UCI, Verbruggen and McQuaid are probably exceptions to this understanding)

The fact someone beats a test is hardly a reasonable basis on which to conclude a cyclist is not doping. Therefore it is hardly a basis for saying a cyclist is clean because he hasn't failed a drug test. A cheating cyclist knows s/he has to learn the physiology of beating a test and that is why dopers beat tests.

There is a plethora of evidence for this in the admissions of dopers, books written by dopers and USADA's reasoned decision on Armstrong alone.

 

[Granville57]

The fallacy of your belief...

And you claim to have been a lawyer.

Diggs absentmindedly left out the first set of these (").

Sheesh.

 

[blackcat]

hence, the euphemism "IQ tests"

put simply, the tests dont work.

The fallacy of your belief is that LA intentionally set out to beat the tests, by hiring Ferrari to teach him and his team-mates how to cleanse the PEDs from their bodies before a test. In some cases in LAs case it almost didn't work as when he was caught in the Tour de Suisse and when Hincapie warned him off a test so LA withdrew from a race. He was also caught in the 1999 tour with cortisone and scrambled to get a questionable TUE.

WADA, and all the national anti-doping agencies are aware or should be aware that cyclists who cheat have to find ways to beat the tests and therefore consult doctors, pharmacologists, and perhaps physiotherapists to learn how to do so. They are not so naïve as to believe beating tests is by any measure the mark of a clean cyclist. Marion Jones in the USA is the classic example of a doping test beater. (The UCI, Verbruggen and McQuaid are probably exceptions to this understanding)

The fact someone beats a test is hardly a reasonable basis on which to conclude a cyclist is not doping. Therefore it is hardly a basis for saying a cyclist is clean because he hasn't failed a drug test. A cheating cyclist knows s/he has to learn the physiology of beating a test and that is why dopers beat tests.

There is a plethora of evidence for this in the admissions of dopers, books written by dopers and USADA's reasoned decision on Armstrong alone.

 

[blackcat]

and you can just pee in your shorts and in the shower to delay the new hydrated test urine like Leon Van Bon did in the Philly Pro with Mercury Viatel circa 2000

 

[JimmyFingers]

Basically, the things you demonise him for are:

1. Changing his mind as facts and time change (2007-2012)
2. Being diplomatic and not inserting himself into an argument (Not calling everyone dopers)
3. Backing his friends in an argument (Barry)
4. Not trusting the motives of people who have previously slagged him off. (Kimmage)

Basically he's human. Are you?

Good post, pragmatic and realistic, and not expecting Wiggins to be some evangelical anti-doping crusader. Of course when a rider does call another one out, chances are the clinic will turn on them, like they did with Kittel, saying he was '****ting in the pool' for calling out a rider that was popped three months later. He can't win this one, let them enjoy a further round of prejudice.

 

[Digger]

The fallacy of your belief is that LA intentionally set out to beat the tests, by hiring Ferrari to teach him and his team-mates how to cleanse the PEDs from their bodies before a test. In some cases in LAs case it almost didn't work as when he was caught in the Tour de Suisse and when Hincapie warned him off a test so LA withdrew from a race. He was also caught in the 1999 tour with cortisone and scrambled to get a questionable TUE.

WADA, and all the national anti-doping agencies are aware or should be aware that cyclists who cheat have to find ways to beat the tests and therefore consult doctors, pharmacologists, and perhaps physiotherapists to learn how to do so. They are not so naïve as to believe beating tests is by any measure the mark of a clean cyclist. Marion Jones in the USA is the classic example of a doping test beater. (The UCI, Verbruggen and McQuaid are probably exceptions to this understanding)

The fact someone beats a test is hardly a reasonable basis on which to conclude a cyclist is not doping. Therefore it is hardly a basis for saying a cyclist is clean because he hasn't failed a drug test. A cheating cyclist knows s/he has to learn the physiology of beating a test and that is why dopers beat tests.

There is a plethora of evidence for this in the admissions of dopers, books written by dopers and USADA's reasoned decision on Armstrong alone.

I was quoting word for word what wiggins said about lance!!

 

[LaFlorecita]

Is the comment I posted strong doubt on Wiggins part with Contador?

Yes or no. Simple answer.

I already knew and acknowledged Wiggins's comment that you referred to.

No, he was criticizing Contador's participation in that Tour. He still thought Contador was innocent or so he said. He never said the opposite.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Basically, the things you demonise him for are:

1. Changing his mind as facts and time change (2007-2012)
2. Being diplomatic and not inserting himself into an argument (Not calling everyone dopers)
3. Backing his friends in an argument (Barry)
4. Not trusting the motives of people who have previously slagged him off. (Kimmage)

Basically he's human. Are you?

In which category do his comments on Contador and Lance fall? AFAIK they're not his friends and neither is he just being diplomatic.

 

[Digger]

In which category do his comments on Contador and Lance fall? AFAIK they're not his friends and neither is he just being diplomatic.

Indeed. Talking about landis' mental state and other personal issues was really diplomatic. Something he admits was gang mentality.
Is diplomatic the new name for bully...

 

[bobbins]

This is what we are dealing with here...mother of god

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrT-KqBPipw

What an utter, utter cretin.

He could be any on the Johnny come lately 'journalists' in the same vein as Richard Moore who are trying to protect the golden egg laying goose.

With people like that following the sport, there is no hope for professional cycling.

 

[Digger]

What an utter, utter cretin.

He could be any on the Johnny come lately 'journalists' in the same vein as Richard Moore who are trying to protect the golden egg laying goose.

With people like that following the sport, there is no hope for professional cycling.

funny you should mention moore - he told me he'd see me in court last fedruary 12mths when I said he wasn't honest in his writings about sky.

 

[gillan1969]

What an utter, utter cretin.

He could be any on the Johnny come lately 'journalists' in the same vein as Richard Moore who are trying to protect the golden egg laying goose.

With people like that following the sport, there is no hope for professional cycling.

where would cults be without fools like him...pity his comments section is disabled....tool

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

This is what we are dealing with here...mother of god

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrT-KqBPipw

Some Brits love freedom of speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=GrT-KqBPipw#t=264

Sue, sue, sue. Must be a Bikeretard fooligan, or, is it satire? I cant see anyone saying this without laughing.

 

[The Hitch]

Good post, pragmatic and realistic, and not expecting Wiggins to be some evangelical anti-doping crusader. Of course when a rider does call another one out, chances are the clinic will turn on them, like they did with Kittel, saying he was '****ting in the pool' for calling out a rider that was popped three months later. He can't win this one, let them enjoy a further round of prejudice.

Eh, which facts changed exactly between 2007 and 2009 as Wiggins became pro Armstrong

evangelical anti-doping crusader.

Oh, god. "You can't expect him to be a saint" The most pathetic line of argument in the history of debate. Used to justify and euphemize absolutely any action from people who are more willing to abandon all moral principle rather than aknowledge the opponent has a point.

Same as the -but Barry was his friend, argument. So? That defense cannot work for someone who claims to be so anti doping.
You can't have your cake and eat it. This is elementary stuff. A politician can't get elected on anti corruption and then for example.give tax breaks to businesses that paid him. That would be morally outrageous. But here you are defending that kind of behaviour. Oh it's ok because he's not a saint. Either legitimately be anti doping, or keep your mouth shut. Not - lets claim we are anti doping, but then hire dopers quietly and defend dopers when it suits us.

That's exactly the behaviour that causes people to conclude there is something really dodgy here, and that's before we even get to the onroad domination.
Whatever else it's unquestionably immoral.

And I can see now why it doesn't mean anything to you. Because you just admitted that you either have no moral compass, or you throw it away whenever it comes to debating sky.

 

[The Hitch]

He deserves huge criticism for the Lance one but I strongly disagree with the Contador one. Wiggins is an idiot but I notice a theme here where one line of his statements are produced to push a certain position while at the same time not taking what he has said elsewhere to judge him more appropriately.

Wiggins is an idiot? Based on what. I've seen a lot more rationality from him in pre 09 interviews and even in the ones post 09, than from the vast majority of cyclists. The only things wrong with most of them are that he's being a hypocrite or a liar. But even intelligent people are capable of that, hell, more capable. There's nothing stupid about them whatsoever.

2 there's a reason why when someone says 2 things the worst one is the one that usually gets taken- because people are expected to say the right one all the time.

If a public figure for example said - " I believe women should stay in the kitchen" would he be able to cancel that out ? He could make the opposite statement every day for the rest of his life, it won't matter, because everyone is expected to say that. The unpc comment, even if the person later retracts it, is met with surprise.

Also I don't see how the 2 comments you link challenge it anyway. 1 he says it's bad from a sporting perspective that a guy who's positive is lining up (is it contador he is refering to?-4times?) The other he says he would like anti doping raids. Yeah they all say that though. Armstrong even paid to give uci anti doping equipment. It means nothing to say you want better anti doping cos saying so doesn't threaten you in any way.

Though having said that, I don't necessarily think what Wiggins said about contador goes that against him. Certainly doesn't compare to his Armstrong stuff which was full out passionate defense
But it does contribute to the narrative that Wiggins became pro doping in 2009. Armstrong many times, whole podium of 2009,.says it's ok for vino to be back, believes contador, praises basso, says riding with Pantani was greatest giro moment, repeated praise for the great tom Simpson, I think its pretty conclusive that Wiggins has absolutely nothing against dopers. And he certainly did in 2007.

 

[The Hitch]

This is funny

Wiggins holds Armstrong up as his ideal. He used to drink more than a fair bit. After winning gold in 2004, he was snapped up by a French racing team.
“I was drunk all the time between races because I was alone in France, 21, 22-years old,” Wiggins said. “The only thing to do at night was to buy a six-pack of beer.”
Six pack? Drunk? Well, there’s another benefit of being skinny as a rail – you can never drink yourself into the poorhouse.
In an effort to push himself to the very top, Wiggins tried to morph into Armstrong. In 2008, he began copying the Texan’s routine, down to the minutest detail.
The training never really stopped. Phsyios and dieticians constantly surrounded him. He would spend long moments in the mirror, bemoaning the size of his (non-existent) gut.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/olymp...ordbreaking_medal_by_getting_blind_drunk.html

 

[The Hitch]

Here's an article from the author of "Long Race to GloryThe Long Race to Glory. How the British Came to Rule the Cycling World"

Written, 20 days before Lance loses his TDF's

http://www.chrissidwells.com/archive/aug-1-2012.html

. But perhaps the most important lesson was about suffering, about toughing it out, and later on in the year he would learn a big secret about suffering from one of cycling’s greats.

It was Lance Armstrong and it happened during the Tour de France. Armstrong told Wiggins that everyone in the front group on a mountain of a Grand Tour was three minutes from letting go. That was the key to climbing at the sharp end, take it in three-minute segments. That must have helped. For a man who can ride 560 watts for four and a quarter minutes, three minutes is a good number to hold on to.

By then though Sutton reckons that Lance Armstrong had already played another role in Wiggins’ breakthrough as a Grand Tour rider. “It was in the Giro. Brad went there wanting to do a good ride overall. He didn’t really know how he would go in the mountains, but on one the first big days he went past Armstrong on a climb. That was very important to him. He’s a fan, imagine you’re a fan and you ride past the seven-times Tour winner on a mountain and drop him. The moment it happened Brad’s wife Cath was on the phone to me, “Brad’s dropped Lance,” she says. Then straight after the stage he’s on as well, “I rode past Lance.” He was like a school kid but it was a very big deal, and his confidence and commitment went up again.

But Bradley Wiggins wasn’t carrying seven kilos of fat when he won two Olympic gold medals in 2008. Photographs of him this year show that he’s lost muscle from his upper body. The diet he went on and the work he did removed that muscle whilst retaining his overall effective power, something that is very difficult to do. So difficult that 15 years ago a well respected trainer in cycling and consultant to the Motorola team, Dr Max Testa said that Lance Armstrong’s triathlete arms and shoulders would prevent him from winning the Tour de France.

Cancer stripped Armstrong’s muscles away, but how did Mitchell manage the spot reductions that are obvious from Wiggins’ upper body? “First of all, Bradley wasn’t doing the kind of work that builds upper body muscle any more. Track starts for the pursuit and team pursuit are crucial and are practised a lot. They are a very high load exercise for the upper body muscles, so those muscle weren’t getting that big exercise stimulus any more.

“Overall I didn’t do anything too aggressive with Brad,” Mitchell says. “We started in November 2008 and he bought into the plan slowly, and only mentally kicked in fully about April or May, but that’s still a long time to lose some weight. Steve Cummings used a very aggressive catabolic diet to get rid of upper body muscle last winter, but he wanted to do it over a very short period. Everybody at BC has done that diet for a day or two for specific reasons in the past, but with Brad this was spread over a much longer time, so we could take it steadily.

“We looked at matching his diet to his training, not just broadly but very precisely. Training creates a dietary need because adaptations in response to training are driven by protein synthesis, so it was a matter of matching the right nutrients in the right load to each training session and not over-swamping anything. Then we included trace nutrients to protect the body, and that is where the advances have been made and where I really can’t be specific, but by using these it‘s possible to go quite low on calorie intake and still build muscle.

 

[Benotti69]

Here's an article from the author of "Long Race to GloryThe Long Race to Glory. How the British Came to Rule the Cycling World"

Written, 20 days before Lance loses his TDF's

http://www.chrissidwells.com/archive/aug-1-2012.html

How does someone diet to affect only certain parts of the body?

Any people dismiss the comparisons with LA/USPS!

 

[The Hitch]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/18527994

Interviewer : A few years ago you were speaking in horror struck terms about how difficult the mountains are, how have you surmounted that.

BW: Hard work. Ultimately what it comes down to is how hard you want to work.

Yeah thats how it works. You can't climb, then you train a little bit and you climb as fast as Contador Rasmussen.

People like Andy Schleck have said - you've peaked too early, that its an amazing acheivement that you've won all these races, no one's done that, but you can't keep on being be this good

Even Andy Schleck thought it was impossible.

 

[thehog]

funny you should mention moore - he told me he'd see me in court last fedruary 12mths when I said he wasn't honest in his writings about sky.

Threatening to sue people is really not a way to demonstrate that your journalism stands alone.

I'd also suggest the next time someone says they will sue you is that they follow the pre-action protocols and the law.

Therefore request they;

Provide their real name, home address, appointed solicitor (if any), particularise their complaint in detail and why they feel they have suffered loss and how they'd like it to be addressed - compensation, withdrawal of the statements etc.

Until its put into writing how they have been defamed, injured, hurt, suffered loss etc. it's meaningless and probably a defence mechanism to shut you down from exercising your right to ask questions.

Additionally if someone keeps saying they're going to sue you and they don't, they enter a state of actually doing the very thing they are accusing others of.

Nothing will go to court unless they've followed these steps.

In this instance if Moore was serious he ran the risk of having his claim thrown out, paying his costs, your costs, the courts costs for wasting everyone's time with a pointless claim. Is he acting on behalf of Sky or not?

 

[ebandit]

hoggy

hoggy this is the sky thread ........not your patronising lecture continued

thanks!
Mark L