Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[JimmyFingers]

+1

those sky fans y'all sound like pat mcquaid and verbruggen used to squeel!

"if you don't have any evidence then shut up or face my wrath".

Sky fans? Where?

And who's asking for evidence? We're asking him to name names. I would have thought you would be asking the same thing, or do you just come here to argue and aren't interested in learning anything new?

 

[Digger]

Hope you don't mean me, Diggsy. I made a number of comments about Wiggins and the evidential value of what he did re his own possible doping; the one thing I PATENTLY did not do was defend the a*sehole's comments.

I ask this. Why would a clean rider like Wiggins, defend other dopers, who have actually taken a podium place from him?

 

[martinvickers]

Sky fans? Where?

And who's asking for evidence? We're asking him to name names. I would have thought you would be asking the same thing, or do you just come here to argue and aren't interested in learning anything new?

Would that be one of them there "rhetorical questions", mister?

 

[sniper]

Sky fans? Where?

And who's asking for evidence? We're asking him to name names. I would have thought you would be asking the same thing, or do you just come here to argue and aren't interested in learning anything new?

ow i would love to hear names.
but at least ask the guy nicely.
show some sincere curiosity.
don't give bobbins that aggressive "name names or shut up" kind of attitude.
it's classic omerta.

 

[martinvickers]

I ask this. Why would a clean rider like Wiggins, defend other dopers, who have actually taken a podium place from him?

Will you first accept my point, and I'll then answer your question. Seems only fair.

 

[Digger]

Martin, I asked you to tell me where you heard about Kimmage and Sky and him supposedly asking for a position writing for them last July...you said you wouldn't divulge your source. Fair enough. I have done the same.

But you basically want Bobbins to do the same.

 

[martinvickers]

ow i would love to hear names.
but at least ask the guy nicely.
show some sincere curiosity.
don't give bobbins that aggressive "name names or shut up" kind of attitude.
it's classic omerta.

Snipes, I loves ya, but that's taking the p!ss. Jimmy fingers, anonymous poster, can somehow 'enforce omerta'?

You SERIOUSLY think Jimmy, Myself and others actually DON'T want to hear names?

Bullsh!t. Even you don't believe that - that's just lashing out to avoid admitting Jimmy's in the right here. And the suspicion you know will come if Bobbins doesn't pony up that there may be more sizzle than steak to the allegations...

 

[Digger]

Will you first accept my point, and I'll then answer your question. Seems only fair.

Accept what point again?

 

[JimmyFingers]

ow i would love to hear names.
but at least ask the guy nicely.
show some sincere curiosity.
don't give bobbins that aggressive "name names or shut up" kind of attitude.
it's classic omerta.

My apologies, I should have followed your example and be polite and non-confrontational with all my posts.

Classic omerta is when Kittel called out Sayer and Clinic members told him to shut up and accused him of racism, not me asking for a name from someone claiming to know something.

 

[martinvickers]

Martin, I asked you to tell me where you heard about Kimmage and Sky and him supposedly asking for a position writing for them last July...you said you wouldn't divulge your source. Fair enough. I have done the same.

But you basically want Bobbins to do the same.

1. Could you, please, respond to my earlier point, thanks.

2. I'm not looking a source. I'm looking a name of a cheat. And preferably, an explanation how he knows UKAD were informed, and how he knows they weren't interested. No sources required.

It's a strawman, Digger. And you're more than a smart enough guy to know that.

Look at who has actually attacked riders for speaking out in this very forum about what they know. Look at what happened Kittel when he spoke out, as it turned out absolutely f***ing correctly. Look at who told him to shut up and not be so nasty to the Turks, because they aren't 'big fish'.

That's not anti-doping, Digger (and I'm not saying you were one of them, but look who was) - that's celeb-hunting. That's not a search for truth. that's a hunt for excitement. Doping as entertainment.+

I don't find doping entertaining. I find it disgusting. and I remember rather too many of the tragedies to change my mind on that.

Some people in this forum think Sky, or parts of Sky, are doping. and that's absolutely fine and fair. Some don't, equally, fine and fair. More still genuinely don't know and publically admit as much (and I'm in that group). Equally fine and fair.

But there are some posters in here who WANT them to be doping, because its tittilating, and if they can't prove it, they entertain themselves. Not you, I suspect, you have a real passion for this stuff - but you know I'm right, if you're honest. They want the excitement, the fun - especially if it can be at the expense of riders or teams they don't like. Which is the main reason why thread gets filled with so much snarky sarcastic meaningless bullsh*t, day after god forsaken day.

I don't like Tinkoff. I don't trust the owner, I don't trust Riis (though I much prefer him to Bruyneel) and I don't trust Contador. given the latter two are proven and convicted cheats, I think that distrust is well earned. Contador has come back this year with a vengence, with the aid of a former SKY coach who i have repeted suggested should be investigated - and did before he joined Tinkoff. If de Jongh went down with Berti and Tinkoff, Sky would almost certainly fall too.

But you wil find NO post - not one - where I sarcastically assert they're doping now. Where I make accusations with no evidence, and sarcatically call out a naysayer, or someone not sure if they are back at it. Same goes for Valverde, who for inexplicable reasons I warm to (he should be life banned, like all dopers, but given that's not how it works, I just find the guy a fun racer to watch). And that is CONVICTED dopers, Digger.

I may not believe they are clean. I don't assume my hunches are evidence.

I've a bad temper, and a hair trigger on some subjects, Digger. You know that. You ASLO know that I can be pretty fair minded, and I know the lines.

I want Dopers named, and gone. Permanantly. But it's not a gameshow to me. And too many posters in here seem rather disinterested in actual anti-doping to be taking such a high horse attitude about it.

 

[martinvickers]

Accept what point again?

The point you yourself quoted several posts ago. That while I questioned the evidential value of Wiggin's comments re: his own possible doping, the one thing I PATENTLY did not do, was defend the a*sehole or his d!ckish comments themselves.

 

[Digger]

1. Could you, please, respond to my earlier point, thanks.

2. I'm not looking a source. I'm looking a name of a cheat. And preferably, an explanation how he knows UKAD were informed, and how he knows they weren't interested. No sources required. It's a strawman, Digger.

Name of said cheat can't be put out there without disclosing sources...it would be the next question. Which you know full well.

But anyway glad we accept the double standards.

Bobbins gets called out. Whilst Wiggins gets defended. Seems fair to me.

 

[Digger]

The point you yourself quoted several posts ago. That while I questioned the evidential value of Wiggin's comments re: his own possible doping, the one thing I PATENTLY did not do, was defend the a*sehole or his d!ckish comments themselves.

So you think it's plausible that a clean rider would not just sit idly by and say nothing when he's beaten by dopers, but actively defend them and befriend them.

Anyway I don't.

 

[sniper]

Bobbins could have been referring to BS.

 

[martinvickers]

Name of said cheat can't be put out there without disclosing sources...it would be the next question. Which you know full well.

And easily answered. "Here's the cheater. UKAD were informed in [Month]. I won't out the source".

Who's protecting omerta now, digger?

You raised the Kimmage thing. Easily answered. I read the Moore tweet, saw the reaction from Kimmage, went, hmmm, interesting, dug around. My source works at sky sports, and I am vaguely connected to that source, basically through sports sponsors' employees in my extended family - they too had heard that the agent had approached BSkyB, heard nothing came of it, but nothing else - it wasn't their first hand knowledge, because it's not remotely their area.

Obviously, I won't be outing them.

See, easy.

But anyway glad we accept the double standards.

Bobbins gets called out. Whilst Wiggins gets defended. Seems fair to me.

You can do better than this weak tea, digger.

 

[martinvickers]

Bobbins could have been referring to BS.

That was my assumption at what was being hinted at, frankly. How on earth would naming him if that were the case 'out' anybody?

Or is it just a case of "oh, look at his results, let's start a rumour"?

Do you know what an ITK is, sniper?

 

[gooner]

Bobbins up thread a couple of days ago said Ellingworth's past will catch up with him one day and when asked genuinely by myself about the past he was referring to, no response. This now is not the first time he has come out with stuff with Sky on the forum.

 

[Digger]

Bobbins up thread a couple of days ago said Ellingworth's past will catch up with him one day and when asked genuinely by myself about the past he was referring to, no response. This now is not the first time he has come out with stuff with Sky on the forum.

It isn't the first time...and time will show him to be right in my view.

 

[martinvickers]

So you think it's plausible that a clean rider would not just sit idly by and say nothing when he's beaten by dopers, but actively defend them and befriend them.

Anyway I don't.

1. Depends on whether he thinks Armstrong is STILL doping in 2009. We know the story LA has stuck to rigidly in public. Was that his story to 'new friends' back then too? We can asume there's no point Armstrong bullsh!ting Wiggins about his past; JV has at least outlined, if not detailed, what he did. Doesn't mean he can't bullsh!t him about the 'present'.

2. The handfuls of clean riders have kept their mouth shut for decades to preserve their careers. That's how omerta works. You also assume that handful of clean riders had the same attitude to dopers you do. There's no evidence that's true. Bassons certanly didn't - he just wanted to be allowed to race. Indeed, it's Wiggins 2007 outburst that's out of character for the peloton if anything.

There's a big danger in assuming that because YOU think or feel something, all right minded people must do likewise. That's not a wise or sustainable position.

 

[Digger]

And easily answered. "Here's the cheater. UKAD were informed in [Month]. I won't out the source".
Who's protecting omerta now, digger?

You raised the Kimmage thing. Easily answered. I read the Moore tweet, saw the reaction from Kimmage, went, hmmm, interesting, dug around. My source works at sky sports, and I am vaguely connected to that source, basically through sports sponsors' employees in my extended family - they too had heard that the agent had approached BSkyB, heard nothing came of it, but nothing else - it wasn't their first hand knowledge, because it's not remotely their area.

Obviously, I won't be outing them.

See, easy.



You can do better than this weak tea, digger.

Then you say who is the person who told you...if he doesn't name them, then he's labelled a liar...seen it so many times.

 

[martinvickers]

It isn't the first time...and time will show him to be right in my view.

Interesting, because a while back, the same poster was defending Cav on the basis of the anti-doping culture of the Academy, run by...RE.

That's not very consistent, is it?

 

[martinvickers]

Then you say who is the person who told you...if he doesn't name them, then he's labelled a liar...seen it so many times.

He's Bobbins, an anonymous poster. what does he care if he's called a liar on the interwebs.

More to the point, if he DOESN'T name this cheat he's STILL going to be called a liar. And you know it. So in fact your point makes no sense at all.

 

[Digger]

1. Depends on whether he thinks Armstrong is STILL doping in 2009. We know the story LA has stuck to rigidly in public. Was that his story to 'new friends' back then too? We can asume there's no point Armstrong bullsh!ting Wiggins about his past; JV has at least outlined, if not detailed, what he did. Doesn't mean he can't bullsh!t him about the 'present'.

2. The handfuls of clean riders have kept their mouth shut for decades to preserve their careers. That's how omerta works. You also assume that handful of clean riders had the same attitude to dopers you do. There's no evidence that's true. Bassons certanly didn't - he just wanted to be allowed to race. Indeed, it's Wiggins 2007 outburst that's out of character for the peloton if anything.

There's a big danger in assuming that because YOU think or feel something, all right minded people must do likewise. That's not a wise or sustainable position.

Again missing the point...keeping mouth shut is one thing. He actively praised and defended a lie.

Also Wiggins has subsequently said he knew lance was doping in 2009...anyway is Wiggins braindead to think lance was came back clean, after dropping catlin...god these cyclists sure are naïve.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Netserk posted this link in the Barry thread

Inner Ring had a decent article on it:
http://inrng.com/2014/04/tramadol/


I found it interesting that it referenced a Humans Invent podcast saying the Thomas did not use Tramadol during the last TdF.

Sky have admitted that it is occasionally used, and that seemed an obvious case for it to be legitimately used.


I still strongly believe that if you need a painkiller this strong to race, you probably should be withdrawn on medical grounds.

 

[Digger]

He's Bobbins, an anonymous poster. what does he care if he's called a liar on the interwebs.

More to the point, if he DOESN'T name this cheat he's STILL going to be called a liar. And you know it. So in fact your point makes no sense at all.

Still seen it many times...guy names someone...other person says what's your source.
Person replies I can't name my source.
Person then says well I call BS.


And again I know Bobbins and have spoken to him...he's no liar. And knows more than almost anyone else on here regarding BC.