Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[The Hitch]

Oh, look who is blatantly lying.

The Hitch recently posted an over-long and typically bombastic post outlining why he knew Sky was doping and how he felt people that didn't agree were idiots.

I thought it was very weird that he accused me of calling people who didn't agree sky are doping as "idiots", but I thought id wait till i came home to check through the post and make sure.

Yep, nothing like that in the post whatsoever.

Anything goes when defending sky, eh jimmy?

I guess lying sort of comes with the territory when you defend a lie though.

 

[The Hitch]

I can understand why this may be sufficient for you but for myself it isn't enough. I remain to be convinced that a clean rider could not produce the results that Froome achieved.

I believe that over the last few years that riders don't have to dope to achieve results. .

These are contradictory statements. Froome by every single measure - speeds up individual climbs, speeds on tts, total GC watt/kg, season peak, surpassed what was acheieved in like all the gts of the 2000's with one or two exceptions.

He's certainly far far surpassing what guys like Kash, Kloeden, Kohl were putting out en route to gt podiums.

So if he can do that clean in 2013 why wouldn't he have been able to put out those exact same performances a few years ago

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I believe that over the last few years that riders don't have to dope to achieve results. .

Is that because you believe the peloton is a dope-free environment, or because you believe clean performances can trump doped ones?

Because Froome 2013, strictly speaking, as well as Wiggo 2012 did not have just "results", they annihilated the peloton for 6 months straight.

 

[The Hitch]

But they didn't did they? Wiggins transformed at Garmin, if JV is telling the truth, probably with the help of someone at BC.

I struggle to see how this can be the top guys at Sky's work, it would mean that Sky/BC have transformed 2 riders from donkeys to race horse shortly before giving them both huge new contracts.
.

Sky winning the 2012 TDF a week before the home olympics was worth like a million times whatever tiny differences in contract you are talking about.

But hey, Sky would never allow their riders to dope. Totally honest organization that.

 

[The Hitch]

Is that because you believe the peloton is a dope-free environment, or because you believe clean performances can trump doped ones?

Because Froome 2013, strictly speaking, as well as Wiggo 2012 did not have just "results", they annihilated the peloton for 6 months straight.

The Sky defense ALWAYS invovles ignoring the wider picture and focusing on one tiny detail that really only forms a tiny part of the whole sky is doping case, and explaining why that could be clean.

Hence destroying the TDF 2 years in a row gets brought down to - "achieving results", as if we were talking about some guy who finished 7th in the Tour Down Under rather than won every race he entered for 6 months.

Notice how in the same post he says he believes that what Froome is doing is possible clean.

Of course in isolation, that might even sound reasonable. A simple belief that a rider can achieve certain speeds clean. Its heavily debatable of course, and some don't believe it for a second. But at least there is a case to be made. Hell if it was jut Froome riding fast with nothing else, I myself would most definitely allow for the possibility that he is clean.

But in reality if it was just a case of a rider riding super fast then there wouldn't be all this controversy against Sky and I think timmers knows it.

We are talking about a rider who has found out how to lose weight without losing power, just at the time that drugs designed to lose weight without losing power, have come into the sport who midway through his career was not even considered good enough to make the team in 3 straight tdf's dominating them, and who is either lying or being lied to about the disease that is supposed to explain his transformation.

On a team that has never shown an ounce of genuine anti doping commitment, yet claims to be anti doping, which as Merckx index pointed out in that great post, doesn't even have any interest whatsoever in looking into what makes Froome so special.

A team that team that just happens to have produced the only other clean Tour de France winner, who also found out the secret to losing insane ammounts of weight while gaining power.

That's not even mentioning Leinders, Dodger's return to EPO levels, Wiggos omerta, his score on the UCI index, the use of pillows and washing hands as explanations, Porte on Bonsacre and loads and loads of other stuff.

But of course looking at the whole argument, kind of dams sky. So their defenders, only ever look at one or two sub arguments, minimize them and try to explain why that particular thing could in theory have been clean, without looking at the whole picture.

 

[red_flanders]

Great! A clear concise outlining of the evidence that you consider confirms that Froome is cheating by doping. You may have posted this earlier and I missed it in the noise created by debates about riders lying, who said what and the whole tit for tat posting that occurs.

I have posted similarly quite often, but of course it's easy to miss. I would not expect anyone to have seen all my posts or vice versa. I think for those of us asking for folks to stop saying "there's no evidence" it seemed very clear, but I am really glad that for whatever reason this post resonated with several people (Justinr, Vickers...)

I can understand why this may be sufficient for you but for myself it isn't enough. I remain to be convinced that a clean rider could not produce the results that Froome achieved. As you state test results for Froome over the years would be helpful but we would also need results for those other riders to make valid comparisons in my view. That we will probably never see that data is frustrating and maybe leads to many of the arguments in this thread.

I don't see any evidence whatsoever that a clean rider can produce times equal to those of the oxygen vector doping GT champions of the very recent past. A 5% gain at that level is massive, and by most accounts the advantage of EPO/Blood Doping is far greater than that.

I put it to those who believe it's possible to do this clean, how? How can it be possible? No one ever has before, why now?

Beyond that, why do you believe that Froome of all people would be the rider to do it?

If a rider were to be able to do it, he would be so outrageously talented that his rise would have been not only impressive, but shocking. An all-time talent.

No, this is simply beyond belief. I don't understand how anyone can rationalize this.

I believe that over the last few years that riders don't have to dope to achieve results. However I may be wrong in which case I will be disappointed. But life goes on and I will still ride and race my bike and watch pro racing.

In a world where most riders are not doping, I would agree. The problem is that there is a difference between "results" (winning or placing in big races) and equaling the times of oxygen vector (will refer to them as "OV") dopers from the recent (or not so recent) past. Someone has to show how a clean rider can do this, not just state, a la Brailsford that it's possible. It's a spectacular claim requiring spectacular proof to support it. There is no proof that this can be done and no evidence. The idea that Sky are on to some training that would somehow deliver this massive difference is not remotely believable and certainly not backed up by any science or facts.

Hopefully more evidence, circumstantial or factual, will come to light that gives certainty either way to Froome and Sky's results but that may be a pipe dream.

I'm not holding my breath, but there is factual evidence, and that's the performances and times.

I would offer further than I don't think Froome was pushed last year in the Tour. I am very, very curious to see what happens this year if AC is at full strength.

 

[red_flanders]

You know what Red - I'll give you that one as it was a well put, factual, concise ( and correct) argument. Its weak / circumstantial evidence in my view but nonetheless evidence as you say. Referring to things more in general rather than your posts, evidence is often presented on here as fact when it is not and repeatedly so.

I'm sure this will also help settle matters and the associated confusion ...

Personally I think that the issue is that firmly held belief is presented in a matter of fact way, and this seems to bother people...on this thread. I would simply assume all statements are opinion/belief and work from there.

Again, I don't have a problem with one not believing the evidence presented. I will argue against it, but it's great discussion.

This idea that there is no evidence has to stop though, it's a discussion killer.

Your post about circumstantial evidence was very good and allowed me to organize my thoughts. I'm glad some understanding has been reached today, and look forward to continued productive discussion.

 

[the sceptic]

So if he can do that clean in 2013 why wouldn't he have been able to put out those exact same performances a few years ago

This is a good point.

The whole "new clean era" allowing Froome to win is such bs and another skybot talking point that has no basis in reality.

You could drop Froome into any grand tour of the past 15 years and he would win or podium most of them.

 

[timmers]

I don't see any evidence whatsoever that a clean rider can produce times equal to those of the oxygen vector doping GT champions of the very recent past. A 5% gain at that level is massive, and by most accounts the advantage of EPO/Blood Doping is far greater than that.

I put it to those who believe it's possible to do this clean, how? How can it be possible? No one ever has before, why now?

Beyond that, why do you believe that Froome of all people would be the rider to do it?

If a rider were to be able to do it, he would be so outrageously talented that his rise would have been not only impressive, but shocking. An all-time talent.

No, this is simply beyond belief. I don't understand how anyone can rationalize this.

Because there always has to be a first. Does not your second to last paragraph I quoted describe Froome?

We do not know the true effects of oxygen vector doping as we do not have before and after studies of those GT champions who were doping and we make guesses as to the effect. In Froome's case it is suggested by some that he has to be off the charts so a 20-25% effect. If this is the case then this would make him very unusual anyway.

I accept that if something is too good to be true it often isn't. But in this case for me I need more. What is it about the juice that Froome is on that only works for him? Where are the disgruntled people coming forward? Brailsford apparently isn't liked so why has nothing come out?

However maybe I am being too demanding in this case but its raining outside and I have nothing else I want to do! If we all nodded our heads in agreement to the first accusation there would be no debate which would be an interesting coincidence considering its Easter!

It is unfortunate that Froome rides for Sky as that appears to bring out the worse in a number of posters as I have no special affinity with them but I do dislike the deliberate misspelling of riders names and the Skybot chants. I posted in support of Giant/Shimano the other day as the accusations seemed to start following Degenkolb's 2nd.

Have a good day!

PS I agree the Contador Froome clash is looking very interesting!

 

[timmers]

Is that because you believe the peloton is a dope-free environment, or because you believe clean performances can trump doped ones?

Because Froome 2013, strictly speaking, as well as Wiggo 2012 did not have just "results", they annihilated the peloton for 6 months straight.

I certainly think performances will improve over time so clean performance will better doped performances eventually although there are a couple of
athletics women's results that might take a very long time.

I think some will be cheating still but I think it looks a lot different from the 90's. I think we also discount the overall movement of the pro rider ability level to a higher narrower range.

Well I don't want to rehash the Wiggins debate but I was not surprised by a very good pursuiter losing weight and being able to climb as a steady tempo with a strong focused team in a weak field.

However you're in the sports performance field are you not so do you think that some of the Aussie track riders that have converted to road in recent years might have good results?

I saw Hepburn's power file for Flanders I think posted somewhere that apparently doesn't raise any red flags but he might be too big.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Safety/security

A little further down:

So it's important that the economy of the team is secure. He probably wants a three-year contract so his future will be secure and he can focus on the road (my take on it).

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Oh, look who is blatantly lying.



I thought it was very weird that he accused me of calling people who didn't agree sky are doping as "idiots", but I thought id wait till i came home to check through the post and make sure.

Yep, nothing like that in the post whatsoever.

Anything goes when defending sky, eh jimmy?

I guess lying sort of comes with the territory when you defend a lie though.

My god you are pompous.

I wrote that from memory, from my impressions reading that post. You may not have said 'idiots' explicitly, but what I took from it was that your reasoning lead you to be 100% certain Sky were dopers, and that if you didn't agree you were stupid. That may have not been the words you used, but it was the impression they have me personally, it is what I took from reading it.

I neither lie intentionally to obfuscate nor do I defend lies knowingly, but a convenient smear and in keeping with your bilious posting style.

 

[Justinr]

I have posted similarly quite often, but of course it's easy to miss. I would not expect anyone to have seen all my posts or vice versa. I think for those of us asking for folks to stop saying "there's no evidence" it seemed very clear, but I am really glad that for whatever reason this post resonated with several people (Justinr, Vickers...)

To be honest Red posting the "there is no evidence" comment is often a reaction to being baited by the "100% theyre doping" type posts and as you point out it really just disrupts / derails the argument. That might be a tacit admission of slight trolling but i think most of us sail close to the wind on occasions with it (the full blown punch up with Vickers yesterday consumed so many pages, and was a bit ugly to be honest).

I put it to those who believe it's possible to do this clean, how? How can it be possible? No one ever has before, why now?

Beyond that, why do you believe that Froome of all people would be the rider to do it?

If a rider were to be able to do it, he would be so outrageously talented that his rise would have been not only impressive, but shocking. An all-time talent.

No, this is simply beyond belief. I don't understand how anyone can rationalize this.

But SOMEONE has to be the first, and I agree that that someone would raise eyebrows. I also believe the rise of that person would have to coincide with a softening of the arms race and would need to focus far more on training / coaching than in the past. I posted somewhere that maybe riders had been lazy in the past and just relied on the EPO injection - as you can imagine I was ridiculed, but i believe that this holds water as a basic premise. Look at how big some of the previous winners have been - Riis, Ulrich, etc. Look at how much LAs body shape had to change to really make use of EPO and be successful, even Tyler talks about getting so skinny his wife reckoned she could see his organs through his skin.

I also believe that the arms race has softened somewhat for various reasons. Firstly i dont think the removal of Lance from the peloton should be underestimated - I think it allowed a lot of riders (even his team mates) to be more open about cleaning up cycling and pursuing a drug free career and changing the ethos. I also think some of the tests are more perfected than the agencies let on, even if they are not accredited. Think about it - does a plasticiser test need to be accredited quickly or do you just need a major rider to be implicated by a new experimental test. Imagine how that might affect some riders minds and how certain riders would be more likely to be tested.

I'm not saying that there is no doping but i do think a lot of things have changed in the last 5/6 years that have levelled the playing field somewhat.

I would offer further than I don't think Froome was pushed last year in the Tour. I am very, very curious to see what happens this year if AC is at full strength.

Thats fairly true - AC looked toasted in the mountains, and thats what leads me to believe he may not have used BBs as I am fairly convinced he did in the past, or if he did they were small ones. After all he was almost nailed by plasticiser evidence - that must have put the wind up him.

That said, do I think SKY are pushing the boundaries? Absolutely yes.

 

[Justinr]

The whole "new clean era" allowing Froome to win is such bs and another skybot talking point that has no basis in reality.

Why not engage in proper debate rather than just waving your hands saying "yeah yeah, usual BS" - you're becoming guilty of you're own accusation.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

No way is Houvenaghal loyal; theoretically screwed over twice - first for IP 08 (Romero brought in relatively late and fast tracked, even though WH was already there or there abouts, as proved by the silver), then of course TP 12. Not a chance.

Interesting theory re the IP in 2008. Romero got the world silver in 2007 and the gold in 2008 so was certainly worthy of selection by performance and longevity. Should Romero have not been selected simply because Houvenhagel had been in the squad for longer?

In the OGs, Houvenhagel improved by 3-4s over her previous performance level, which is a lot for a 3000m IP, so maybe she's keeping quiet for a good reason!

She was unlucky in 2012, as she could easily have subbed into the squad without slowing it down much, but ultimately, the coach has to pick his best squad, and not getting picked is a risk all elite athletes take. (Do a search on a rower called Bob Thatcher if you want to hear a real hard luck story). I thought not using Houvehagel in qualifying for the TP was a mistake, as with the extra round in the OGs, it would have been sensible to save Trott for the later rounds, given her omnium commitments.

 

[Hugh Januss]

My god you are pompous.

I wrote that from memory, from my impressions reading that post. You may not have said 'idiots' explicitly, but what I took from it was that your reasoning lead you to be 100% certain Sky were dopers, and that if you didn't agree you were stupid. That may have not been the words you used, but it was the impression they have me personally, it is what I took from reading it.

I neither lie intentionally to obfuscate nor do I defend lies knowingly, but a convenient smear and in keeping with your bilious posting style.

Your posts give me the impression that you are a pompous windbag who outside of defending Team Sky at every turn has no idea of what they are going on (and on) about.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Really? That's good, I can't remember any other post you've made, apart from this one, so up until now I had no impression of you what so ever. That has changed, well done, a great post: pointless, vacuous and unpleasant.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Because there always has to be a first. Does not your second to last paragraph I quoted describe Froome?

No, not really. If Froome was the one to have that all-time talent, then his circuitous route to the top and transition from also-ran to dominator is not the path people would expect from somebody having that talent naturally. Peter Sagan, for example, is a good example of a route to the top people might have expected from somebody with an all-time-great natural talent level. I don't know whether Sagan is doping or not, and I do have my suspicions of him, but he arrived on the World Tour aged 19, and in his very first stage race appeared in a queen stage breakaway with Evans, Valverde and LLS. Sure, it was only the Tour Down Under, but he immediately put down a marker that said "this guy is outrageously talented". Or, if you want to insist on GT contenders since that's the kind of rider Froome is, try Nairo Quintana. His rise has been very fast, but he was pegged as a potential world beater from the word go. Froome, to put it mildly, wasn't. So why would it be him that was the first to show that level clean and not, say, Alejandro Valverde, who destroyed every race he entered as a kid and went undefeated for three years from ages 11 to 14? I mean, Valverde's rise is the kind of thing we might expect, it's just that we know somewhere along the line - we don't know where - he started doping, so where his actual talent level is can be debated.

Even with Froome's unusual path into cycling, which grants him a great deal more leeway than others in terms of allowing for a slower and/or later progression, if he really was capable of putting out these performance levels we'd have had more to point to than lasting slightly longer than Johan van Summeren and finishing 9 minutes down in the TDF queen stage, and a top 20 in the TT a couple of days later, over three years before his transformation. If he is the guy who can best the péloton's best doped times clean, surely he should be beating guys like Haijun Ma, who is the same age, against the clock in the B Games? Surely he should have been able to out-TT guys like Velits and Daniel Spence in the mountain TT at the Giro del Capo, since he's got the natural talent as both a TT rider and a climber despite never going in a wind tunnel, to match people who spank those guys to all parts? Surely he shouldn't be losing 11km hillclimb races by 3 minutes, and being beaten by guys like Andrey Medyannikov? It speaks volumes that in 2009, when Team Sky were being first talked of in the press and the first media bluster was being presented, and they talked of a British Tour winner in 5 years, they were scoffed at. Who was going to be a British Tour winner, they said? Wiggins was, at that time, a one-hit wonder, and 2010 would have seemed to have indicated he may not be the guy going forward. Geraint Thomas was heavily hyped, Peter Kennaugh even more so, after his impressive Girobio, indicating a British rider who could legitimately climb. Froome was barely mentioned even as a footnote. And this was before his results turned south due to bilharzia, so that justification can't really be used here either.

Froome showed in his Konica Minolta and Barloworld days enough talent to say he was worth keeping an eye on. As I've said before, I thought he could develop into a pretty useful pro level mountain domestique or GC hand for a smaller race. I had a guy like Chris Anker Sørensen in mind as to the kind of level I expected of him. Some people may have expected more, but I simply do not believe anybody who claims they looked at Chris Froome in 2007-9 and said "that is the guy who will be the first to topple the best doped times of the EPO generation clean". They're liars, each and every one of them. Even those like blackcat who say they thought Froome could legitimately be a GT-winning talent acknowledge that he's probably doping, but take the stance that all of them at the business end are doping and Froome is talented enough to be there at the head of the field on merit.

 

[red_flanders]

But SOMEONE has to be the first, and I agree that that someone would raise eyebrows. I also believe the rise of that person would have to coincide with a softening of the arms race and would need to focus far more on training / coaching than in the past. I posted somewhere that maybe riders had been lazy in the past and just relied on the EPO injection - as you can imagine I was ridiculed, but i believe that this holds water as a basic premise. Look at how big some of the previous winners have been - Riis, Ulrich, etc. Look at how much LAs body shape had to change to really make use of EPO and be successful, even Tyler talks about getting so skinny his wife reckoned she could see his organs through his skin.

I also believe that the arms race has softened somewhat for various reasons. Firstly i dont think the removal of Lance from the peloton should be underestimated - I think it allowed a lot of riders (even his team mates) to be more open about cleaning up cycling and pursuing a drug free career and changing the ethos. I also think some of the tests are more perfected than the agencies let on, even if they are not accredited. Think about it - does a plasticiser test need to be accredited quickly or do you just need a major rider to be implicated by a new experimental test. Imagine how that might affect some riders minds and how certain riders would be more likely to be tested.

I'm not saying that there is no doping but i do think a lot of things have changed in the last 5/6 years that have levelled the playing field somewhat.

But to be fair, none of that answers how a "clean" rider can be matching and beating doped performances from 3-5 years ago. There is no explanation for it, and therefore not believable to me. Not at all. And I disagree that someone has to be first. At least not for decades..the difference in times is so massive.

 

[timmers]

I agree with your assessment of Froome's early years and I scoffed at Skys claims that that they would have a British tour winner in five years. Interestingly one is Belgium by birth and the other Kenyan and I won't get into marginal gains.

What is Froome on that seems to be the exception to the rule? Why has no one else shown this spectacular rise?

 

[martinvickers]

Hein Verbruggen said: I can give you a positive test whenever you like.

Making the BP look anomalous or clean is even easier.

Look at what Sky can do with impunity to Henao, and he was performing.

Wiggo, genuine question. If making the BP look clean is so easy, why did Sky not do that for Henao, a valuable Tour asset?

 

[martinvickers]

Lienders is documented as Chicken's doctor, later named and shamed as Rabobank cleaned up their act. That's hardly a suspicion.

I could keep going but it's repetition at this point.

A suspicion of what?

Leinders is not suspected of being Chicken's doctor. We know he was. There's hard evidence.

We're pretty sure he's doped riders at Rabo. He's been outed by riders in the know as Rabo had a 'cleanout'. That's not a suspicion, it's hard evidence.

We know he was employed by Sky, and that they 'relaxed' their ZTP non-traditional doctor rules to do it. that's not suspicion, he was listed on the team website, and Brailsford all but admitted they were relaxing the rule. that's not suspicion, that's hard evidence.

It's the jump to what he did at Sky that requires the 'suspicion'. And given his appalling background, it's an absolutely legitimate suspicion. It stinks. BUT, the dots to what he did there have not really been joined past that stage. We have a justifiable fog of doubt and mistrust, but no clear evidence.

Hence why I bang on and on about investigating the man who got him in, De Jongh - one man we know for certainty worked at Sky and Knew what Leinders was willing to do.

 

[martinvickers]

Personally I think that the issue is that firmly held belief is presented in a matter of fact way, and this seems to bother people...on this thread. I would simply assume all statements are opinion/belief and work from there.

That about hits the nail on the head. When it's set out well, all the bits of evidence we do have, and as a firmly held belief, not a (yet) proven fact, as in a recent post by you, and some of hitch's, it's absolutely fine. It's what the forum should be about. Test the evidence. Dig beneath the surface. question, question, question...

But...a number of even the good posters have a great deal of trouble not crossing the line to simply dismissing contrary opinions, or even expressions of uncertainty, especially when the minutai of their argument is criticised by posters they don't like. Instead, they attack the poster - often his honesty, or his intelligence. No matter how firmly held the belief, there is a still a line between the firmest, most well considered belief...and saying you just KNOW, and that's then end of it. That shuts down discussion, and it's not really on.

And then, without naming the obvious, there are, frankly, trolls who simply sneer and snark, and add diddly squat. That ain't you, and for all our rows, it ain't Hitch either, or Digger. These people don't want to discuss, examine, debate or uncover - they just want to rile, and sneer. And they know who they are. We all do, frankly.

Again, I don't have a problem with one not believing the evidence presented. I will argue against it, but it's great discussion.

This idea that there is no evidence has to stop though, it's a discussion killer.

Your post about circumstantial evidence was very good and allowed me to organize my thoughts. I'm glad some understanding has been reached today, and look forward to continued productive discussion.

I think there are a number of smoking guns re our team in question - my argument is more what logical and definitive conclusions can legitimately be drawn from the gunsmoke, and what ought to be done about it.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Because there always has to be a first. Does not your second to last paragraph I quoted describe Froome?

We do not know the true effects of oxygen vector doping as we do not have before and after studies of those GT champions who were doping and we make guesses as to the effect. In Froome's case it is suggested by some that he has to be off the charts so a 20-25% effect. If this is the case then this would make him very unusual anyway.

I accept that if something is too good to be true it often isn't. But in this case for me I need more. What is it about the juice that Froome is on that only works for him? Where are the disgruntled people coming forward? Brailsford apparently isn't liked so why has nothing come out?

However maybe I am being too demanding in this case but its raining outside and I have nothing else I want to do! If we all nodded our heads in agreement to the first accusation there would be no debate which would be an interesting coincidence considering its Easter!

It is unfortunate that Froome rides for Sky as that appears to bring out the worse in a number of posters as I have no special affinity with them but I do dislike the deliberate misspelling of riders names and the Skybot chants. I posted in support of Giant/Shimano the other day as the accusations seemed to start following Degenkolb's 2nd.

Have a good day!

PS I agree the Contador Froome clash is looking very interesting!

If Wigans wasn't such a twit, I wouldn't misspell his name intentionally; but he opened the door to it, so blame him and his mouth for it.

 

[Nathan12]

I agree with your assessment of Froome's early years and I scoffed at Skys claims that that they would have a British tour winner in five years. Interestingly one is Belgium by birth and the other Kenyan and I won't get into marginal gains.

What is Froome on that seems to be the exception to the rule? Why has no one else shown this spectacular rise?

Heard of a super responder? Plus, he's not the only one. Wiggins' rise is as if not more spectacular.