Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[the sceptic]

You don't know that the spaghetti monster and it's noodly appendage doesn't exist. Since it's first appearance in any literature is verifiably tracable to a satirical letter by a secularist, which would appear to be rather good and verifiable evidence of the moment of, and purpose of, its creation, the odds are pretty high that it is his invention. But even if it were, by amazing luck and cheerful happenstance, he may actually have been correct despite himself.

There's absolutely no evidence of its existence, None whatsoever, but then "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". There's no evidence of any deity, yet the majority view of the population of the planet is that there is at least one. Many of them, like you, claiming that the KNOW it.

Hence why Christopher Hitchen's reiterated that in any debate, the burden of proof is on the person MAKING the assertion to prove the assertion; or as he famously put it, what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Now, if you find a poster who says that he KNOWS "Sky are clean" - then sure, the burden of proving it is on him, and since he's trying to prove a negative - that Sky never doped - he's gonna have a viciously hard time doing it.

But the only asserting being done, is by you. and thus the burden is on you to prove your 'KNOWLEDGE'. And, Hitch? You ain't even come close to proving you KNOW anything. You simply assert it and then talk drivel about spaghetti monsters.

Sure, you've asserted it, as KNOWLEDGE, as supposed to suspicion or belief, without evidence of that knowledge. And as such, I'm quite happy to dismiss your assertion, that You KNOW, without evidence. As is my right.

So, when you assert, simpliciter "I KNOW"

I can be quite happy to respond, equally simpliciter. "No. You don't" and know that your namesake is happily on my side.

where can I read more of your essays? Riveting stuff.

 

[blackcat]

Yes, my friend. Not only funny, but pure genius. Not sure who
came up with the idea, but if it was Dr. Peters it shows how
valuable it is to have an expert in 'messing with their minds'
in your corner. I always had a feeling he might have also
been behind Froomey's tweet last year that successfully
got under the skin of Bjarne.

derivative of the Bertrand-Bond yachting America's Cup with the winged keel on Australia II, was it Ben Lexen? Or Lexus?

Anyway, I think the new technology is trees for the forest kind of misperception. They see the game as 100%, and for Sky and Brailsford, think adding a skinsuit for a sprinter, a sprinter on the road, means that 0.0005% in the windtunnel, will tanslate into 5cms in a sprint.

But how many sprints over a decade are decided by 5cm? And how many sprints would be lost, because a rider was feeling less than 100% and could not contest in the final 10 kilometres the jostling bustling for position. When deep in a peloton, a skin suit would not help, it might be less comfortable than the traditional lycra.

yaw angles, peloton, comfort. I think the new "technology" zeitgeist, that is used as doping cover, is BS, it is actually a NEGATIVE ECONOMY.

 

[oldcrank]

Yes, my friend, it was not the 'technology' that made
the difference for Team GB, it was the 'psychology'.
All their opponents believed they had stiffer bikes,
rounder wheels, faster skinsuits, more aero helmets,
etc. etc. It was Mr. Boardman's job to make the
rest of the world believe that, and I think he was
most successful in that regard.

 

[andy1234]

Careful Benny! This Andy chap is a cycling insider

Why start being careful now?
Guesswork and constant bi*ching are much less work.

 

[stutue]

Interesting.

Thank you.

 

[elduggo]

Yes, my friend, it was not the 'technology' that made
the difference for Team GB, it was the 'psychology'.
All their opponents believed they had stiffer bikes,
rounder wheels, faster skinsuits, more aero helmets,
etc. etc. It was Mr. Boardman's job to make the
rest of the world believe that, and I think he was
most successful in that regard.

he made the rest of the world think they were cheating

 

[stutue]

Even better!!!!

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Yes, my friend, it was not the 'technology' that made
the difference for Team GB, it was the 'psychology'.
All their opponents believed they had stiffer bikes,
rounder wheels, faster skinsuits, more aero helmets,
etc. etc. It was Mr. Boardman's job to make the
rest of the world believe that, and I think he was
most successful in that regard.

If memory serves, other than the obvious joke about the rounder wheels, there were very few specifics provided as to exactly what technical advantage the British kit had. In this respect, it was a psychological masterpiece as the opposition "knew" they were at a disadvantage, but didn't know where this advantage lay so couldn't start try replicate it.

 

[Netserk]

You don't know that the spaghetti monster and it's noodly appendage doesn't exist. Since it's first appearance in any literature is verifiably tracable to a satirical letter by a secularist, which would appear to be rather good and verifiable evidence of the moment of, and purpose of, its creation, the odds are pretty high that it is his invention. But even if it were, by amazing luck and cheerful happenstance, he may actually have been correct despite himself.

There's absolutely no evidence of its existence, None whatsoever, but then "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". There's no evidence of any deity, yet the majority view of the population of the planet is that there is at least one. Many of them, like you, claiming that the KNOW it.

Hence why Christopher Hitchen's reiterated that in any debate, the burden of proof is on the person MAKING the assertion to prove the assertion; or as he famously put it, what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Now, if you find a poster who says that he KNOWS "Sky are clean" - then sure, the burden of proving it is on him, and since he's trying to prove a negative - that Sky never doped - he's gonna have a viciously hard time doing it.

But the only asserting being done, is by you. and thus the burden is on you to prove your 'KNOWLEDGE'. And, Hitch? You ain't even come close to proving you KNOW anything. You simply assert it and then talk drivel about spaghetti monsters.

Sure, you've asserted it, as KNOWLEDGE, as supposed to suspicion or belief, without evidence of that knowledge. And as such, I'm quite happy to dismiss your assertion, that You KNOW, without evidence. As is my right.

So, when you assert, simpliciter "I KNOW"

I can be quite happy to respond, equally simpliciter. "No. You don't" and know that your namesake is happily on my side.

Is the assertion that Sky are doping without evidence?

 

[Hawkwood]

Yes, my friend. Not only funny, but pure genius. Not sure who
came up with the idea, but if it was Dr. Peters it shows how
valuable it is to have an expert in 'messing with their minds'
in your corner. I always had a feeling he might have also
been behind Froomey's tweet last year that successfully
got under the skin of Bjarne.

This reminds me a bit of Stephen Potter's book `The Theory and Practice of Gamesmanship: Or the Art of Winning Games Without Actually Cheating'.

 

[20SecondsToComply]

Is the assertion that Sky are doping without evidence?

Does that take us back to here?

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1447588&postcount=27093

 

[Benotti69]

Why start being careful now?
Guesswork and constant bi*ching are much less work.

Guesswork? When and where has the sport cleaned up?

McQuaid who was proclaiming half way through the TdF in 2012 the Sky winners party in Paris was going to be great only was ousted in September 2013 and the new President has his son working for Sky.

Sky won 3 TdFs under McQuaids watch. Not something that I would be proud off.

McQuaid who defend Armstrong and tried to scupper USADA's investigation was overseeing the sport till September 2013. So no guesswork needed till then. Now show us the great changes Cookson has made to clean up the sport?

I think those who want to argue for Sky should find solid 'evidence' that a clean team can win because doping is too risky and therefore teams dont dope.

Goodluck.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Does that take us back to here?

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1447588&postcount=27093

It goes in circles. No surprise. To save everybodys time, I suggest everybody only does copy and paste from here on...

 

[Benotti69]

Yes, my friend, it was not the 'technology' that made
the difference for Team GB, it was the 'psychology'.
All their opponents believed they had stiffer bikes,
rounder wheels, faster skinsuits, more aero helmets,
etc. etc. It was Mr. Boardman's job to make the
rest of the world believe that, and I think he was
most successful in that regard.

That may work on weak minded opponents, but to think every other opponent of TeamGB was susceptible to mind games is for the birds.

Lots of riders dont give a fig about the technology and just get on the bike and perform. Otherwise we would have lots of riders using other manufacturers TT machines, helmets, skinsuits etc and not their sponsors.

 

[Hawkwood]

Lots of riders dont give a fig about the technology and just get on the bike and perform. Otherwise we would have lots of riders using other manufacturers TT machines, helmets, skinsuits etc and not their sponsors.

Well to be fair this does happen, probably not as much as it used to. There have been examples of re-badged, or badge taped over tyres, wheels, shoes, bars, aero-bars, saddles etc.

 

[Benotti69]

Well to be fair this does happen, probably not as much as it used to. There have been examples of re-badged, or badge taped over tyres, wheels, shoes, bars, aero-bars, saddles etc.

Yes it does happen, but not to the levels where such mind games would precipitate it being a regular occurrence as it had a noticeable effect.

Tyres and wheels are easy. It tends to happen for cobbled races. Saddles are a personal preference and very understandable if one is going to be on a saddle for up to 7 hours. Shoes similar.

 

[martinvickers]

Is the assertion that Sky are doping without evidence?

Actually in this case, no, that's not the assertion I'm dismissing. The assertion is that Hitch KNOWS they are, as opposed to suspects, believes or is convinced they are. And he has given no evidence that what he asserts he KNOWS is in fact anything other than his personal convition or belief.

In short, he's trying to set up, as fact, based on the authority of his own certain knowledge, something he actually simply believes strongly. Which is not only logically incoherent, but also basically goes against the guidelines of the forum.

Though, more generally, you may wish to go back and consider what the word assertion actually means. Inherent in the word assertion is the idea that what you assert has not been proved, although you may believe it strongly.



from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

as·ser·tion (ə-sûr′shən)
n.
1. The act of asserting.
2. Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof.

from the Collins English Dictionary

assertion (əˈsɜːʃən)
n
1. a positive statement, usually made without an attempt at furnishing evidence2. the act of asserting

From the Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary

as•ser•tion (əˈsɜr ʃən)

n.
1. a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason; allegation.
2. an act of asserting.
[1375–1425; late Middle English < Latin]
as•ser′tion•al, adj.

So the original question you post is clearly, in a sense, oxymoronic in addition to self serving.

 

[Benotti69]

"Sky never tested positive" is going to appear in here any day soon.......

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Yes it does happen, but not to the levels where such mind games would precipitate it being a regular occurrence as it had a noticeable effect.

Given the involvement of Steve Peters to keep various British trackies' "inner chimps" under control, it seems reasonable to conclude that being right mentally is a very significant element of maximising performance on the track.

If you think your opponent has a better bike than you do then you're most likely not going to perform to your best, given that when the chips are down, most folk look for reasons to justify underperformance rather than reasons to dig that bit deeper.

Beating the opposition before you sign on is much easier (if you can manage it) than beating them once the gun fires.

 

[20SecondsToComply]

Given the involvement of Steve Peters to keep various British trackies' "inner chimps" under control, it seems reasonable to conclude that being right mentally is a very significant element of maximising performance on the track.

If you think your opponent has a better bike than you do then you're most likely not going to perform to your best, given that when the chips are down, most folk look for reasons to justify underperformance rather than reasons to dig that bit deeper.

Beating the opposition before you sign on is much easier (if you can manage it) than beating them once the gun fires.

Witness: Alex Ferguson, Jose Mourinho, etc.

 

[andy1234]

That may work on weak minded opponents, but to think every other opponent of TeamGB was susceptible to mind games is for the birds.

Lots of riders dont give a fig about the technology and just get on the bike and perform. Otherwise we would have lots of riders using other manufacturers TT machines, helmets, skinsuits etc and not their sponsors.

You seem to have all the answers on what does, and doesn't, provide a performance advantage.

lots of riders might not give a fig, about many of these things.

Funnily enough lots of those riders, aren't medalists.

 

[ebandit]

strange

"Sky never tested positive" is going to appear in here any day soon.......

as will 'brits don't dope' standard rhetoric for those whom don't think for themselves

strangely I read more about team sky's ztp here than on team sky's own website

for team sky it's just a statement of intent..........they see no reason to have to prove themselves to those here............sorry guys!

Mark L

 

[Benotti69]

Given the involvement of Steve Peters to keep various British trackies' "inner chimps" under control, it seems reasonable to conclude that being right mentally is a very significant element of maximising performance on the track.

If you think your opponent has a better bike than you do then you're most likely not going to perform to your best, given that when the chips are down, most folk look for reasons to justify underperformance rather than reasons to dig that bit deeper.

Beating the opposition before you sign on is much easier (if you can manage it) than beating them once the gun fires.

I repeat that might work on opponents who are weak minded. But to say it affected all TeamGBs opponents is OTT.

Also most teams have sports psychologists so that cancels it out pretty much.

 

[oldcrank]

Given the involvement of Steve Peters to keep various British trackies' "inner chimps" under control, it seems reasonable to conclude that being right mentally is a very significant element of maximising performance on the track.

If you think your opponent has a better bike than you do then you're most likely not going to perform to your best, given that when the chips are down, most folk look for reasons to justify underperformance rather than reasons to dig that bit deeper.

Beating the opposition before you sign on is much easier (if you can manage it) than beating them once the gun fires.

Yes, my friend, I agree 100% with all your points.

Witness the CN interview with Francois Pervis a
year and a half after London 2012, and on the
heels of him winning three Rainbow Jerseys and
setting two World Records at the 2014 UCI World
Track Championships...and only a few weeks ago
in this forum many knowledgeable, long-time fans
of cycle sport were still outraged that the British
bikes were not available to the other nations.

Other nations, and fans of the sport were lamenting
that GB was the best-funded and best-equipped
team for a full four years before London 2012, and
I believe it affected many, if not most, of the
athletes competing against Team GB.

How much? Well, of course that is very hard to
quantify, but at the highest levels of sport every
little bit helps.

 

[Benotti69]

You seem to have all the answers on what does, and doesn't, provide a performance advantage. :rolleyes

You appear to offer little to nothing...

lots of riders might not give a fig, about many of these things.

Funnily enough lots of those riders, aren't medalists.

Armstrong made a huge deal over having a technological advantage over others. It counted for little in the end as it was doping that won out, at the time. A gold medal is won more likely with PEDS than without as history has shown, but that tiny little detail is not important when talking about ones own nations athletes

Paris Roubaix has had the indurstrys top names try to win it by using better technology and it always came down to the best program. Canc and his motor-bike might be the exception, but that has not been proven, yet!

Peters can beat dopers, yes of course he can.....