Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[20SecondsToComply]

He was a bottle carrier in 2008. Everything changed in 2009. The point was, that he was in fact a bottle carrier for years. Then a miraculous change. I don't see how anyone can dispute those simple facts.

Agree. In earlier years he didnt do much - but probably wasnt there for much other than prologues / TTs and bottle carrying a bit like Boardman (a kind of 'know your place sonny' - maybe a bit harsh). 2007/8 was Olympic build up so track work - ok for a bottle carrier / prologuer. I understand / read somewhere it was Vaughters that may have planted the spark in his mind that he could be more than that (a meeting at an airport or something?).

 

[red_flanders]

Well I'm sure its been covered here many many times, but not having AC around and a "flatter" course with more TT (less brutal mountains) will have helped in 2012.

Sure, no doubt. But you don't go from DNF's and finishing in the 120's and 130's to 4th and then a win without some MAJOR change. It's pretty absurd, really.

It makes transformations like those of guys like Riis and Armstrong look normal.

 

[red_flanders]

Who is the 'we' and why aren't you honest by default?

But, joking apart, my take is the absolute opposite to yours. I see Wiggins progression as plausible...even more so because of the immediate decline once he'd reached his goal.

Froome plausible? Not so much...

124th or such to 4th is plausible? Who has ever plausibly done anything remotely like that?

Anyway, it's the same old thing. If people want to believe such outrageous things have been done clean, I won't convince them otherwise. I don't understand how or why people believe in this, but there you go. Froome at least showed some potential. Wiggins was nothing.

 

[The Hitch]

To be fair, you've some small but important innacuracies here.

"Bottle carrier"- Wiggins? Get off.

.

What? He offered nothing to this team besides going for placements in prologues, and an occasional doomed break.
He finished climbing stages with the sprinters and sprint stages with the climbers.

Not a bottle carrier?

"This team calls doubters *****ers*"- No, they don't. This team has never said such a thing. Wiggins has.

The problem with taking Wiggins bone-idle wa**** speech as an indication of a doper under stress is that it could equally plausibly be the legitimate response of a clean rider annoyed at insinuations that his hard won victories are the result of cheating. It works just as well both ways

No. Not if Wiggins was in the past the guy who was leading the doubting.

We know for a fact that Wiggins had no problem with people getting accused of doping before he became god on a bicycle and even said that every tdf winner for 5 years will have to accept the doubt as legitimate. Those were his words. He also specified that teams with dodgy doctors deserve doubt.

We also know for a fact that the moment he became a gt contender he switched 180 degrees and started defending guys - Armstrong Contador from doping accusations, even when the evidence was there for both. He also started defending vino, who in his earlier speech in 2007 he said he hoped would be banned from cycling, amongst others.

So no the - clean rider upset at doping accusations theory doesn't work. Not for those who who have explicitly said as clearly as anyone possibly can, that they believe tdf winners even if clean deserve doubt.

It's very clear Wiggins suddenly became pro doping in 2009.

To believe that his sudden metamorphosis into gt great that happened exactly at the same time, is unrelated to that requires a degree of faith, stronger than the pope's.

 

[stutue]

124th or such to 4th is plausible? Who has ever plausibly done anything remotely like that?

Anyway, it's the same old thing. If people want to believe such outrageous things have been done clean, I won't convince them otherwise. I don't understand how or why people believe in this, but there you go. Froome at least showed some potential. Wiggins was nothing.

I don't think it was outrageous. You do.

Well there you go. If everybody had the same opinions the world would be a very boring place.

 

[20SecondsToComply]

Sure, no doubt. But you don't go from DNF's and finishing in the 120's and 130's to 4th and then a win without some MAJOR change. It's pretty absurd, really.

It makes transformations like those of guys like Riis and Armstrong look normal.

Well I'd need to really look in to all of that before commenting either way.

Armstrong just looks weird because he nearly died and then 18-24 months later he's a TDF winner. Admittedly he looked about 10kg lighter which would help but even so.

Riis is a time of the TdF that I didn't really follow all that closely so again I'd need to go and look back at things.

I still think my comment about a "flatter" route and no AC helped him, regardless of transformations. What I mean is - had there been less TT, more mountain finishes BW would have struggled more. Add in AC (clean or not) and he would have struggled to win.

 

[stutue]

What? He offered nothing to this team besides going for placements in prologues, and an occasional doomed break.
He finished climbing stages with the sprinters and sprint stages with the climbers.

Not a bottle carrier?

No. Not if Wiggins was in the past the guy who was leading the doubting.

We know for a fact that Wiggins had no problem with people getting accused of doping before he became god on a bicycle and even said that every tdf winner for 5 years will have to accept the doubt as legitimate. Those were his words. He also specified that teams with dodgy doctors deserve doubt.

We also know for a fact that the moment he became a gt contender he switched 180 degrees and started defending guys - Armstrong Contador from doping accusations, even when the evidence was there for both. He also started defending vino, who in his earlier speech in 2007 he said he hoped would be banned from cycling, amongst others.

So no the - clean rider upset at doping accusations theory doesn't work. Not for those who who have explicitly said as clearly as anyone possibly can, that they believe tdf winners even if clean deserve doubt.

It's very clear Wiggins suddenly became pro doping in 2009.

To believe that his sudden metamorphosis into gt great that happened exactly at the same time, is unrelated to that requires a degree of faith, stronger than the pope's.

You think the Pope actually believes in God? Your naivity is rather touching

 

[The Hitch]

Well I'm sure its been covered here many many times, but not having AC around and a "flatter" course with more TT (less brutal mountains) will have helped in 2012.

The mountains weren't less brutal, they just weren't at the end of stages. They still had to climb them and they tended to be climbed quite fast.

And when it was covered it was pointed out that Wiggins outclimbed everyone in the mountains anyway so it's a moot point. If he scraped the tour by a few minutes after losing time in the mountains, winning it back in the tt you would have a point. But it's just a sleight of hand. He beat Nibali by 6 minutes, never once losing so much as a second to him on any stage.

 

[The Hitch]

I don't think it was outrageous. You do.

Well there you go. If everybody had the same opinions the world would be a very boring place.

So you won't explain your opinion. Just profess to hold it, despite it's irrationality and when someone offers actual arguments just repeat that you have your own opinion?

That's not really the point of forums.

Hold whatever opinion you want, but the argument that 130 - 4th is not suspicious, but 80-2nd is, doesn't seem to hold much water.

 

[The Hitch]

Agree. In earlier years he didnt do much - but probably wasnt there for much other than prologues / TTs and bottle carrying a bit like Boardman (a kind of 'know your place sonny' - maybe a bit harsh). 2007/8 was Olympic build up so track work - ok for a bottle carrier / prologuer. I understand / read somewhere it was Vaughters that may have planted the spark in his mind that he could be more than that (a meeting at an airport or something?).

So 5 years on the road riding mountain after mountain after mountain, never occurs to him he can even win a breakaway stage on the terrain and tells kimmage it's not for him, then a word from vaughters and a few weeks later he's outclimbing a fully doped kloeden, Nibali, kreuziger at the tdf.

Sounds legit

 

[Netserk]

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

Only if often means always, but it doesn't.

 

[20SecondsToComply]

The mountains weren't less brutal, they just weren't at the end of stages. They still had to climb them and they tended to be climbed quite fast.

And when it was covered it was pointed out that Wiggins outclimbed everyone in the mountains anyway so it's a moot point. If he scraped the tour by a few minutes after losing time in the mountains, winning it back in the tt you would have a point. But it's just a sleight of hand. He beat Nibali by 6 minutes, never once losing so much as a second to him on any stage.

I dont think there is any need for you to be quite so abrasive. I did say that had there been more MTFs then I think BW would have struggled more. Mountains mid stage seem to cause less upset (most of the time) than MTFs.

 

[red_flanders]

Well I'd need to really look in to all of that before commenting either way.

Armstrong just looks weird because he nearly died and then 18-24 months later he's a TDF winner. Admittedly he looked about 10kg lighter which would help but even so.

Riis is a time of the TdF that I didn't really follow all that closely so again I'd need to go and look back at things.

I still think my comment about a "flatter" route and no AC helped him, regardless of transformations. What I mean is - had there been less TT, more mountain finishes BW would have struggled more. Add in AC (clean or not) and he would have struggled to win.

Sure, definitely look into it. Probably can pull up a lot of those races on YouTube at this point as well.

Sure flatter route was better for Wiggins. Probably got him an extra couple of minutes for sure, maybe up to 5-8 mins? Not going to take you from 124th to 4th. Something dramatically different started happening. I don't think it's too mysterious what.

 

[red_flanders]

And when it was covered it was pointed out that Wiggins outclimbed everyone in the mountains anyway so it's a moot point. If he scraped the tour by a few minutes after losing time in the mountains, winning it back in the tt you would have a point. But it's just a sleight of hand. He beat Nibali by 6 minutes, never once losing so much as a second to him on any stage.

Then there's this, which really seals it.

 

[20SecondsToComply]

So 5 years on the road riding mountain after mountain after mountain, never occurs to him he can even win a breakaway stage on the terrain and tells kimmage it's not for him, then a word from vaughters and a few weeks later he's outclimbing a fully doped kloeden, Nibali, kreuziger at the tdf.

Sounds legit

I'll point you to my previous post - no need to be so abrasive. I thought the point of forums like this was for discussion and debate, not slinging at each other. Is this really how you treat newbies?

And, as far as I am aware, the meeting with Vaughters was in 2008 - it was 2009 where he made a breakthrough. More than a few weeks.

 

[BYOP88]

Sure, definitely look into it. Probably can pull up a lot of those races on YouTube at this point as well.

Sure flatter route was better for Wiggins. Probably got him an extra couple of minutes for sure, maybe up to 5-8 mins? Not going to take you from 124th to 4th. Something dramatically different started happening. I don't think it's too mysterious what.

He stopped listening to music on a record player whilst riding and discovered he could get the Paul Weller back catalog on iPod.

 

[20SecondsToComply]

Sure, definitely look into it. Probably can pull up a lot of those races on YouTube at this point as well.

Sure flatter route was better for Wiggins. Probably got him an extra couple of minutes for sure, maybe up to 5-8 mins? Not going to take you from 124th to 4th. Something dramatically different started happening. I don't think it's too mysterious what.

Well I didnt say that it took him from 124th to 4th as I was talking about 2012. What I said was that 2012 was a route that suited him (ie flatter).

Really - what is it with you guys and newbies? I post a perfectly straight forward view and I'm lambasted from all corners.

 

[stutue]

So you won't explain your opinion. Just profess to hold it, despite it's irrationality and when someone offers actual arguments just repeat that you have your own opinion?

That's not really the point of forums.

Hold whatever opinion you want, but the argument that 130 - 4th is not suspicious, but 80-2nd is, doesn't seem to hold much water.

I have explained it. I think its plausible.

There you go.

Now if you think it is suspicious it is up to you to explain, convincingly, why it is suspicious. And you haven't. All you've done is repeat your assertion that its suspicious.

Google 'proof by assertion' if you want to see how common a mistake it is that you are making.

 

[BYOP88]

I'll point you to my previous post - no need to be so abrasive. I thought the point of forums like this was for discussion and debate, not slinging at each other. Is this really how you treat newbies?

And, as far as I am aware, the meeting with Vaughters was in 2008 - it was 2009 where he made a breakthrough. More than a few weeks.

Nope Wiggans rode the 2009 Giro and finished 70ish then a few weeks later in France he was climbing with the great dopers.

 

[stutue]

Really - what is it with you guys and newbies? I post a perfectly straight forward view and I'm lambasted from all corners.

Angry short men with tiny little willies, maybe?

(Relax just kidding guys)

Actually the people you are debating with (Red Flanders and The Hitch) seem to be amongst the more reasonable I've seen here. Certainly prepared for an in depth debate without getting personal.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Google 'proof by assertion' if you want to see how common a mistake it is that you are making.

The infinitely defensible "proof" argument returns. What is "proof" that Sky riders were doping? Please be specific.

 

[red_flanders]

Well I didnt say that it took him from 124th to 4th as I was talking about 2012. What I said was that 2012 was a route that suited him (ie flatter).

Really - what is it with you guys and newbies? I post a perfectly straight forward view and I'm lambasted from all corners.

I misunderstood and when I replied I wasn't sure which you were referring to. I'm not trying to attack you, I'm just giving you my view.

2012 was a route that suited him, but as Hitch mentions, he won on all the climbs anyway. No, I don't think he'd have won vs. AC or on a hillier course, that's true.

How he got into a position of beating a bunch of doped up guys who were champions and had been out-climbing and outriding him by hours in previous years is the only question for me, so the discussion of the course, while interesting isn't really (for me) the crux of things.

Hey and welcome to the board, good to have you. Hitch is by far one of the most informed cycling fans I've ever read, easily a top 2 or 3 poster on this site. He's a true fan and really informed, so I would give him a listen. I think you're being a touch sensitive, but all the same you have to cut Hitch and others some slack–there's a long history here of people coming in with a point of view, being presented with a LOT of facts to the contrary and aggressively moving into name-calling and obfuscation when they can't argue against those facts. And a lot of people historically came here during the Armstrong era as paid trolls from Public Strategies to defend Armstrong and troll the board. There's a bit of a hangover from all that.

Seriously welcome to the board and hope we can all be a bit more informed talking with one another.

 

[red_flanders]

Angry short men with tiny little willies, maybe?

(Relax just kidding guys)

Actually the people you are debating with (Red Flanders and The Hitch) seem to be amongst the more reasonable I've seen here. Certainly prepared for an in depth debate without getting personal.

Thanks, I do appreciate that. Well the reasonable bit. Not the small willie part. And I ain't short, that much I am willing to prove.

 

[stutue]

The infinitely defensible "proof" argument returns. What is "proof" that Sky riders were doping? Please be specific.

You haven't done your homework.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Well I'd need to really look in to all of that before commenting either way.

We're doing you a favor and telling you it was doping and the cycling federation supporting the doping. Just as going from the 100's to top-10 in a grand tour during a oxygen vector dope-fueled era is not normal.

Sure, you can spend hours coming to the same conclusion. But, it's a waste of time.