Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[20SecondsToComply]

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.

Well, I'm not here as a paid Armstrong groupie. And I can see from the total # of posts that clearly there has been a lot of debate - you'll understand if I don't read through all 2500+ pages (the Forum would probably have shut down by then...).

I've followed the forum for a while and only just joined. There does seem to be a lot of heated debate (sometimes a bit personal) but I'm ok with that, but give the Newbie a bit of a break and a least politely refer / point to some (shortish) reading material before going on (what I saw) was the attack.

Anyway I'm here now so lets forget the last few posts.

 

[DirtyWorks]

You haven't done your homework.

I'm not here for koans. Be specific or be ignored.

 

[20SecondsToComply]

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.

Well thats up to me - as I said, I'd like to look at some things before concluding either way.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

There has been a recent study of Premier league coaches. It appears that the coaches have as much affect on teams as the chef or dietician would. Cant find the link, but if i do, i will post it.

You could be onto something here. Studies in the NFL show the same direction. Coasches influence is wayyy overrated. And as here, people in the NFL thread don´t believe it.
So it would be nice if you have a link. I would like to use it over there too, as another example for team sports coaching influence (or lack of).

 

[stutue]

I'm not here for koans. Be specific or be ignored.

Fine by me.

But you still haven't done your homework.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

So, Chris 'the missing p1ss' Boardman is so good at mind games he even convinced the clocks at L2012 to give Team GB a world record time nearly every time they rode?

Nice...

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

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.

Not even I would. Fully agree here. And his transformation came on a late age, in an unseen before extreme way. DNF-123-123-DNF-134-71-3

No Rijs, LA, Rominger, Froome, Lagutin, Pinotti, whoever comes close...
The irony? His transformation happened with the clean team... No, not even I buy into that BS.

 

[red_flanders]

Well, I'm not here as a paid Armstrong groupie.

Sorry, didn't mean that in any way! Just giving some history here.

And I can see from the total # of posts that clearly there has been a lot of debate - you'll understand if I don't read through all 2500+ pages (the Forum would probably have shut down by then...).

I've followed the forum for a while and only just joined. There does seem to be a lot of heated debate (sometimes a bit personal) but I'm ok with that, but give the Newbie a bit of a break and a least politely refer / point to some (shortish) reading material before going on (what I saw) was the attack.

Anyway I'm here now so lets forget the last few posts.

Agreed!

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

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.

Wow! Second in a row i completely agree with you.

 

[Samson777]

There has been a recent study of Premier league coaches. It appears that the coaches have as much affect on teams as the chef or dietician would. Cant find the link, but if i do, i will post it.

Moyes was hung out to dry by the 'old' players at ManU, Giggs & Co.



Or doping did

Sounds like BS to me.

You think United would have finished out of europe qualification with Fergie? Moyes was probably hung out yes and there was probably a reason for this. But how does it change the fact, that it comes down to the manager?

- You think Crystal Palace would have avoided relegation at this point, without changing to Pulis?

- You think Liverpool would have been running for the title with Hodgson still in charge?

- Could Atletico have been in the CL final, had they appointed Alan Pardew instead of Simeone?

don't buy it..

And to get back to subject; I am sure SKY's dominance is all down to good coaching and Balisford beeing a tactical mastermind, with eye for all the marginal gains. Otherwise how do you explain the succes of a clean team like SKY?

 

[hrotha]

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

Newbies tend to rehash talking points that have been debunked countless times before, so it gets tiresome.

 

[red_flanders]

Wow! Second in a row i completely agree with you.

Let's not get carried away.

The preposterous nature of Wiggins' transformation does nothing to diminish the equally preposterous nature of Froome's. Froome was a mid/lower-mid pack rider who could occasionally TT and climb a bit.

Then he's destroying everyone and posting times even Wiggins could never hope to match.

Just a different flavor of utter absurdity.

 

[20SecondsToComply]

Newbies tend to rehash talking points that have been debunked countless times before, so it gets tiresome.

Ok, but does that mean they shouldnt have been cut some slack? You'll appreciate that 2500+ pages is not possible to read through. A post to a summary or some pertinent posts would be good, rather than attack. And also some of us may not have made up our mind / or even have expressed our position. Help us out (in a non-partisan way) and dont attack us.

 

[stutue]

To be fair, there is no way I'm going to sit down and read this entire thread .

What Hrotha says is true, but it is also inevitable.

 

[red_flanders]

Newbies tend to rehash talking points that have been debunked countless times before, so it gets tiresome.

It can be, but that's not really fair to the new folks. That's more about us having been here too long than it is about newbies. I think we should treat newcomers well and point them to the facts and make our points.

To Hrotha's point I'd say that a lot of newbies have come here with an agenda and reacted rather aggressively when they start to hear things that aren't being discussed by the cycling media. I think until someone proves that's their M.O. we should all be helpful and engage. Obviously.

I see no reason not to respectfully engage with 20seconds.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Let's not get carried away.

I won´t. Just joined the Wiggings discussion of today (we won´t agree on Froome though).
Now where I absolutely agree with you is on that:

124th or such to 4th is plausible? Who has ever plausibly done anything remotely like that? ... Froome at least showed some potential. Wiggins was nothing.

 

[20SecondsToComply]

It can be, but that's not really fair to the new folks. That's more about us having been here too long than it is about newbies. I think we should treat newcomers well and point them to the facts and make our points.

To Hrotha's point I'd say that a lot of newbies have come here with an agenda and reacted rather aggressively when they start to hear things that aren't being discussed by the cycling media. I think until someone proves that's their M.O. we should all be helpful and engage. Obviously.

I see no reason not to respectfully engage with 20seconds.

Thank you.

I appreciate that there has been huge debate over the last few years for Sky (witness this thread and others) and that us newbs may have missed a lot of things.

 

[martinvickers]

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.

You'll get used to that, son. It's how he shuts up opposition. Let it go...

 

[20SecondsToComply]

You'll get used to that, son. It's how he shuts up opposition. Let it go...

I guess I should. My welcome has not been what I hoped for / expected but I'm willing to let it go for now.

 

[martinvickers]

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.

Actually, I DO think you and hitch can get overly personal. WE all can. But I would agree you are among the best posters. At least you try and debate it out.

 

[ferryman]

OK guys. The seasoned posters on here know there is a football thread in another forum. To the new guys, go and find it. To you all, stop it and get back on topic.

 

[The Hitch]

You'll get used to that, son. It's how he shuts up opposition. Let it go...

on the contrary, the way i shut you up is by offering facts to your non facts. like when you tried to say wiggins got superlucky because he won a tour where some of the gc contenders didn't finish. I gave you lists of gt contenders who didn't make every tour since 2006 demonstrating that it happens every year and some years far worse than 2012.

You didn't respond to the post of course, just threw some insults at those who praised the post.

In short that shut you up being abrasive is your style son.

 

[ferryman]

Here is the link to the football thread. Apologies if I was a wee bit brusque:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1452029#post1452029

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Good post!.................(and it totally proves that Horner is clean )

You should have written Froome, since this is a Sky thread.

Thx Ferryman for let me have the final post on the issue.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

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

I am sure you could find clean riders where this was the case. Plenty of people have used the Giro as training.