Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Wallace and Gromit]

Not sure why Froome is so much more obvious.

He did actually show a tiny bit of talent before his magical transformation, which is more than you can say about Wiggo who was literally on the same level as Cavendish wrt future grand tour potential.

It's due to Wiggo being a serial winner at World and Olympic level on the track. The ability to perform consistently when it matters over a number of years is not a common quality but one that is very important in stage races. When Wiggo isn't in "CBA" mode, he very rarely goes AWOL physically or mentally.

I'll grant you that this aspect to Wiggo might actually explain why he succeeded in the Tour when most dopers don't rather than why Wiggo might have won clean!

 

[sniper]

Anyone really. I don't recall anything quite so blatant from RR. It is genuinely childish, as primary school kids do the "I know something really important but I'm not going to tell you" thing all the time, just to put down the person they're not telling. Knowledge is power and all that!

Not a great analogy.

what's childish about posting that rather interesting piece of info on here?
Day in day out this forum is flooded with posts, only a small percentage of which is able to really excite the regulars. Bobbins' post (in fact many of his posts) belong to that small percentage.
I'd thank bobbins for posting it rather than dismiss it as 'childish' and 'blatant'.

Also, I understand bobbins' reluctance to post the name.
And in the broader scheme of things (is Sky doping and if so how? Is Brailsford a fraud?), the actual name of the rider is not really important.

 

[The Hitch]

Interesting
I'd put Wiggins lower and Froome higher.
But there you go.

But you won't explain how Wiggins managed to lose all that weight and gain all that power the very year a drug that allows riders to lose lots of weight while gaining lots of power came into the sport.

Funny that.

Oops, an actual discussion about the doping rather than a flame war with the hog or sceptic. Time to disapear again twh I guess. Have a little sleep. Maybe in 2 hours you can argue the semantics of a sentence with hog again and pretend you are doing something else than trolling the thread

 

[The Hitch]

It's due to Wiggo being a serial winner at World and Olympic level on the track. The ability to perform consistently when it matters over a number of years is not a common quality but one that is very important in stage races. When Wiggo isn't in "CBA" mode, he very rarely goes AWOL physically or mentally.

I'll grant you that this aspect to Wiggo might actually explain why he succeeded in the Tour when most dopers don't rather than why Wiggo might have won clean!

You don't want bobbins to be allowed to post that he knows people within BC cycling. Ok. How is pointing to the success wiggins had in a totally different sport that required totally different talents any more valid?

 

[The Hitch]

Not sure why Froome is so much more obvious.

He did actually show a tiny bit of talent before his magical transformation, which is more than you can say about Wiggo who was literally on the same level as Cavendish wrt future grand tour potential.

The wiggins fanboys are in total denial about the fact that Froome and Wiggins are by now totally joined at the hip when it comes to doping or not.

The point at which they could toss froome aside as a scapegoat to save their crush is long past. There is no way Brailsford and Sky spent all those resources and finances to dope Froome only for him to come 2nd to someone clean. There is no way they were hiring all those people with mid 2000's doping experience to get Froome to the exact same power outputs, season peaks etc that wiggins just happened to manage doing clean.

They just found the only rider in the history of the world who could ride that fast clean and they decided to risk it all by devoting all their resources to dope someone else. Yeah

 

[sniper]

The wiggins fanboys are in total denial about the fact that Froome and Wiggins are by now totally joined at the hip when it comes to doping or not.

The point at which they could toss froome aside as a scapegoat to save their crush is long past. There is no way Brailsford and Sky spent all those resources and finances to dope Froome only for him to come 2nd to someone clean. There is no way they were hiring all those people with mid 2000's doping experience to get Froome to the exact same power outputs, season peaks etc that wiggins just happened to manage doing clean.

They just found the only rider in the history of the world who could ride that fast clean and they decided to risk it all by devoting all their resources to dope someone else. Yeah

agreed,
it's not from this earth to suggest there is even the slightest chance that Wiggo is clean if Froome turns out to be doped.

some of this bot-logic is just nonsensical.

 

[blackcat]

But you won't explain how Wiggins managed to lose all that weight and gain all that power the very year a drug that allows riders to lose lots of weight while gaining lots of power came into the sport.

Funny that.

Oops, an actual discussion about the doping rather than a flame war with the hog or sceptic. Time to disapear again twh I guess. Have a little sleep. Maybe in 2 hours you can argue the semantics of a sentence with hog again and pretend you are doing something else than trolling the thread

imo, it was less AICAR, and more lipotropin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipotropin

 

[Dr. Juice]

imo, it was less AICAR, and more lipotropin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipotropin

Could be a combination of both. AICAR became popular in 2008 before the Olympic Games. Just at the end of that year Wiggins lost that weight while keeping all the power. Which resulted in a 4th place in the TdF the year after.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

what's childish about posting that rather interesting piece of info on here?

Unfortunately, posting that you know some at BC/Sky/Anywhere that told you something "juicy" but you can't divulge further details for fear of [insert favourite excuse/reason here] isn't interesting. It's just annoying. (Maybe childish was a bit strong.) Better not make the claim than to claim and then fail to deliver when asked to do so.

If you know something, want to tell folk, but can't divulge names then the standard form is either "I was talking to a bloke in the pub who told me..." or "One of the guys on our club run at the weekend told me..." Such introductions set expectations as to receiving real juicy details as opposed to yet more gossip at a suitably low level. (Though I guess one could take the view that even if someone claims to have the inside track that names won't be divulged, as they (almost?) never are.)

 

[djpbaltimore]

You don't want bobbins to be allowed to post that he knows people within BC cycling. Ok. How is pointing to the success wiggins had in a totally different sport that required totally different talents any more valid?

Strawman alert. What was recommended to not be posted was evidence of Sky misdeeds that are impossible to be substantiated without additional information. That kind of evidence completely lacks credibility. The danger is that once time passes and the claim is repeated often enough, the context of the claim evaporates and it becomes part of the fabric of the argument.

 

[thehog]

Unfortunately, posting that you know some at BC/Sky/Anywhere that told you something "juicy" but you can't divulge further details for fear of [insert favourite excuse/reason here] isn't interesting. It's just annoying. (Maybe childish was a bit strong.) Better not make the claim than to claim and then fail to deliver when asked to do so.

If you know something, want to tell folk, but can't divulge names then the standard form is either "I was talking to a bloke in the pub who told me..." or "One of the guys on our club run at the weekend told me..." Such introductions set expectations as to receiving real juicy details as opposed to yet more gossip at a suitably low level. (Though I guess one could take the view that even if someone claims to have the inside track that names won't be divulged, as they (almost?) never are.)

We'll call it the "moncoutie" provision

Bobbins didn't state it was "juicey". He merely mentioned in the course of an entire list. There was nothing sensationalist about it.

 

[blackcat]

Could be a combination of both. AICAR became popular in 2008 before the Olympic Games. Just at the end of that year Wiggins lost that weight while keeping all the power. Which resulted in a 4th place in the TdF the year after.

yep, definitely both. but the lipoctropin worked a treat to render the functional tissue, the red muscle tissue, from even his thighs. IMO, all the epo, and all the kms, and all the caloric deficient diet could not have done that on its own, which i am comapring to what would happen to an AICAR fuelled diet.

Still could get the sunken and disappearing cheeks, and skin like Jacky Durand after 15 pro seasons riding 30 thousand miles a year.

The loss of muscle mass, all over his body, and his quads and hammies and buttocks and calves, tells me it was something else. And yes, I know that if you put Hoy on a diet of 30 thousand miles and hors categorie mountain passes, he would have skinnier legs. But that would all be normal(ish).

add lipotropin to the mix, and Hoy could be like Theo Bos, really lean in upper body and legs.

 

[the sceptic]

Strawman alert. What was recommended to not be posted was evidence of Sky misdeeds that are impossible to be substantiated without additional information. That kind of evidence completely lacks credibility. The danger is that once time passes and the claim is repeated often enough, the context of the claim evaporates and it becomes part of the fabric of the argument.

thanks Martin.

 

[djpbaltimore]

thanks Martin.

Serious? Is that an official sockpuppet prediction? Maybe you ought to look at my previous posts before making that prediction.

 

[thehog]

thanks Martin.

Do you think he even understand his own posts?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

At a guess a bunch of lower level guys used lipoctropin and didn't die or suffer horrendous facial anomalies, which encouraged the guys who could actually generate meaningful (1M vs 10k in salary increase$) results with it to give it a try.

 

[TailWindHome]

Oops, an actual discussion about the doping rather than a flame war with the hog or sceptic. Time to disapear again twh I guess. Have a little sleep. Maybe in 2 hours you can argue the semantics of a sentence with hog again and pretend you are doing something else than trolling the thread

I was attempting to have a discussion about the alleged doping. Bobbins introduced (not for the first time) the suggestion of a previous incident regarding a back dated TUE, I asked him for further details which he declined on the basis of protecting people close to the team.

Now here's the question.

As someone avocating discussion about the evidence why aren't you interested in this?

But you won't explain how Wiggins managed to lose all that weight and gain all that power the very year a drug that allows riders to lose lots of weight while gaining lots of power came into the sport.

How did Wiggins lose the weight and retain power?

Careful management of calories in versus calories out.

Cyclist does a thing
There's a drug that helps with that thing
Cyclist must have taken drug

You come across as an intelligent fella, you can see yourself how weak that is as 'evidence'. Have you anything more to support the assertion that the weight loss was acheived illegally?

 

[TailWindHome]

if over the past two to decades or so you have been in the lucky possession of a television and/or had access to newspapers, you'd start with the working assumption that bobbins' allegations are correct and that Sky doped to win 2 TdFs in a row.

I urge you to show us some photographic evidence of that cave you've been living in. Otherwise I'll assume you're here to troll.

No

That's stupid.

On that basis, any poster could claim inside knowledge to accuse any rider of doping and anyone who challenged it would be a troll.

 

[sniper]

I was attempting to have a discussion about the alleged doping. Bobbins introduced (not for the first time) the suggestion of a previous incident regarding a back dated TUE, I asked him for further details which he declined on the basis of protecting people close to the team.

Now here's the question.

As someone avocating discussion about the evidence why aren't you interested in this?



How did Wiggins lose the weight and retain power?

Careful management of calories in versus calories out.

Cyclist does a thing
There's a drug that helps with that thing
Cyclist must have taken drug

You come across as an intelligent fella, you can see yourself how weak that is as 'evidence'. Have you anything more to support the assertion that the weight loss was acheived illegally?

Athletes have never achieved that feat before without drugs (or show us somebody who did), so it's likely Wiggins used drugs as well.

 

[sniper]

No

That's stupid.

On that basis, any poster could claim inside knowledge to accuse any rider of doping and anyone who challenged it would be a troll.

your world seems pretty black and white.
Bobbins has shown time and again that he knows a lot about sky and has links.
He, s likely telling the truth.
This is about using the active part of your brain cells.

 

[TailWindHome]

your world seems pretty black and white.
Bobbins has shown time and again that he knows a lot about sky and has links.
He, s likely telling the truth.
This is about using the active part of your brain cells.

Great
Give us the details and we'll all know.

Seems fair, no?

 

[timmers]

your world seems pretty black and white.
Bobbins has shown time and again that he knows a lot about sky and has links.
He, s likely telling the truth.
This is about using the active part of your brain cells.

Well no he has't. He has been asked to provide names of athletes and the alleged infraction. These are easy to respond to i.e. I heard A (the athlete) was pulled from competing due to B (drug taking). No team member or BC staff is involved. It's simple give details or don't say anything!

 

[sniper]

Great
Give us the details and we'll all know.

Seems fair, no?

Again, use the active part of your brain cells and you'll come to comprehend why he doesn't.
But then again, feel free to assume he's lying. Your choice. People using their brains will continue to thinks he's probably telling the truth.

 

[TailWindHome]

Again, use the active part of your brain cells and you'll come to comprehend why he doesn't.
But then again, feel free to assume he's lying. Your choice. People using their brains will continue to thinks he's probably telling the truth.

I'm not assuming he's lying.

 

[sniper]

Well no he has't. He has been asked to provide names of athletes and the alleged infraction. These are easy to respond to i.e. I heard A (the athlete) was pulled from competing due to B (drug taking). No team member or BC staff is involved. It's simple give details or don't say anything!

If you don't want him to say anything, put him on ignore.