Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[samhocking]

Huh?

Does that mean that you do find it unique and not something that happens on any team as you previously wrote?

Or is a track team not the closest to have the same thing happening, but you just chose to not give a comparable (to Sky) example? Surely that should be very easy to do when it happens on any team, right?

My point is riders cross paths with different Dr(s) each year all the time, sometimes win, sometimes not. I don't think the coincidence of Sky winning should hold so much weight with Dr Leinders when success came without him anyway and Rabobank never had any Tour success with Leinders for 14 years trying! How did he get so good at doping a track donkey like Wiggins simply by switching from Rabobank to Sky over the winter?

 

[samhocking]

More importantly how did Wiggins do so well at Garmin without him?

 

[Netserk]

1) Sky didn't have any (GT) success before Leinders.

2) Leinders won two GTs with Menchov and was on the way to win the Tour with Rasmussen.

edit:

By doping. He was a lot stronger with Leinders than he was at Garmin. Makes sense a doping doctor will help a doping rider to do better.



I'm still waiting for you to name me a (pro) team, doctor and year.

 

[samhocking]

1. I'm talking about success under Brailsford. He is the consistent element of success wherever he is. You can't simply ignore the level of success he had on the track at Olympic & World level simply because it is not road.

2. I don't see the ride and fall of Menchov simply because Leinders is around? Where is the evidence of this? This is what I mean, riders come and go through teams sometimes win, sometimes don't, this is the nature of any sporting team with even the same doctor doping them as with Menchov & Rabobank.

3. If Leinders couldn't get Menchov to win The Tour in 14 years trying, there is no chance he could do it with Wiggins in a few months, or is Wiggins a better GT rider than Menchov despite coming from that unimportant tiny pool of weak track cycling talent?

I've explained my reason for not answering and that's because I never said success in a team is down to or not down to a Dr arrival if the success is seen before his arrival as repeated in 1. & 2. above explaining my meaning.

 

[Netserk]

I've explained my reason for not answering and that's because I never said success in a team is down to or not down to a Dr arrival.

You answering the question doesn't necessitate that you think it's down to the arrival of a doctor.

There's two genuine options:

1: you admit that your claim was false and that it doesn't happen on any team.

2: In the case that your claim was correct, then no matter if it's down to the arrival of a doctor or not, it will be easy for you to answer the question.

...



1: Yes I can and I just did. This is road cycling, the sport for real pros.

2: Duh, I haven't claimed otherwise. Strawman. He came from a dirty team before he got to Rabo. No surprise that the shift going from one doping system/doctor to another is less than that of a team not having a experienced doping doctor to hiring Leinders.

3: Doping is not a level playing field. Some respond better than others.

 

[D-Queued]

1. I'm talking about success under Brailsford. He is the consistent element of success wherever he is. You can't simply ignore the level of success he had on the track at Olympic & World level simply because it is not road.

2. I don't see the ride and fall of Menchov simply because Leinders is around? Where is the evidence of this? This is what I mean, riders come and go through teams sometimes win, sometimes don't, this is the nature of any sporting team with even the same doctor doping them.

3. If he couldn't get Menchov to win The Tour, there is no chance he could do it with Wiggins, or is Wiggins a better GT rider than Menchov coming from unimportant tiny pool of track cycling talent?

I've explained my reason for not answering and that's because I never said success in a team is down to or not down to a Dr arrival if the success is seen before his arrival as repeated in 1. & 2. above explaining my meaning.

I'm going with option A.

Quite possible, as you suggested above, that Dr's were involved on the track.

I know, I know, it is a shock that track cyclists would ever consider doping.

What your arguments appear to underscore is that Leinders was a LOT better doping Dr than some of us would believe.

Personally, I thought he was an also ran.

Going by your Wiggins donkey example - your example not mine - you make him sound like a veritable Ferrari.

Dave.

 

[peloton]

snipped

My point is the consistent variable in Sky/Team GB success is NOT Leinders, it's Brailsford and what other Dr Ferrari?

Well if you consider Sky's GT success, this is very relevant... Esp. #70

 

[samhocking]

The point was riders and teams rise and fall, but Brailsfords success doesn't with or without Leinders. If you can't accept a relationship between success of Brailsford and Wiggins on the track and then again on the road with or without Leinders then I wish you good night because this was my original point you never answered either.

 

[Netserk]

The point was riders and teams rise and fall, but Brailsfords success doesn't with or without Leinders. If you can't accept a relationship between success of Brailsford and Wiggins on the track and then again on the road with or without Leinders then I wish you good night because this was my original point you never answered either.

That's very rich of you.

You made a claim. I questioned that.

Now you refuse to answer that in any way and blame that on me for something that you have interpreted from what I said down the line.

First things first.

Can you name a team, doctor and year or can you not?

 

[samhocking]

What? My exact reply to you was:
"You can say the same about nearly any team and rider".
I make no reference to a Dr, you did.
By any team and rider, i mean the 'rise and fall' in a 2 year snapshot like you quoted not representing the success Brailsford and Wiggins have had before Lenders. This is what I mean by not answering. You simply choose to ignore 10 years and focus on 2 and when asked say track doesn't count when its the same two individuals working alongside each other continually throughout their whole careers so far.

 

[Netserk]

What? My exact reply to you was:
"You can say the same about nearly any team and rider".
I make no reference to a Dr, you did.
By any team and rider, i mean the 'rise and fall' in a 2 year snapshot like you quoted not representing the success Brailsford and Wiggins have had before Lenders. This is what I mean by not answering. You simply choose to ignore 10 years and focus on 2 and when asked say track doesn't count when its the same two individuals working alongside each other continually throughout their whole careers so far.

So it has never happened on any other pro team that the arrival of a doctor has led to the existing riders improving? That only happened when Sky hired Leinders?

 

[burning]

Netserk, you obviously do not believe in expertise about caring riders in extreme heat and curing saddle sores.

 

[samhocking]

I don't have a clue, its hard enough keeping track of what riders switch teams each year. I couldn't even name the Dr on half the teams, could you?, let alone claim they are the reason for a riders and teams success over two years? What kind of question or claim is that, its not even related to what you were replying to anyway?

 

[Parker]

So it has never happened on any other pro team that the arrival of a doctor has led to the existing riders improving? That only happened when Sky hired Leinders?

You're putting forward a false proposition. You are the one claiming that the doctor was the variable that created the change. Samhocking is not. He is saying that it is not a variable.
Therefore, your challenge should be to name a pro team that has improved regardless of staff changes. An inability to name one without that variable would emphasise the relevance of that variable.

If your hypothesis is that Event A happened because of Event B, then the lack of other occurences of Event A being conicident with Event B undermines your hypothesis rather than supports it. A lack of Event As in the absence of Event B would support it.

(And in that spirit I would point you in the direction of what was almost a low budget Sky prototype - HTC. In their first year under Stapleton, after the big 2006 clear out, they were 10th on CQ ranking. After that they were top two every year until their demise).

But back to Sky. They entered the sport in 2010 as a completely new team, almost entirely staffed by novices in their jobs on a road team. Is it really extraordinary that they would learn and improve?

 

[42x16ss]

You're putting forward a false proposition. You are the one claiming that the doctor was the variable that created the change. Samhocking is not. He is saying that it is not a variable.
Therefore, your challenge should be to name a pro team that has improved regardless of staff changes. An inability to name one without that variable would emphasise the relevance of that variable.

(And in that spirit I would point you in the direction of what was almost a low budget Sky prototype - HTC. In their first year under Stapleton, after the big 2006 clear out, they were 10th on CQ ranking. After that they were top two every year until their demise).

But back to Sky. They entered the sport in 2010 as a completely new team, almost entirely staffed by novices in their jobs on a road team. Is it really extraordinary that they would learn and improve?

Quickstep sure kicked things back up a notch when they brought on Ibarguren. Just saying...

Edit: and HTC were NOT a low budget team.

 

[thehog]

Is it really extraordinary that they would learn and improve?

Agreed. They learnt doping and improvement from performance enhancing drugs. And for that they needed a doping doctor with connections.

Good post Parker.

 

[Parker]

Quickstep sure kicked things back up a notch when they brought on Ibarguren. Just saying...

They also got a hell of a lot of money when Coucke and Balaka joined forces

Edit: and HTC were NOT a low budget team.

Really? They were mid-level Pro Tour at best. Here's Inner Ring on the finances of HTC: http://inrng.com/2011/08/highroad-pro-cycling/

 

[blackcat]

You're putting forward a false proposition. You are the one claiming that the doctor was the variable that created the change. Samhocking is not. He is saying that it is not a variable.
Therefore, your challenge should be to name a pro team that has improved regardless of staff changes. An inability to name one without that variable would emphasise the relevance of that variable.

If your hypothesis is that Event A happened because of Event B, then the lack of other occurences of Event A being conicident with Event B undermines your hypothesis rather than supports it. A lack of Event As in the absence of Event B would support it.

(And in that spirit I would point you in the direction of what was almost a low budget Sky prototype - HTC. In their first year under Stapleton, after the big 2006 clear out, they were 10th on CQ ranking. After that they were top two every year until their demise).

But back to Sky. They entered the sport in 2010 as a completely new team, almost entirely staffed by novices in their jobs on a road team. Is it really extraordinary that they would learn and improve?

i am not sure which logic fallacy you have invoked, but you have invoked the fallacy that Event B, has not occurred, and therefore an Event B, can never occur. ergo, a first event, can never occur.

paradox of first event.

 

[blackcat]

and PArker, HTC/HighRoad/Telekom were never low budget.

Stapleton got enough money when Telekom got out of their contract.

And they had an infrastructure and market rates with the most well provisioned team in the peleton. much like Rabo, but a little bit more provisioned. And A grade.

Sky had too much money, and threw their money at everything and anything, and much was not conducive to results on asphalt and hot pour.

Telekom had built up their infrastructure since when the Wall came down, even if a private super team with financial backing of Telekom did not come into the peloton till the mid 90s. Sky was built on a track infrastructure, with loads of resources. It is not the same thing.

Mapei tried to throw resources at winning GTs and could never also.

Sky paid overs.

 

[DirtyWorks]

So it has never happened on any other pro team thathe: arrival of a doctor has led to the existing riders improving? That only happened when Sky hired Leinders?

Your problem is your head isn't turned just right and.your eyes aren't scratched engh e sun isn't low.enough.in the sky. It makes.perfect sense if only you weren't so dense.

 

[D-Queued]

i am not sure which logic fallacy you have invoked, but you have invoked the fallacy that Event B, has not occurred, and therefore an Event B, can never occurr. ergo, a first event, can never occurr.

paradox of first event.

Like the new siggy!

Dave.

 

[blackcat]

Like the new siggy!

Dave.

i is actually a quote from "the hog" but I have not given him reference. i think i might have to.

btw thnx hoggie

 

[samhocking]

i am not sure which logic fallacy you have invoked, but you have invoked the fallacy that Event B, has not occurred, and therefore an Event B, can never occur. ergo, a first event, can never occur.

paradox of first event.

No, Leinders is the Variable (call it n).

Event A (Wiggins & Others & Brailsford Olympic & Track Success for 10 years)
Event B (Wiggins & Others & Brailsford Road Success for 2 years)

The argument is Event A has happened without (n), so who is Variable n in Event A?

 

[samhocking]

i am not sure which logic fallacy you have invoked, but you have invoked the fallacy that Event B, has not occurred, and therefore an Event B, can never occur. ergo, a first event, can never occur.

paradox of first event.

No, Leinders is the Variable (call it n).

Event A (Wiggins & Brailsford Olympic & Track Success for 10 years)
Event B (Wiggins & Brailsford Road Success for 2 years)

The argument is Event A has happened without (n), so who is Variable (n) in Event A to support theory that Variable n in Event B was the reason for it to happen/e claimed?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

So you're basically saying Leinders worked at rabobank from 1996 to 2009 and they never won Tour de France while he was there working with some extremely talented 'non-track' road riders deep in the era of doping, yet in 2 years all that knowledge of how to win the Tour worked on Wiggins? Jeez, try harder pal!

Other than my Godson, I am quite possibly Sir Brad's biggest fan, but even so, I have to acknowledge that different riders respond differently to the same doping regime and it's quite possible that Sir Brad simply responded better to the regime than Leinders' previous riders. I'm not saying this is the case, but there is plenty of evidence of "super-responders", in particular, Lance. He wasn't the first rider that Ferrari had in his "workshop", but he responded particularly (uniquely?) well to the treatment.

Such super-responders aren't that common by definition (not everyone can be "super", obviously) and having Froome and Wiggins in that category in the same team at the same time might be considered unlikely, though again, not impossible.