Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[The Hitch]

Oddly the logic on this forum is that a clean rider can't beat a doper.

Stannard yesterday beat every doper in the race, including a QS team so dominant that they put 3 men in a 4 man break with a card up their sleeve in the break behind.

What gives?

God, this is like having to explain times table to a 3 year old.

1 day race in February /= 3 week race in July

 

[TailWindHome]

God, this is like having to explain times table to a 3 year old.

1 day race in February /= 3 week race in July

Pick a 3 year old child.
Tell them 2 times 3 is 6
The next day tell them it's 7
They'll call you on it.

 

[Netserk]

Pick a 3 year old child.
Tell them 2 times 3 is 6
The next day tell them it's 7
They'll call you on it.

So it'd be no trouble at all for you to find me a quote where Hitch says that a clean rider can never beat a doper?

 

[TailWindHome]

So it'd be no trouble at all for you to find me a quote where Hitch says that a clean rider can never beat a doper?

Why would I search for a quote to support an assertion I haven't made?

We're talking broader themes here - not individual posts by individual posters.

 

[Netserk]

Why would I search for a quote to support an assertion I haven't made?

We're talking broader themes here - not individual posts by individual posters.

Then provide a quote supporting this assertion.

Oddly the logic on this forum is that a clean rider can't beat a doper.

 

[The_Juan]

I agree with the no-dope-here group on Stannard. This was Etixx-QuickStep's blunder more than the Brit's doing. I mean, they f*cked up big time. They carried this guy to exhaustion and then Ian just took off. Simple as that.

Booned must've been fuming after the race.

 

[hrotha]

Let's not be hasty - people here have said they're agnostic about Stannard, not that they assume him to be clean.

 

[The_Juan]

Stannard's victory yesterday is certainly not representative of anything.

 

[TailWindHome]

Then provide a quote supporting this assertion.

You disagree?

 

[The Hitch]

One quote from one poster?

No, a quote or many quotes, that support the claim you made, that the "logic on this forum is that a clean rider can't beat a doper."

If you can't find quotes that make that case, (as you won't) then take back what you said and apologize for lying/ making a mistake.

Or do what you usually do when faced with a question you can't answer and disappear from the thread

 

[the sceptic]

I see skyfans are upset that Stannard isn't getting the same outrage as Dawg and Wiggins.

Could it be that it's just Dawg and Wiggins that are super obvious? Not because they are brits?

 

[The Hitch]

I see skyfans are upset that Stannard isn't getting the same outrage as Dawg and Wiggins.

Could it be that it's just Dawg and Wiggins that are super obvious? Not because they are brits?

As I pointed out years ago when the trolls (led at the time by martin) started the argument that people are just anti brit, Mark Cavendish, who is probably one of the 5 most succesful cyclists of the last decade, has throughout his career had significantly less clinic activity than his success would warrant.

All the trolls always did a tailwindhome off the forum when faced with that counterpoint. By which I mean a mysterious tailwind would blow them home and they would reappear only when the question blew over.

 

[TailWindHome]

No, a quote or many quotes, that support the claim you made, that the "logic on this forum is that a clean rider can't beat a doper."

If you can't find quotes that make that case, (as you won't) then take back what you said and apologize for lying/ making a mistake.

Lets just ask the forum directly - see what they say.

 

[TailWindHome]

I see skyfans are upset that Stannard isn't getting the same outrage as Dawg and Wiggins.

Could it be that it's just Dawg and Wiggins that are super obvious? Not because they are brits?

Not upset.
Perplexed.

Stannard handed 3 QS riders their asses. Little reaction.

 

[Netserk]

You disagree?

Back up your assertion or own up to it being fake.




Yes I disagree. A clean rider can beat a doper. Not always, not under every circumstance, but there are scenarios where a clean rider can beat a doper. If Lemond was clean, then that shows it. He beat plenty of dopers.

 

[skippythepinhead]

Lets just ask the forum directly - see what they say.

Maybe let's not ask others to help you back up your absurdities.

 

[the sceptic]

Not upset.
Perplexed.

Stannard handed 3 QS riders their asses. Little reaction.

So you were expecting the same reaction as when Wiggins and Froome win? is that it?

Seems like you were really hoping the clinic would get upset, so you could get on your no evidence high horse and tell your friends on bikeretard how crazy the clinic is.

 

[sniper]

who is Sky's doctor at races like Omloop?

 

[Netserk]

Lets just ask the forum directly - see what they say.

Which you didn't, but when I did the answer was clear. You are wrong.

Can you admit that?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

As I pointed out years ago when the trolls (led at the time by martin) started the argument that people are just anti brit, Mark Cavendish, who is probably one of the 5 most succesful cyclists of the last decade, has throughout his career had significantly less clinic activity than his success would warrant.

All the trolls always did a tailwindhome off the forum when faced with that counterpoint. By which I mean a mysterious tailwind would blow them home and they would reappear only when the question blew over.

This post needed to remembered....

 

[mrhender]

http://www1.skysports.com/cycling/n...s-bradley-wiggins-to-sign-off-on-winning-note

Brailsford on Astana:

"I welcome the fact we're all under scrutiny. I welcome the fact that the UCI have reacted in a strong way. There are criteria that must be met by all teams and we're fighting to put the sport back on the map in terms of credibility.

"I welcome the world govering body's stance but they've got the facts and the details and it's they who have to decide on the best course of action.

"It's a report into the best and what's happened in the past has been well documented. The governing body was obliged to conduct a full review of this.

"We can only manage what we do at Team Sky and it's important we recognise our role in helping the sport in good health going forward. We share how we do it and play our role. Some are looking to the past and we're looking to the future."

 

[Saint Unix]

Sky will share anything except the stuff that's relevant, like Froome's lab test results and their rider's blood values.

 

[The Hitch]

http://www1.skysports.com/cycling/n...s-bradley-wiggins-to-sign-off-on-winning-note

Brailsford on Astana:

I thought they had already made the sport clean in 2012. Now its still dirty and the fight isn't over? Im confused.

 

[the sceptic]

I thought they had already made the sport clean in 2012. Now its still dirty and the fight isn't over? Im confused.

didnt they also say something about Froome winning because it's a clean era and that he could never win if the sport was still dirty?

funny how their stories change. must be hard to keep up with all the lies.

 

[JimmyFingers]

This post needed to remembered....

Why, wasn't there a thread about Mark Cavendish's teeth? Certain posters claim impartiality, Hitch perhaps included, but in my opinion it's a sham. And if pointing at Stannard and Cavendish's 'light' treatment at the clinic is evidence that Brits get a fair hearing here, I'll say the reason is because posters reserve their most vehement accusations of doping for the riders they like the least.

And I love the irony of trolls calling other posters trolls simply because they have a different opinion to them