Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[thehog]

Re: Re:

So...

1) Froome
It was expected
BUT
this is what interests me:

12) Henao
15) G
17) Nieve
28) Poels

Three Deluxe domestiques finishing top 20 & the mighty mountain pacer within the top 30. Landa ended up 35..... We are looking at the people who set Froome up in the mountains all the time, expent the most energy & sacrificed the most for their leader.........yet they get to be well positioned in the final GC....... how is that possible?

not normal

I don't remember Henao and Thomas (with the exception of stage 20) doing much riding on the front in mountain stages at all.

But sure they couldnt be doping- Chris would have them locked up
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-shocked-on-doping-in-team/

I gotta say this year on the joux plane they were ridiculous- shouldn't someone have got on the radio and told at least some of them to pretend to get dropped-

Hmm I think Froome is full of **** on this.

What’s your racing been like so far this season?
CF: It started well. I got a second place overall in the Giro del Capo behind my team-mate Christian Pfannberger.
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/the-big-interview-chris-froome-95581#L0FEhbXiTkPQuq0A.99

Pfannberger had served a 2 year ban prior to that interview and was banned a 2nd time within a year of that interview.

Even more funny was this from that interview in bold below. Dawg to round up the evil (euro) dopers and get them locked in jail! :lol:

When asked about the punishments cyclists should face, and in particular those faced by Dueñas, Froome paused before taking a line that many cycling fans would openly applaud. "I'm sure he's in enough trouble as it is and that he'll regret it for the rest of his life. There's already the possibility of a two-year suspension, a jail sentence and huge fine to pay and I hope he accepts that. I'm sure that he'll regret it for the rest of his life. If that's the only way it's going to stop guys doping then we should throw them in jail."

 

[The Hegelian]

Just read the comments (about Froome's win) in The Guardian: I pay homage to the Sky genius.

It all just works so brilliantly. There's not even that mainstream residual weary skepticism/suspicion, which was absolutely manifest last year.

Everyone's just drinking up the kool aid. Quite a feat from where they were last year.

 

[kwikki]

Re:

Just read the comments (about Froome's win) in The Guardian: I pay homage to the Sky genius.

It all just works so brilliantly. There's not even that mainstream residual weary skepticism/suspicion, which was absolutely manifest last year.

Everyone's just drinking up the kool aid. Quite a feat from where they were last year.

Mainstream scepticism where? In the UK? ( you are quoting a UK paper) or everywhere?

If it is everywhere, how is a UK paper indicative of that?

If it is UK, then I would say that there has never been a weary scepticism about Sky, but there has always been an unspoken scepticism about cycling.

I read the Guardian article, and found it irritating, but it isn't surprising or unusual for a national paper to eulogise a national athlete and team based in that nation when they have just won an international event.

I think it is also understandable and predictable that the noise about doping that has surrounded the Tour since Sky's first win has died down a little. Not because of anything Sky have done to allay suspicions, but because we are now 4 years on from USADA's Reasoned Decision. Sky's first Tour win came right in the middle of the Armstrong debacle, the effect of which was to make doping the central issue in mainstream consciousness when this king about cycling. The RD came 2 days after the Tour finished. Oprah came in the following January, thus keeping doping firmly in the minds of cycling fans and the general public.

Regardless of where one stands on Sky and clinic issues, it is undeniable that the Armstrong fallout added to the cynicism (after all, many posters here frequently revert back to making parallels with Armstrong) and anybody winning the Tour from 2012 onwards would be fighting an uphill battle.

Four years on, things are bound to calm down.

 

[sniper]

The irony and hypocrisy is huge though considering British dominance in cycling happens right in the Russia bashing period.

 

[kwikki]

If you have documented evidence of British state sponsored doping programmes, coercion and threats of violence made towards British anti-doping labs by British security services, British state security services breaking into doping labs and switching samples, a British Government plan to dope athletes and hide positives, British government sponsored development of new doping techniques, then by all means publish it.

If you haven't got any documented evidence then what you say just looks like idle speculation with no factual basis.

 

[sniper]

How is observing hypocrisy and irony 'idle speculation'?

 

[MartinGT]

Re: Re:

So...

1) Froome
It was expected
BUT
this is what interests me:

12) Henao
15) G
17) Nieve
28) Poels

Three Deluxe domestiques finishing top 20 & the mighty mountain pacer within the top 30. Landa ended up 35..... We are looking at the people who set Froome up in the mountains all the time, expend the most energy & sacrificed the most for his leader.........yet they get to be well positioned in the final GC....... how is that possible?

not normal

How much time to "G" lose when he handed over his bike, might have finished ahead of Aru if he didn't have to hand his bike over.

Thomas was 6mins approx behind Aru on the stage.

 

[kwikki]

Re:

How is observing hypocrisy and irony 'idle speculation'?

You aren't observing hypocrisy, you are speculating it. If you want to move from speculation into observation then you need to provide some documented evidence that the GB government has behaved in the same manner as the Russian government with regards to promotion of doping, and the examples mentioned in my previous post would be a good starting point.

 

[sniper]

if in this context you're still using words like 'speculation' and 'no evidence', i can only assume you know preciously little about the history of cycling and doping.

 

[kwikki]

Re:

if in this context you're still using words like 'speculation' and 'no evidence', i can only assume you know preciously little about the history of cycling and doping.

You are now reverting back to a well worn meme in which you feel comfortable, with a rhetorical device that is effectively saying I must agree with you or I know nothing about the sport.

As I said, if you want to get beyond speculation put some documented evidence on the table....you know, the same sort of stuff that has been found out and published about the Russians.

Your claim of hypocrisy demands it, I'm afraid. Enthusiasm and vehemence can only take you so far, but if what you say is true then it should be really easy for you.

 

[Roninho]

Kwikki is correct.
I believe Sky and Froome are doping.
However there is nobody who has shown any proof that this is the case, and therefor i am speculating at best.

 

[kwikki]

Re:

Kwikki is correct.
I believe Sky and Froome are doping.
However there is nobody who has shown any proof that this is the case, and therefor i am speculating at best.

We aren't discussing Sky here, actually

 

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

Just read the comments (about Froome's win) in The Guardian: I pay homage to the Sky genius.

It all just works so brilliantly. There's not even that mainstream residual weary skepticism/suspicion, which was absolutely manifest last year.

Everyone's just drinking up the kool aid. Quite a feat from where they were last year.

Mainstream scepticism where? In the UK? ( you are quoting a UK paper) or everywhere?

If it is everywhere, how is a UK paper indicative of that?

If it is UK, then I would say that there has never been a weary scepticism about Sky, but there has always been an unspoken scepticism about cycling.

I read the Guardian article, and found it irritating, but it isn't surprising or unusual for a national paper to eulogise a national athlete and team based in that nation when they have just won an international event.

I think it is also understandable and predictable that the noise about doping that has surrounded the Tour since Sky's first win has died down a little. Not because of anything Sky have done to allay suspicions, but because we are now 4 years on from USADA's Reasoned Decision. Sky's first Tour win came right in the middle of the Armstrong debacle, the effect of which was to make doping the central issue in mainstream consciousness when this king about cycling. The RD came 2 days after the Tour finished. Oprah came in the following January, thus keeping doping firmly in the minds of cycling fans and the general public.

Regardless of where one stands on Sky and clinic issues, it is undeniable that the Armstrong fallout added to the cynicism (after all, many posters here frequently revert back to making parallels with Armstrong) and anybody winning the Tour from 2012 onwards would be fighting an uphill battle.

Four years on, things are bound to calm down.

The Guardian is Anglosphere, not purely British anymore. And the article was fine. I merely pointed out the very discernible difference between this year and last - in the comments.

I take your point about the Armstrong decision and mainstream suspicion.

However, contrary to your suggestion, I would argue that mainstream skepticism was at its most potent last year, not during 2012. Wiggins got a few questions, which pissed him off. Last year Froome had documentaries on French TV, the leaked tape, everyone talking about watts, urine thrown at him etc. It looked to me like the clinic went mainstream.

This year: it's all totally disappeared.

If it is so that mainstream skepticism peaked last year, not in 2012, then you need a new argument to explain why.

I'll help you out: expert PR.

 

[kwikki]

All good points.

 

[The Hegelian]

The general question of speculation and hard empirical evidence needs examination.

For state sponsored programs: yes, I think one needs some real substantial evidence of systemic and intentional corruption. That's so with Russia in a way that isn't with Britain.

But for doping in the pro peloton: it is way too loose to assert that doping claims without positive proof are mere speculation. There is firstly a lot of hard sports science which justify some assertions of doping (i.e. think about Lemond's Vo2 max based accusations on Armstrong). Secondly, there is a lot of cultural/institutional/historical knowledge which is extremely valuable in building up a logically consistent account of doping. Thirdly, there are ways of bringing the first two together, alongside empirical facts such as climbing times and power outputs.

Now, the kind of knowledge that may accrue from the combination of those epistemic frameworks may not be 100% indubitable, but to call it speculative is simply ignorant - it is to deny those existing methods of knowledge as knowledge, and hold them to be mere imagination. It's far more robust than that.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

Just read the comments (about Froome's win) in The Guardian: I pay homage to the Sky genius.

It all just works so brilliantly. There's not even that mainstream residual weary skepticism/suspicion, which was absolutely manifest last year.

Everyone's just drinking up the kool aid. Quite a feat from where they were last year.

Mainstream scepticism where? In the UK? ( you are quoting a UK paper) or everywhere?

If it is everywhere, how is a UK paper indicative of that?

If it is UK, then I would say that there has never been a weary scepticism about Sky, but there has always been an unspoken scepticism about cycling.

I read the Guardian article, and found it irritating, but it isn't surprising or unusual for a national paper to eulogise a national athlete and team based in that nation when they have just won an international event.

I think it is also understandable and predictable that the noise about doping that has surrounded the Tour since Sky's first win has died down a little. Not because of anything Sky have done to allay suspicions, but because we are now 4 years on from USADA's Reasoned Decision. Sky's first Tour win came right in the middle of the Armstrong debacle, the effect of which was to make doping the central issue in mainstream consciousness when this king about cycling. The RD came 2 days after the Tour finished. Oprah came in the following January, thus keeping doping firmly in the minds of cycling fans and the general public.

Regardless of where one stands on Sky and clinic issues, it is undeniable that the Armstrong fallout added to the cynicism (after all, many posters here frequently revert back to making parallels with Armstrong) and anybody winning the Tour from 2012 onwards would be fighting an uphill battle.

Four years on, things are bound to calm down.

The Guardian is Anglosphere, not purely British anymore. And the article was fine. I merely pointed out the very discernible difference between this year and last - in the comments.

I take your point about the Armstrong decision and mainstream suspicion.

However, contrary to your suggestion, I would argue that mainstream skepticism was at its most potent last year, not during 2012. Wiggins got a few questions, which pissed him off. Last year Froome had documentaries on French TV, the leaked tape, everyone talking about watts, urine thrown at him etc. It looked to me like the clinic went mainstream.

This year: it's all totally disappeared.

If it is so that mainstream skepticism peaked last year, not in 2012, then you need a new argument to explain why.

I'll help you out: expert PR.

All good points, but scepticism is a hard thing to quantify, which applies to both our positions.

I think the crowd went mad in '13, didn't they? I think there is an element of Froome being Anglo phone. The last memorable Anglo phone winner being Armstrong (sorry Cadel!) and 'new'.

Here's why I think this...

It's not so much because of the reaction to Froome, it's because of the complete lack of reaction to Astana's win in 2014. If ever there was a case for a reaction based on history and evidence this was it. Just to recap here is a potted history of Astana:

Born out of Puerto disgraced Liberty Seguros
Kicked out of 2007 tour for Vino blood doping
Team mate Kashenkin busted after wards
Bruyneel comes in
Armstrong gets a ride
Astana stripped of 2010 TdF win
Bribery allegations at Olympics
2014 licence nearly revoked
Padova
4 busts in 2014

And yet no reaction from the crowds.

 

[Dan2016]

Well made points about Astana. Maybe there isn't such a reaction because we all know what they are and they don't shout from the rooftops that they are different. Same old ***, nothing new.

Maybe many of us find Sky so sickening because of them setting themselves up as the poster-boys of clean cycling, complete transparency etc. Yet they provide none of this transparency and treat us like idiots expecting us to lap up their PR BS.

 

[ontheroad]

Re: Re:

Just read the comments (about Froome's win) in The Guardian: I pay homage to the Sky genius.

It all just works so brilliantly. There's not even that mainstream residual weary skepticism/suspicion, which was absolutely manifest last year.

Everyone's just drinking up the kool aid. Quite a feat from where they were last year.

Mainstream scepticism where? In the UK? ( you are quoting a UK paper) or everywhere?

If it is everywhere, how is a UK paper indicative of that?

If it is UK, then I would say that there has never been a weary scepticism about Sky, but there has always been an unspoken scepticism about cycling.

I read the Guardian article, and found it irritating, but it isn't surprising or unusual for a national paper to eulogise a national athlete and team based in that nation when they have just won an international event.

I think it is also understandable and predictable that the noise about doping that has surrounded the Tour since Sky's first win has died down a little. Not because of anything Sky have done to allay suspicions, but because we are now 4 years on from USADA's Reasoned Decision. Sky's first Tour win came right in the middle of the Armstrong debacle, the effect of which was to make doping the central issue in mainstream consciousness when this king about cycling. The RD came 2 days after the Tour finished. Oprah came in the following January, thus keeping doping firmly in the minds of cycling fans and the general public.

Regardless of where one stands on Sky and clinic issues, it is undeniable that the Armstrong fallout added to the cynicism (after all, many posters here frequently revert back to making parallels with Armstrong) and anybody winning the Tour from 2012 onwards would be fighting an uphill battle.

Four years on, things are bound to calm down.

The Guardian is Anglosphere, not purely British anymore. And the article was fine. I merely pointed out the very discernible difference between this year and last - in the comments.

I take your point about the Armstrong decision and mainstream suspicion.

However, contrary to your suggestion, I would argue that mainstream skepticism was at its most potent last year, not during 2012. Wiggins got a few questions, which pissed him off. Last year Froome had documentaries on French TV, the leaked tape, everyone talking about watts, urine thrown at him etc. It looked to me like the clinic went mainstream.

This year: it's all totally disappeared.

If it is so that mainstream skepticism peaked last year, not in 2012, then you need a new argument to explain why.

I'll help you out: expert PR.

All good points, but scepticism is a hard thing to quantify, which applies to both our positions.

I think the crowd went mad in '13, didn't they? I think there is an element of Froome being Anglo phone. The last memorable Anglo phone winner being Armstrong (sorry Cadel!) and 'new'.

Here's why I think this...

It's not so much because of the reaction to Froome, it's because of the complete lack of reaction to Astana's win in 2014. If ever there was a case for a reaction based on history and evidence this was it. Just to recap here is a potted history of Astana:

Born out of Puerto disgraced Liberty Seguros
Kicked out of 2007 tour for Vino blood doping
Team mate Kashenkin busted after wards
Bruyneel comes in
Armstrong gets a ride
Astana stripped of 2010 TdF win
Bribery allegations at Olympics
2014 licence nearly revoked
Padova
4 busts in 2014

And yet no reaction from the crowds.

That's largely because it is widely accepted that Astana are doping. Sky on the other hand portray themselves as the white knights of the peloton with sanctimonious bu****it. You should be prepared to be judged on the standards that you set for yourself.

 

[kwikki]

I am aware of that argument but I find it a very weak one, because actually it contains within it a hypocrisy. The people who put that argument forwards are being hypocritical, and actually what they are saying is 'we won't object to you doping, as long as you never pretend to be clean....unless asked directly'. It's a nonsense argument.

People object to Sky and Froome primarily because they think they are cheating. The hypocrisy thing is there, but is in addition.

Did anyone ask Nibali in 2014 if he dopes? What was his answer??

 

[tretiak]

Re:

I am aware of that argument but I find it a very weak one, because actually it contains within it a hypocrisy. The people who put that argument forwards are being hypocritical, and actually what they are saying is 'we won't object to you doping, as long as you never pretend to be clean....unless asked directly'. It's a nonsense argument.

People object to Sky and Froome primarily because they think they are cheating. The hypocrisy thing is there, but is in addition.

Did anyone ask Nibali in 2014 if he dopes? What was his answer??

His W/kg ratio is more human. Maybe that's why.

 

[deValtos]

Re: Re:

I am aware of that argument but I find it a very weak one, because actually it contains within it a hypocrisy. The people who put that argument forwards are being hypocritical, and actually what they are saying is 'we won't object to you doping, as long as you never pretend to be clean....unless asked directly'. It's a nonsense argument.

People object to Sky and Froome primarily because they think they are cheating. The hypocrisy thing is there, but is in addition.

Did anyone ask Nibali in 2014 if he dopes? What was his answer??

His W/kg ratio is more human. Maybe that's why.

Are they though?

I remember this article from 2014.

http://cyclingtips.com/2014/08/tour-de-france-2014-analysis-of-climbing-data-and-what-does-it-mean/

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

I am aware of that argument but I find it a very weak one, because actually it contains within it a hypocrisy. The people who put that argument forwards are being hypocritical, and actually what they are saying is 'we won't object to you doping, as long as you never pretend to be clean....unless asked directly'. It's a nonsense argument.

People object to Sky and Froome primarily because they think they are cheating. The hypocrisy thing is there, but is in addition.

Did anyone ask Nibali in 2014 if he dopes? What was his answer??

His W/kg ratio is more human. Maybe that's why.

Nibali 2014 and Froome 2013 are pretty much the same. Nibali’s best performances were a 6.3 W/kg effort for 17 min and 6.2 W/kg for 32 min (his best, Risoul).

 

[The Hegelian]

Nope, the ambivalence about Astana compared with Sky is simply this: Sky have destroyed all comers - including Astana which everyone knows are doped to the gills. They have dominated (utterly) the dirtiest teams, with the dirtiest histories, year after year.

No one else is riding like that. They have crushed the opposition. When Nibali won, it wasn't Astana crushing the opposition, it was the opposition literally falling over. The Giro is a very different story. Astana in 2015 were probably more full on than Sky in any tdf - but the Giro does not attract mainstream interest. Sky are the only ones doing this, year in year out, in front of the global media circus that is the tdf.

So the most logical question in the world is this: how do you utterly destroy the dirtiest teams, whilst being clean as a whistle yourself? You don't, hence the questions.

Where there is hypocrisy - and of course there is - I think it is aesthetic not nationalistic. People liked Cadel because he was a fighter, they liked Wiggins because he was an interesting mod - but Froome is damn ugly on the bike, and his polite bourgeois manner does not appeal.

 

[Dan2016]

Re:

I am aware of that argument but I find it a very weak one, because actually it contains within it a hypocrisy. The people who put that argument forwards are being hypocritical, and actually what they are saying is 'we won't object to you doping, as long as you never pretend to be clean....unless asked directly'. It's a nonsense argument.

People object to Sky and Froome primarily because they think they are cheating. The hypocrisy thing is there, but is in addition.

Did anyone ask Nibali in 2014 if he dopes? What was his answer??

To the bolded, is anyone really saying that? Seems like a bit of a strawman. The clinic exists because we all want the doping to stop. We object to it, full stop.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Astana's series of positives? They only add to the sense of there being a pact between UCI and western teams in general (and Sky in particular).
Kwikki still has a poor grasp of the hypocrisy that is on display in present-day procycling.
It's also obvious Kwikki wasn't here when Contador tested positive for clen and pleaded not guilty.