Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[HSNHSN]

Re: Re:

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.

This is a good question. I think one of the important reasons why Nibali's tour got so much leniency is because the other top contenders that year dropped out of the tour. If you expect a big fight between riders beforehand, as almost everyone did, and two of those three drop out, one sort of expects the third to win. Whether or not he's doping for the effort (which he of course did) is not that relevant anymore. It's not just a known doper beating other dopers, it has become a known doper expectedly beating other dopers. Psychology plays a large part in this. Maybe loss of interest since their favourite crashed out for some as well.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

In case anyone forgot and maybe some newcomers never knew, but Brailsford thought Kimmage sceptical in 2009...

He handed me a copy of the team's recruitment strategy - a huge tome that must have weighed half a ton - and impressed on me that Sky would be different

Roger Palfreeman, the chief medical officer at British Cycling, would lead an internal testing programme.

The team would only employ British doctors, have a zero tolerance of doping and would not employ anyone who had been associated with doping. The staff would be "enthusiastic and positive, fit and healthy, and willing to try new things".

Sky lied. Sky lied big time from the beginning.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-tour-de-france-leader-chris-froome-would-be-well-advised-to-invite-questions-31386946.html

Sky's internal testing program that never picked up Bilharzia or JTL's blood anomalies.....

Even the Deputy editor, Sunday Times Sport, is tweeting BS that after 4 years and no 'evidence', Froome is a clean winner. Imagine he oversaw all the Armstrong articles, imagine that. Boy 'journalism' can be a dirty word sometimes.

I thought Sky had done a blood test on JTL just before the UCI (or whatever) one, but it was within the parameters (but perhaps only just)? Or is my memory wrong ...

After the Worlds he went to Manchester for testing, he used those values in his defense, they went allowed to be added to his passport readings.

Thanks Hog - I knew I had heard it somewhere. So there was some kind of internal testing, I guess similar to the testing that picked up on Henao?

Again, the difference between performance testing and testing for illicit substances. There is a big difference. So, not internal testing but performance testing which included measurement of hemoglobin and hematocrit.

 

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

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.

You are right about most things in this post.

However, this point about 'everyone knowing Astana' is doped to the gills isn't quite such an easy one to accept primarily because it isn't frequently voiced publicly, at least apart from social media. I really cannot believe that the road side fans who hurled abuse, spit, and urine at anything Sky did so because they were annoyed at Sky's PR machine's hypocrisy. It was because they thought they were cheating.

So which is it? Were they annoyed because they thought Sky were cheating too much or because they thought Sky were cheating clean athletes (probably French ).

It has to be the latter.

For the record, I agree with you that Sky's clean stance is likely bogus.

We can't expect perfect moral consistency. Everyone has their fidelities and identities, and it seems obvious to me that we're dealing with a very irrational domain for that reason. It's sport: it's fundamentally about tribes, love and hate.

Why are Sky hated more? I would say it is directly connected to their level of dominance. They've killed the race as a meaningful competition. If Katusha were doing that and Sky were getting a top 7 GC + some high placings in stages, do you really think they'd still be hated?

Everyone hates the most successful cheaters.

The hypocrisy is the qualifier: "unless the champion rides with panache." Pantani will always be a god - who could hate him?

Maybe that's a reason Froome got off lighter this year - he did actually ride with panache this year.

 

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

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.

they destroyed in July

Astana since 2010 won
2 Tours (Alberto 2010 Nibali 2013)
2 Giro (Nibali 2013-16)
1 Vuelta (Aru 2016)

got podiums in Giro Tour Vuelta

remember Hautacam 2013, when Nibali wanted to win the stage, Astana chased all day long as mad, and Nibali went bang and won.
I am glad Sky let the breakaways go this year

Yes my friend, that's why my post included: 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.

 

[ggusta]

“Every ounce of my cynicism is supported by historical precedent.”
― Glen Cook

 

[sniper]

Re:

“Every ounce of my cynicism is supported by historical precedent.”
― Glen Cook

Nice. Hang on.

 

[sniper]

Re:

“Every ounce of my cynicism is supported by historical precedent.”
― Glen Cook

Nice. Bang on.

 

[ggusta]

and who can forget Lily Tomlin's gem: ... No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up. ... Froome is just Armstrong 2.0 with a more studied approach. Less greedy, same mask.

 

[Benotti69]

It would appear Sky are not happy that people are pointing out the obvious. Matthew Syed in The London Times has taken a pop at Ross Tucker and the idea that if Sky were doping a whistleblower would have appeared! TeamSky must be big time clinic readers.

What did Kimmage call them 'Pravda'. And people think Murdoch is not protecting his little investment.

Good to see they are reacting to this stuff. Means people is Sky are nervous.

It easy to do a bit of research and come to the conclusion that Sky are telling lots of lies and repeating lots of excuses that Armstrong used to cover up the transformations. Funny stuff! Brailsford is a copy and paste merchant!

 

[Saint Unix]

It took a positive doping test, a served ban and a return to cycling that saw him completely frozen out by every single pro team and pro rider and a couple of years addicted to booze and pills for Landis to do his thing against Armstrong and USPS, eleven years after their first Tour win in 1999.

So obviously the first dude who sees something fishy going on at Sky is going to start shouting about it from the rooftops and all will be dandy. Whistle-blowing is so easy.


I'm actually more and more convinced each passing day that Sky is the most elaborate trolling project of all time, designed to test how wilfully the average cycling fan will swallow a carbon copy of all USPS BS so soon after they came crashing down. The results are pretty god damn sad.

 

[thehog]

Re:

It took a positive doping test, a served ban and a return to cycling that saw him completely frozen out by every single pro team and pro rider and a couple of years addicted to booze and pills for Landis to do his thing against Armstrong and USPS, eleven years after their first Tour win in 1999.

So obviously the first dude who sees something fishy going on at Sky is going to start shouting about it from the rooftops and all will be dandy. Whistle-blowing is so easy.


I'm actually more and more convinced each passing day that Sky is the most elaborate trolling project of all time, designed to test how wilfully the average cycling fan will swallow a carbon copy of all USPS BS so soon after they came crashing down. The results are pretty god damn sad.

It was awesome stuff. On the day after the IOC banned Stepanova who risked her life and is living in exile from competing in the Olympics this article comes out with a line of reasoning "Why would I dope, after what my body has been through? Arguably a death sentence, why?"

These guys need to pay Lance & Sally Jenkins royalties.

 

[domination]

Re: Sky

Year after year it's the same old arguments and slander in here. Nothing new whatsoever. No evidence, no proof, no smoking gun. Nothing, nada.

 

[elduggo]

Re: Sky

Year after year it's the same old arguments and slander in here. Nothing new whatsoever. No evidence, no proof, no smoking gun. Nothing, nada.

Joined: 14 Jul 2012 14:56

barely a year after cycling was invented

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Sky

Year after year it's the same old arguments and slander in here. Nothing new whatsoever. No evidence, no proof, no smoking gun. Nothing, nada.

Joined: 14 Jul 2012 14:56

barely a year after cycling was invented

Are you inviting someone to observe that was just before you joined? Is that how respect is measured? You both joined before I did, so huge respect to you both, but more to him than to you!

 

[elduggo]

Re: Sky

Year after year it's the same old arguments and slander in here. Nothing new whatsoever. No evidence, no proof, no smoking gun. Nothing, nada.

Joined: 14 Jul 2012 14:56

barely a year after cycling was invented

Are you inviting someone to observe that was just before you joined? Is that how respect is measured? You both joined before I did, so huge respect to you both, but more to him than to you!

no, not at all.

It was a comment (abeit a cryptic one) referring to the MASSIVE transformation in a certain rider that took place the calendar year before.

And that, were one not so interested in cycling prior to 2011, one may not have been aware of the performances of said rider prior to that transformation.

I shall try to be less cryptic in future.

 

[kwikki]

Re:

I'm actually more and more convinced each passing day that Sky is the most elaborate trolling project of all time, designed to test how wilfully the average cycling fan will swallow a carbon copy of all USPS BS so soon after they came crashing down. The results are pretty god damn sad.

The problem with not trying to keep an open mind is that sooner or later your sense of perspective will disappear and you will start to see absolutely everything that is said or done as fitting into your theory. Of course, I say 'theory', but by this point it has become fact and everyone who doesn't accept it is a 'troll'.

It's all very well attributing Sky's wins to some sort of super-doping scheme, but to what do you attribute Sky's losses?

After all, they have lost far more races that they have contended than they have won.

Equally, to what do you attribute the victories of other teams against Sky? Or do the conditions only apply to Sky?

We know other teams dope because there have been positive tests. It's a safe bet to assume Sky do too because this is cycling, and Sky have form for employing dodgy doctors. But we also know that Sky have an enormous budget which pays for a mountain strong team. Other teams win sprints. Other teams win classics. Sky don't seem to win all of those.

 

[biker jk]

Re: Sky

Year after year it's the same old arguments and slander in here. Nothing new whatsoever. No evidence, no proof, no smoking gun. Nothing, nada.

It sounds like you were a juror at the O.J. Simpson trial.

 

[gazr99]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/if-team-sky-are-doping-where-are-the-whistleblowers-vdqzmvxzw?shareToken=1aeadf4a44648976e85dec2c79ad1a8d

 

[kwikki]

Re:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/if-team-sky-are-doping-where-are-the-whistleblowers-vdqzmvxzw?shareToken=1aeadf4a44648976e85dec2c79ad1a8d

Of course, do I need to point out that this article is published by the same news organisation that sponsors Team Sky?

Not many COIs there then

Actually, in amongst the puff and nonsense, the author does say something with which I agree:

" Any journalist who exposed Team Sky — I mean really exposed, rather than offering innuendo — would be the toast of the industry. It would dominate coverage across the globe."

He's absolutely right about that.

He then ruins it be saying:

"That is why (like every journalist involved in sport), I have sought to discover precisely such evidence"

I don't doubt that some journalists have tried, after all, not all journalists are British and work for the Times, but he cites Walsh as an example. Bit of an own goal, that one.

 

[elduggo]

Re:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/if-team-sky-are-doping-where-are-the-whistleblowers-vdqzmvxzw?shareToken=1aeadf4a44648976e85dec2c79ad1a8d

what a selective pile of nonsense.

I wouldn't even know where to begin to start pulling this apart....

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/if-team-sky-are-doping-where-are-the-whistleblowers-vdqzmvxzw?shareToken=1aeadf4a44648976e85dec2c79ad1a8d

Of course, do I need to point out that this article is published by the same news organisation that sponsors Team Sky?

Not many COIs there then

Actually, in amongst the puff and nonsense, the author does say something with which I agree:

"Any journalist who exposed Team Sky — I mean really exposed, rather than offering innuendo — would be the toast of the industry. It would dominate coverage across the globe."

He's absolutely right about that.

He then ruins it be saying:

"That is why (like every journalist involved in sport), I have sought to discover precisely such evidence"

I don't doubt that some journalists have tried, after all, not all journalists are British and work for the Times, but he cites Walsh as an example. Bit of an own goal, that one.

It's a good read and I agree with a lot of what he said regarding investigative journalists, whistleblowers and that it is easy to cast aspersions but can be hard to prove definitively you're not doping as there will always be theories saying otherwise (but Sky could have done more). Not surprising he showed support for Walsh a fellow Times writer, how much you want to believe in this article at the end of the day, comes down to how much freedom you believe journalists have nowadays

But what do I know is, it's great bait for the many on here who believe Sky are doping :lol:

 

[sniper]

What a load of carp.
These guys will label anything as innuendo.
Where are the whistleblowers against Indurain? Or against Contador? Or Fignon?
These 'journos' still don't see that Lance was a huge exception to the rules of omerta. Or they may see it, but won't admit it as they are an integral part of said omerta.

 

[kwikki]

@gaz

It's his job. It's how he earns his living and he's paid by Murdoch, who also pays Team Sky.

 

[gazr99]

Re:

@gaz

It's his job. It's how he earns his living and he's paid by Murdoch, who also pays Team Sky.

True and I totally understand that point of view

 

[kwikki]

Re:

What a load of carp.
These guys will label anything as innuendo.
Where are the whistleblowers against Indurain? Or against Contador? Or Fignon?
These 'journos' still don't see that Lance was a huge exception to the rules of omerta. Or they may see it, but won't admit it as they are an integral part of said omerta.

Contador and Fignon are both convicted dopers, no whistleblowers needed.

Actually, the lack of whistleblowers points to something else. EVERYBODY is doping. Everyone is in on it. Whistleblowers happens in several circumstances, when there is unfairness, and when somebody is aggrieved at not being able to get on within the system (Landis)