Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[sniper]

Re: Sky

I guess the question is that why does there need to be whistleblowers to prove that there is doping? I thought that testing is robust and proves that someone is clean? Are whistleblowers the new standard of proof of doping?

Its an odd position to take, the standard is now a Stepanova styled whistleblower ignored by her international federation and WADA living in exile?

And on that note, didn't we just have a whistleblower in the UK who was ignored by UKAD?

good point.
by asking "where are the whistleblowers?", people like Walsh and Syed inherently admit that the antidoping testing is completely rigged.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Transport means flights from all over Europe and too all over Europe. It means that cycling teams that have riders and staff based, sometimes thousands of miles apart, in different countries can easily organise (logistics) for everyone they require to get there easily. It also means they would have no trouble getting people home or to races if required. It is one of the easiest places for anyone in Europe to get to due to direct and connecting flights. That includes the testers.

Logistics means large hotels in suitable locations with good amenities to serve the teams. It means well maintained roads and established links to allow the transport, storage and use of bikes and equipment. Large hotels means large rooms for indoor testing and the use of stationary equipment. Logistics includes the high availability of flights of course.

Of course, if you had read that thread and others discussing Tenerife you would know that.

i can give you a dozen other places which meet these criteria and have additional gains on top of that.

Come spring, imagine the marginal gains obtained by preparing for the TdF...in...France. Or for the Giro in Italy.
Ask altitude natives.
Ask Jeukendrup about the predisposition of Kenyan and Ethipian athletes to run hard.
*Acclimatization* is the word. Huge potential for being a marginal gain.
But *** those marginal gains.
If you go to Tenerife you go for major gains.

 

[thehog]

Re: Sky

I guess the question is that why does there need to be whistleblowers to prove that there is doping?
?

As opposed to what?

As it stands there is nothing that proves there is doping. What there is consists of one unusual performance change that is enough to merit asking questions, and some circumstance such as the appointment of a doctor known to have been involved in doping. You and I have come to the same conclusion as to the relationship between our suspicions and the circumstantial evidence, but we can't claim to have proved anything.

The absence of whistleblowers absolutely does not prove anything either, certainly not that Sky don't Dope. However you can't just pick and choose which bits of the Armstrong parallel you like, you have to compare it all and it is at least a tiny bit interesting that so far we've not seen any whistleblowers as by this point in USPS there had been quite a few.

That none of them were listened to pre-Floyd relates back to your point about UKAD'S sweeping of The Boner firmly under the carpet. It's a valid point.

Who were these whistleblowers at USPS at the same point?

 

[thehog]

Re: Sky

I guess the question is that why does there need to be whistleblowers to prove that there is doping? I thought that testing is robust and proves that someone is clean? Are whistleblowers the new standard of proof of doping?

Its an odd position to take, the standard is now a Stepanova styled whistleblower ignored by her international federation and WADA living in exile?

And on that note, didn't we just have a whistleblower in the UK who was ignored by UKAD?

good point.
by asking "where are the whistleblowers?", people like Walsh and Syed inherently admit that the antidoping testing is completely rigged.

And more to the point what whistleblowers were at USPS? None until 2006 and all of them stated that didn't see Lance or anyone else dope - is that actually a whistleblower?

x It wasn’t until September 2006 Frankie who admitted that he doped but never saw Armstrong dope – is that a whistleblower? (NYTimes 2006)

x JV did not confess anything nor give his name until post 2012 it is rumored he was the anonymous teammate in the NYTimes article with Frankie who also said he didn’t see Armstrong dope.

x Betsy said she heard the hospital room confession only that wasn’t released until the SCA trial in 2006, never said saw Armstrong dope.

x Swart said they once talked about EPO on a training ride, never saw Lance dope, same, released in 2006 (SCA).

x Emma O'Reilly only released portions of the story to Walsh who used it against her, the first book LA Confidential released in 2004 in French language only.

x Lance to Landis was released in English 2007.

(Admittedly Walsh did write some articles in the Times about Armstrong doping pre 2006 but not whistleblower accounts).

The irony to they never came out earlier or confessed that they saw Armstrong dope is because they were scared of retribution. Which is why Syed premise is so misaligned.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Sky

I guess the question is that why does there need to be whistleblowers to prove that there is doping?
?

As opposed to what?

As it stands there is nothing that proves there is doping. What there is consists of one unusual performance change that is enough to merit asking questions, and some circumstance such as the appointment of a doctor known to have been involved in doping. You and I have come to the same conclusion as to the relationship between our suspicions and the circumstantial evidence, but we can't claim to have proved anything.

The absence of whistleblowers absolutely does not prove anything either, certainly not that Sky don't Dope. However you can't just pick and choose which bits of the Armstrong parallel you like, you have to compare it all and it is at least a tiny bit interesting that so far we've not seen any whistleblowers as by this point in USPS there had been quite a few.

That none of them were listened to pre-Floyd relates back to your point about UKAD'S sweeping of The Boner firmly under the carpet. It's a valid point.

More than 1 unusual performance transformation. There are the Wiggins and Froome from grupetto to Podiums. Then there are the talented guys who were expected to become big winners who went backwards.

But as for the rest. This there is no proof BS, is always the line that comes out of fanboys. The sport has a culture of doping. Skyy have won GTs, 3 weeks of intensive racing with guys no one expected to win GTs and people still scream, whinge and whine "there is no proof". Proof is all there. Those who want a positive dope test are trolling!

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Transport means flights from all over Europe and too all over Europe. It means that cycling teams that have riders and staff based, sometimes thousands of miles apart, in different countries can easily organise (logistics) for everyone they require to get there easily. It also means they would have no trouble getting people home or to races if required. It is one of the easiest places for anyone in Europe to get to due to direct and connecting flights. That includes the testers.

Logistics means large hotels in suitable locations with good amenities to serve the teams. It means well maintained roads and established links to allow the transport, storage and use of bikes and equipment. Large hotels means large rooms for indoor testing and the use of stationary equipment. Logistics includes the high availability of flights of course.

Of course, if you had read that thread and others discussing Tenerife you would know that.

i can give you a dozen other places which meet these criteria and have additional gains on top of that.

Come spring, imagine the marginal gains obtained by preparing for the TdF...in...France. Or for the Giro in Italy.
Ask altitude natives.
Ask Jeukendrup about the predisposition of Kenyan and Ethipian athletes to run hard.
*Acclimatization* is the word. Huge potential for being a marginal gain.
But **** those marginal gains.
If you go to Tenerife you go for major gains.

Come on then, list the dozen places.

 

[sniper]

Are u kidding? That's about every big city in the West.

And ur not addressing my point.
Prepare for the tdf in spring. Prepare in France. Marginal gain. Maybe huge gain.

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Sky

I guess the question is that why does there need to be whistleblowers to prove that there is doping?
?

As opposed to what?

As it stands there is nothing that proves there is doping. What there is consists of one unusual performance change that is enough to merit asking questions, and some circumstance such as the appointment of a doctor known to have been involved in doping. You and I have come to the same conclusion as to the relationship between our suspicions and the circumstantial evidence, but we can't claim to have proved anything.

The absence of whistleblowers absolutely does not prove anything either, certainly not that Sky don't Dope. However you can't just pick and choose which bits of the Armstrong parallel you like, you have to compare it all and it is at least a tiny bit interesting that so far we've not seen any whistleblowers as by this point in USPS there had been quite a few.

That none of them were listened to pre-Floyd relates back to your point about UKAD'S sweeping of The Boner firmly under the carpet. It's a valid point.

More than 1 unusual performance transformation. There are the Wiggins and Froome from grupetto to Podiums. Then there are the talented guys who were expected to become big winners who went backwards.

But as for the rest. This there is no proof BS, is always the line that comes out of fanboys. The sport has a culture of doping. Skyy have won GTs, 3 weeks of intensive racing with guys no one expected to win GTs and people still scream, whinge and whine "there is no proof". Proof is all there. Those who want a positive dope test are trolling!

https://youtu.be/0rxh-AWyVr4?t=39m53s Still makes me laugh, look who's down in 129th place. Almost 80 minutes down on Millar. Pretty cool for Wiggins that in 3 years(although for 2007,08 wasn't he focusing on the track?, so maybe less than a years focus on the road) he can finish within 6 minutes of the overall winner.

Guy should've quit the track and focused on the road, because in 1 year he can go from an autobus passenger to on podium/almost on podium guy. He must be mad that he wasted so much time on the track, he could be up there with his hero Big Mig, for TdF wins.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Are u kidding? That's about every big city in the West.

Well actually no, it isn't. Very few offer the number of flights per day with such a wide range of origins. There aren't that many close to such big climbs and the ones that are that I can think of cannot guarantee the mountain roads will be clear like Tenerife can. They also can't guarantee the weather Tenerife can (11-18 average minimum all year and 17-23 maximum all year). Tenerife has no winter sports industry to speak of meaning the enormous number of skiers, snowboarders etc. that take over the Alps, Dolomites, Pyrenees etc. do not take over the hotels, block up the roads etc.

So please, name them.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Sky

I guess the question is that why does there need to be whistleblowers to prove that there is doping?
?

As opposed to what?

As it stands there is nothing that proves there is doping. What there is consists of one unusual performance change that is enough to merit asking questions, and some circumstance such as the appointment of a doctor known to have been involved in doping. You and I have come to the same conclusion as to the relationship between our suspicions and the circumstantial evidence, but we can't claim to have proved anything.

The absence of whistleblowers absolutely does not prove anything either, certainly not that Sky don't Dope. However you can't just pick and choose which bits of the Armstrong parallel you like, you have to compare it all and it is at least a tiny bit interesting that so far we've not seen any whistleblowers as by this point in USPS there had been quite a few.

That none of them were listened to pre-Floyd relates back to your point about UKAD'S sweeping of The Boner firmly under the carpet. It's a valid point.

More than 1 unusual performance transformation. There are the Wiggins and Froome from grupetto to Podiums. Then there are the talented guys who were expected to become big winners who went backwards.

But as for the rest. This there is no proof BS, is always the line that comes out of fanboys. The sport has a culture of doping. Skyy have won GTs, 3 weeks of intensive racing with guys no one expected to win GTs and people still scream, whinge and whine "there is no proof". Proof is all there. Those who want a positive dope test are trolling!

https://youtu.be/0rxh-AWyVr4?t=39m53s Still makes me laugh, look who's down in 129th place. Almost 80 minutes down on Millar. Pretty cool for Wiggins that in 3 years(although for 2007,08 wasn't he focusing on the track?, so maybe less than a years focus on the road) he can finish within 6 minutes of the overall winner.

Guy should've quit the track and focused on the road, because in 1 year he can go from an autobus passenger to on podium/almost on podium guy. He must be mad that he wasted so much time on the track, he could be up there with his hero Big Mig, for TdF wins.

I do wonder whether in years to come Wiggins will regret that he only won the 1 TdF, especially if Froome is allowed to win 5.

When Wiggins has the bikeshop in Wigan and Froome is still living it up the mediterranean will he wonder why he gave up so soon...

 

[ontheroad]

Re: Sky

I guess the question is that why does there need to be whistleblowers to prove that there is doping?
?

As opposed to what?

As it stands there is nothing that proves there is doping. What there is consists of one unusual performance change that is enough to merit asking questions, and some circumstance such as the appointment of a doctor known to have been involved in doping. You and I have come to the same conclusion as to the relationship between our suspicions and the circumstantial evidence, but we can't claim to have proved anything.

The absence of whistleblowers absolutely does not prove anything either, certainly not that Sky don't Dope. However you can't just pick and choose which bits of the Armstrong parallel you like, you have to compare it all and it is at least a tiny bit interesting that so far we've not seen any whistleblowers as by this point in USPS there had been quite a few.

That none of them were listened to pre-Floyd relates back to your point about UKAD'S sweeping of The Boner firmly under the carpet. It's a valid point.

More than 1 unusual performance transformation. There are the Wiggins and Froome from grupetto to Podiums. Then there are the talented guys who were expected to become big winners who went backwards.

But as for the rest. This there is no proof BS, is always the line that comes out of fanboys. The sport has a culture of doping. Skyy have won GTs, 3 weeks of intensive racing with guys no one expected to win GTs and people still scream, whinge and whine "there is no proof". Proof is all there. Those who want a positive dope test are trolling!

https://youtu.be/0rxh-AWyVr4?t=39m53s Still makes me laugh, look who's down in 129th place. Almost 80 minutes down on Millar. Pretty cool for Wiggins that in 3 years(although for 2007,08 wasn't he focusing on the track?, so maybe less than a years focus on the road) he can finish within 6 minutes of the overall winner.

Guy should've quit the track and focused on the road, because in 1 year he can go from an autobus passenger to on podium/almost on podium guy. He must be mad that he wasted so much time on the track, he could be up there with his hero Big Mig, for TdF wins.

I do wonder whether in years to come Wiggins will regret that he only won the 1 TdF, especially if Froome is allowed to win 5.

When Wiggins has the bikeshop in Wigan and Froome is still living it up the mediterranean will he wonder why he gave up so soon...

I think he won his one TDF and realised that he couldn't cope with the constant doping speculation that the yellow jersey holder has to fend off. Guilt kicked in with Sir Brad and he realised that his achievements were built on something that he wasn't entirely comfortable with. Read any of his interviews and he downplays the significance of his tour win citing his track achievements as more significant. Yeah, as if. He knows himself and his comments pre and post 2009 tell you all that you need to know.

 

[thehog]

Re: Sky

I guess the question is that why does there need to be whistleblowers to prove that there is doping?
?

As opposed to what?

As it stands there is nothing that proves there is doping. What there is consists of one unusual performance change that is enough to merit asking questions, and some circumstance such as the appointment of a doctor known to have been involved in doping. You and I have come to the same conclusion as to the relationship between our suspicions and the circumstantial evidence, but we can't claim to have proved anything.

The absence of whistleblowers absolutely does not prove anything either, certainly not that Sky don't Dope. However you can't just pick and choose which bits of the Armstrong parallel you like, you have to compare it all and it is at least a tiny bit interesting that so far we've not seen any whistleblowers as by this point in USPS there had been quite a few.

That none of them were listened to pre-Floyd relates back to your point about UKAD'S sweeping of The Boner firmly under the carpet. It's a valid point.

More than 1 unusual performance transformation. There are the Wiggins and Froome from grupetto to Podiums. Then there are the talented guys who were expected to become big winners who went backwards.

But as for the rest. This there is no proof BS, is always the line that comes out of fanboys. The sport has a culture of doping. Skyy have won GTs, 3 weeks of intensive racing with guys no one expected to win GTs and people still scream, whinge and whine "there is no proof". Proof is all there. Those who want a positive dope test are trolling!

https://youtu.be/0rxh-AWyVr4?t=39m53s Still makes me laugh, look who's down in 129th place. Almost 80 minutes down on Millar. Pretty cool for Wiggins that in 3 years(although for 2007,08 wasn't he focusing on the track?, so maybe less than a years focus on the road) he can finish within 6 minutes of the overall winner.

Guy should've quit the track and focused on the road, because in 1 year he can go from an autobus passenger to on podium/almost on podium guy. He must be mad that he wasted so much time on the track, he could be up there with his hero Big Mig, for TdF wins.

Saw that as well... It's a big cheers with a Wiggo charity sponsored shot glass!

 

[samhocking]

Wiggins actually said, there's no point in him trying to win the Tour again while Sky is behind Froome, because he would have to sacrifice the track to turn his body into a GC contender and he wanted to set-up Team Wiggins to build the Olympic Pursuit squad around him for Olympics. That's been a 3 year cycle for him to reach Rio. No way he could be competitive as a Tour rider and hope to win a place in Team GB, he wouldn't be fast enough.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Wiggins actually said, there's no point in him trying to win the Tour again while Sky is behind Froome, because he would have to sacrifice the track to turn his body into a GC contender and he wanted to set-up Team Wiggins to build the Olympic Pursuit squad around him for Olympics. That's been a 3 year cycle for him to reach Rio. No way he could be competitive as a Tour rider and hope to win a place in Team GB, he wouldn't be fast enough.

No he rode the Giro still pretending to be a clean GT rider, he was still talking about doing the Tour at that point. It wasn't till he realised Froome was a way better responder & would make his 2012 win look all the more weaksauce he became a one day rider (and not a very good one of those).

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Sky

[quote="


Saw that as well... It's a big cheers with a Wiggo charity sponsored shot glass!

[/quote]

Just looked back at the 3 ITT's)well 2 and a prologue) in that race

Prologue (7.1km): 16th @14 seconds. Not a bad ride by Brad(Although Tom Boonen and Stuey mate finished ahead of him). Probably the road event that you could see him winning before the transformation.
Stage 7(52km) : 28th @3 minutes 9 seconds. Finished around a minute behind those TT greats, Sastre and Mazzoleni.
Stage 19 (57km): Finished 56th(same time as Boogerd and Knees) @7'35 almost 2 minutes down on F.Schleck and almost 1minute 20 down on Tommy V.

But I'm guessing even though he was a TT-er type of guy he wasn't focused on Stage 7 and 19 . Haven't looked at the climbing stages because I'd be surprised if he finished within 15 minutes of the leaders.

I still find it funny that this guy could go from pack fodder on the road(aged mid twenties) to podium in 3 years(very late 20's) and winner of the race in 6 years(aged early 30's).

If only Knees wasn't lazy. Sky could've 1-2-3 that 2012 TdF podium.

 

[burning]

Didn't he exclusively targeted the Albi TT in 2007 and failed badly while completely focusing on road?

 

[thehog]

Re:

Didn't he exclusively targeted the Albi TT in 2007 and failed badly while completely focusing on road?

Prologue in 2007 in London.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

Wiggins actually said, there's no point in him trying to win the Tour again while Sky is behind Froome, because he would have to sacrifice the track to turn his body into a GC contender and he wanted to set-up Team Wiggins to build the Olympic Pursuit squad around him for Olympics. That's been a 3 year cycle for him to reach Rio. No way he could be competitive as a Tour rider and hope to win a place in Team GB, he wouldn't be fast enough.

No he rode the Giro still pretending to be a clean GT rider, he was still talking about doing the Tour at that point. It wasn't till he realised Froome was a way better responder & would make his 2012 win look all the more weaksauce he became a one day rider (and not a very good one of those).

I don't disagree that Sky would have looked at both their numbers against the 2013 route demands and made the decision to go with Froome, doping or not, but it wasn't Wiggin's choice to be a GC leader at 2013 Tour because Wiggins & Brailsford clearly stated in Feb 2013 he wasn't riding 2013 Tour as leader. The reality is Wiggins loves cycling track too much to make the sacrifices to be a GT contender and has said so himself even in 2012 he was talking about quitting road to make 2016 Team GB Pursuit squad.

 

[thehog]

Re: Sky

[quote="


Saw that as well... It's a big cheers with a Wiggo charity sponsored shot glass!

Just looked back at the 3 ITT's)well 2 and a prologue) in that race

Prologue (7.1km): 16th @14 seconds. Not a bad ride by Brad(Although Tom Boonen and Stuey mate finished ahead of him). Probably the road event that you could see him winning before the transformation.
Stage 7(52km) : 28th @3 minutes 9 seconds. Finished around a minute behind those TT greats, Sastre and Mazzoleni.
Stage 19 (57km): Finished 56th(same time as Boogerd and Knees) @7'35 almost 2 minutes down on F.Schleck and almost 1minute 20 down on Tommy V.

But I'm guessing even though he was a TT-er type of guy he wasn't focused on Stage 7 and 19 . Haven't looked at the climbing stages because I'd be surprised if he finished within 15 minutes of the leaders.

I still find it funny that this guy could go from pack fodder on the road(aged mid twenties) to podium in 3 years(very late 20's) and winner of the race in 6 years(aged early 30's).

If only Knees wasn't lazy. Sky could've 1-2-3 that 2012 TdF podium.

Yes, it was some turn around, I guess he too "just lost the fat" and was able top reproduce 4000m track performance over 180km and up mountains.

I do remember when Wiggo won the sprint at Romandie in 2012, he literally didn't know his own strength, staying seated as out sprinted everyone else! :lol:

 

[thehog]

Re: Sky

I lied slightly, Wiggo got slightly out of the saddle at the end to win the sprint:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAheK3FkJ2I

To be fair it wasn't a true sprint field.

"I had a lot of adrenaline after I punctured with 25km to go," said Wiggins. "When that happened the boys dropped back for me and did a fantastic job. Then I was kind of on my own and I just wanted to pay them back for everything they'd done, they were incredible. I've got them to thank and it was really nice to be able to finish it off like that.

"I went a bit early and had to sit down to rest for a bit and then went again but it was good to get the win.

"I want to win Romandie, that's for sure. It's really nice to win a sprint because I only ever really win time trials."

 

[burning]

Re: Re:

Didn't he exclusively targeted the Albi TT in 2007 and failed badly while completely focusing on road?

Prologue in 2007 in London.

The makes sense, considering that he was the defending world and olympic champion in indiviual pursuit but he got beaten by Big George Hincapie on a 8km course, maybe he could not handle the corners like Big George Hincapie did. (LOL)

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Sky

More than 1 unusual performance transformation. There are the Wiggins and Froome from grupetto to Podiums. Then there are the talented guys who were expected to become big winners who went backwards.

But as for the rest. This there is no proof BS, is always the line that comes out of fanboys. The sport has a culture of doping. Skyy have won GTs, 3 weeks of intensive racing with guys no one expected to win GTs and people still scream, whinge and whine "there is no proof". Proof is all there. Those who want a positive dope test are trolling!

In your opinion they are trolling. Just because some people want a higher level of proof doesn't mean they are trolling - its no worse than your usual statement that whatever anyone does 'points to doping'.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Didn't he exclusively targeted the Albi TT in 2007 and failed badly while completely focusing on road?

Prologue in 2007 in London.

The makes sense, considering that he was the defending world and olympic champion in indiviual pursuit but he got beaten by Big George Hincapie on a 8km course, maybe he could not handle the corners like Big George Hincapie did. (LOL)

Yes, Big George known for his cornering skills

Wiggins would have been clean I think at that Tour. Just goes to show the difference between being clean and a full scale program is about 3 hours saved over 3 weeks :lol:

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Sky

More than 1 unusual performance transformation. There are the Wiggins and Froome from grupetto to Podiums. Then there are the talented guys who were expected to become big winners who went backwards.

But as for the rest. This there is no proof BS, is always the line that comes out of fanboys. The sport has a culture of doping. Skyy have won GTs, 3 weeks of intensive racing with guys no one expected to win GTs and people still scream, whinge and whine "there is no proof". Proof is all there. Those who want a positive dope test are trolling!

In your opinion they are trolling. Just because some people want a higher level of proof doesn't mean they are trolling <snip>

One can only demand a higher level of proof if the sport is being 'managed' and run properly. If the testing is a joke, demanding a positive test is ridiculous.

The best anti-doping organisations have been law enforcement agencies. Demanding a positive from an ADA or UCI (who recently notified the maker of internal electric engines for bikes about forthcoming tests) is laughable and therefore the one demanding the proof is either an ignoramus, naive at best or trolling at worst!

But then you know this, as a poster regularly in here and are the latter.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Sky

More than 1 unusual performance transformation. There are the Wiggins and Froome from grupetto to Podiums. Then there are the talented guys who were expected to become big winners who went backwards.

But as for the rest. This there is no proof BS, is always the line that comes out of fanboys. The sport has a culture of doping. Skyy have won GTs, 3 weeks of intensive racing with guys no one expected to win GTs and people still scream, whinge and whine "there is no proof". Proof is all there. Those who want a positive dope test are trolling!

In your opinion they are trolling. Just because some people want a higher level of proof doesn't mean they are trolling <snip>

One can only demand a higher level of proof if the sport is being 'managed' and run properly. If the testing is a joke, demanding a positive test is ridiculous.

The best anti-doping organisations have been law enforcement agencies. Demanding a positive from an ADA or UCI (who recently notified the maker of internal electric engines for bikes about forthcoming tests) is laughable and therefore the one demanding the proof is either an ignoramus, naive at best or trolling at worst!

But then you know this, as a poster regularly in here and are the latter.

So actually you gave 2 more options in addition to trolling ...

And btw I have never demanded a positive test.