Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

Really? Evidence??

All we know is that they abused the TUE system and that Froome over-used an asthma medicine.

Evidence? I'm not in court, I call it as I see it!
You just need to see them race in races which are most important to them (aka Le Tour), and everything becomes clear.
They make wonders. They turn track specialists into climbers, nobody's into multiple GT winners, lightweight riders into best TT-ists, rolleurs into de luxe climbers, and so on and on...
They invented marginal gains :lol: They train harder, they're smarter, they have more determination, etc.
And they are doing that being totally clean. We just need to believe them, that's all. They're the champions of clean cycling. All we need to do is to believe on their word. That's it.

They haven't managed to get fat guys climbing mountains like aeroplanes (to quote Lemond) so they aren't the worst in cycling history.

It's nonsense in fact. Sheer overstatement and exaggeration. I agree with some of what you said with your allusions to Froome, but if you think that they run a team wide doping programme à la USPS, then you are deluded. Sure, they occupy grey areas. Sure, they probably outright dope certain riders, but to pretend that they dope as if it was the 1990s is just nonsense.

Oh...and they have an active PR department, hence the marginal gains nonsense. Big deal.

But they have skinny guys of 65-70 kg regularly beating worlds top TT-ists, while climbing at the same time like freaking Bahamontes! So I guess there's no much difference...

As far as wide doping program concerns, let's wait a bit, I reckon an unpleasant surprise awaits you.

And about that PR stuff, nobody done that in such manner in whole history of cycling, with such arrogance and hypocrisy. They called the avalanche, let them bear the consequences now!

regularly?

T.MArtin has been beaten by many since last year. and it happened before, like when Alberto beat the TT world champion at the Tour 2009

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

You have to read the part you've highlighted in the context of the rest of my post.

Have read it ... for 2nd time ... my question remains.

C’mon, give it a whirl.

Sure, no problem.

My post was about double-standards, and fixating on one team. It doesn't matter (to me) what team is being fixated upon, and of course in this case it's Sky.

I think, in some way, this is synonymous with omerta in the peloton. It's a sort of whataboutery which distracts from the bigger picture.

As for clinic line, I dont really know what that means given my infrequent postings here.

1. Yes, I'm with you on that ... but that practice won't stop here ... it's a lifeblood.
2. Don't see that as a valid comparison ... but who cares ...
3. What I am simply asking is ... your opinion in regards to "cycling needing to be fixed" and if that's to happen "everyone needs to thrown under the bus."Thanks in advance.

 

[macbindle]

It's straightforward. Don't have favourites that you don't subject to the same scrutiny. Don't see every single action or every single word of one team or rider as evidence of deceit, but ignore the rest. If one team are doing something, the likelihood is that they all are. I've seen a few people citing "the history of cycling" in their argument that Sky dope...that's fine, but "the history of cycling" shows that if one team is doping everybody is. Why is it any different in the present? Fixating on Team Sky means everybody else can get on with their doping in peace.

Not sure if this is a coherent answer but I've just woken up

 

[samhocking]

I think Boonen called it similarly too.

""Everybody has an opinion on Froome. Everybody was waiting for something to happen. Then this happens. It's a small incident, really, I think but I haven't been following it closely. You can say what you want but it doesn't let you win the Vuelta or the Tour de France. They were all waiting for a stick to beat. Sky was the team with a certain image and that creates envy. Then this came. It's a road without an end. It's not good for anything."

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

I think Boonen called it similarly too.

""Everybody has an opinion on Froome. Everybody was waiting for something to happen. Then this happens. It's a small incident, really, I think but I haven't been following it closely. You can say what you want but it doesn't let you win the Vuelta or the Tour de France. They were all waiting for a stick to beat. Sky was the team with a certain image and that creates envy. Then this came. It's a road without an end. It's not good for anything."

Bada boom, bada bing, Tommie.

 

[macbindle]

I'd be interested to know who Boonen meant when he said "Everybody was waiting for something to happen".

If he meant the peloton, and that they were expecting a major Froome dope scandal then it is incredibly damning. He's right though about Salbutamol...it cannot account for Froome's performance.

Either Froome didn't try very hard until autumn 2011, or he made the decision to invest in a doping programme. I don't see any other alternatives.

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

It's straightforward. Don't have favourites that you don't subject to the same scrutiny. Don't see every single action or every single word of one team or rider as evidence of deceit, but ignore the rest. If one team are doing something, the likelihood is that they all are. I've seen a few people citing "the history of cycling" in their argument that Sky dope...that's fine, but "the history of cycling" shows that if one team is doping everybody is. Why is it any different in the present? Fixating on Team Sky means everybody else can get on with their doping in peace.

Not sure if this is a coherent answer but I've just woken up

Yes ... I surely agree with most of that.

Leave cycling alone, I say. Let 'em race. Pop them if they break the rules ... but let's stop with the faux rage re: doping. If it weren't for doping cyclists, we wouldn't have pro cycling. We'd all be tuning into Gran Fondos.

Arrogance ... really ... there oughta be another thread for that.

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

I'd be interested to know who Boonen meant when he said "Everybody was waiting for something to happen".

If he meant the peloton, and that they were expecting a major Froome dope scandal then it is incredibly damning. He's right though about Salbutamol...it cannot account for Froome's performance.

Either Froome didn't try very hard until autumn 2011, or he made the decision to invest in a doping programme. I don't see any other alternatives.[/b]

So the best you have there, without judgement ... is uncertainty, doubt, suspicion. And everyone on a bike ... falls under it.

What's a guy to do?

 

[Blanco]

Re:

Unpleasant surprise for me? No. I don't really care. That is why I can take a dispassionate and objective view. You are too emotionally involved. Look at the language you use. It's full of hysteria.

I won't lament the inevitable fall of Team Sky, but they aren't the worst there has ever been by a big margin and when they go some other team will take their place.

Yeah, it's really objective when someone says he has an objective view

 

[Blanco]

Re:

It's straightforward. Don't have favourites that you don't subject to the same scrutiny. Don't see every single action or every single word of one team or rider as evidence of deceit, but ignore the rest. If one team are doing something, the likelihood is that they all are. I've seen a few people citing "the history of cycling" in their argument that Sky dope...that's fine, but "the history of cycling" shows that if one team is doping everybody is. Why is it any different in the present? Fixating on Team Sky means everybody else can get on with their doping in peace.

Not sure if this is a coherent answer but I've just woken up

Of course every team are practicing doping, it's what they do. They're doing it for last 100 years in one form or another. But only two teams done that with the backing of leading governing body. That gave them very, very significant advantage over others. And one team, out of this two, on top of everything presents themselves as some kind of champions of clean cycling. Their arrogance and hypocrisy has no limit, and that's why I called them the worst in history of cycling.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

I'd be interested to know who Boonen meant when he said "Everybody was waiting for something to happen".

If he meant the peloton, and that they were expecting a major Froome dope scandal then it is incredibly damning. He's right though about Salbutamol...it cannot account for Froome's performance.

Either Froome didn't try very hard until autumn 2011, or he made the decision to invest in a doping programme. I don't see any other alternatives.

team arrives and delivers two previous no-hopers as dominant GT riders, all the whilst talking marginal gains BS

of course everybody was expecting something

the plot twist is the substance and the dose

but stories with unexpected twists and turns are always better

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

It's straightforward. Don't have favourites that you don't subject to the same scrutiny. Don't see every single action or every single word of one team or rider as evidence of deceit, but ignore the rest. If one team are doing something, the likelihood is that they all are. I've seen a few people citing "the history of cycling" in their argument that Sky dope...that's fine, but "the history of cycling" shows that if one team is doping everybody is. Why is it any different in the present? Fixating on Team Sky means everybody else can get on with their doping in peace.

Not sure if this is a coherent answer but I've just woken up

Of course every team are practicing doping, it's what they do. They're doing it for last 100 years in one form or another. But only two teams done that with the backing of leading governing body. That gave them very, very significant advantage over others. And one team, out of this two, on top of everything presents themselves as some kind of champions of clean cycling. Their arrogance and hypocrisy has no limit, and that's why I called them the worst in history of cycling.

I think you need to do a little research into the funding of cycling. I can start you off with Astana, Euskaltel–Euskadi, Delko–Marseille Provence KTM and FDJ.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

It's straightforward. Don't have favourites that you don't subject to the same scrutiny. Don't see every single action or every single word of one team or rider as evidence of deceit, but ignore the rest. If one team are doing something, the likelihood is that they all are. I've seen a few people citing "the history of cycling" in their argument that Sky dope...that's fine, but "the history of cycling" shows that if one team is doping everybody is. Why is it any different in the present? Fixating on Team Sky means everybody else can get on with their doping in peace.

Not sure if this is a coherent answer but I've just woken up

Of course every team are practicing doping, it's what they do. They're doing it for last 100 years in one form or another. But only two teams done that with the backing of leading governing body. That gave them very, very significant advantage over others. And one team, out of this two, on top of everything presents themselves as some kind of champions of clean cycling. Their arrogance and hypocrisy has no limit, and that's why I called them the worst in history of cycling.

I think you need to do a little research into the funding of cycling. I can start you off with Astana, Euskaltel–Euskadi, Delko–Marseille Provence KTM and FDJ.

Not sure, but I think Blanco was refering to UCI rather than sponsors as governing body with US Postal positives wipes and Cookson for Sky. Might be wrong, in which case indeed Blanco needs a bit of research about funding.

 

[macbindle]

I think Blanco has also forgotten UCI's supporting of Contador's doping by attempting to bury his positive test.

Like I said, some very selective memories going on here. The UCI is, in essence, a business. The top teams and riders are essential to the business. It doesn't actually matter who they are, just that they are the biggest names.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

It's straightforward. Don't have favourites that you don't subject to the same scrutiny. Don't see every single action or every single word of one team or rider as evidence of deceit, but ignore the rest. If one team are doing something, the likelihood is that they all are. I've seen a few people citing "the history of cycling" in their argument that Sky dope...that's fine, but "the history of cycling" shows that if one team is doping everybody is. Why is it any different in the present? Fixating on Team Sky means everybody else can get on with their doping in peace.

Not sure if this is a coherent answer but I've just woken up

Of course every team are practicing doping, it's what they do. They're doing it for last 100 years in one form or another. But only two teams done that with the backing of leading governing body. That gave them very, very significant advantage over others. And one team, out of this two, on top of everything presents themselves as some kind of champions of clean cycling. Their arrogance and hypocrisy has no limit, and that's why I called them the worst in history of cycling.

I think you need to do a little research into the funding of cycling. I can start you off with Astana, Euskaltel–Euskadi, Delko–Marseille Provence KTM and FDJ.

Not sure, but I think Blanco was refering to UCI rather than sponsors as governing body with US Postal positives wipes and Cookson for Sky. Might be wrong, in which case indeed Blanco needs a bit of research about funding.

You could well be right, although if that's the case there is some massive supposition going on as macbindle points out. I'm pretty sure the UCI have been accused of covering up for many other riders too.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

You could well be right, although if that's the case there is some massive supposition going on as macbindle points out. I'm pretty sure the UCI have been accused of covering up for many other riders too.

You could easily argue that just about every federation has helped their own: the Irish fed ran interference for Kelly and Roche when Kimmage's book came out. The Italian federation did nothing about doping in Italian teams. The Spanish federation were so into supporting their own that even the UCI got the hump with what they were doing. British Cycling 'supporting' Sky and USA Cycling doing nothing to punish USPS, they're not exactly unique experiences.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

It's straightforward. Don't have favourites that you don't subject to the same scrutiny. Don't see every single action or every single word of one team or rider as evidence of deceit, but ignore the rest. If one team are doing something, the likelihood is that they all are. I've seen a few people citing "the history of cycling" in their argument that Sky dope...that's fine, but "the history of cycling" shows that if one team is doping everybody is. Why is it any different in the present? Fixating on Team Sky means everybody else can get on with their doping in peace.

Not sure if this is a coherent answer but I've just woken up

Of course every team are practicing doping, it's what they do. They're doing it for last 100 years in one form or another. But only two teams done that with the backing of leading governing body. That gave them very, very significant advantage over others. And one team, out of this two, on top of everything presents themselves as some kind of champions of clean cycling. Their arrogance and hypocrisy has no limit, and that's why I called them the worst in history of cycling.

I think you need to do a little research into the funding of cycling. I can start you off with Astana, Euskaltel–Euskadi, Delko–Marseille Provence KTM and FDJ.

Not sure, but I think Blanco was refering to UCI rather than sponsors as governing body with US Postal positives wipes and Cookson for Sky. Might be wrong, in which case indeed Blanco needs a bit of research about funding.

You could well be right, although if that's the case there is some massive supposition going on as macbindle points out. I'm pretty sure the UCI have been accused of covering up for many other riders too.

Agree. Quite bias in all respect.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

It's straightforward. Don't have favourites that you don't subject to the same scrutiny. Don't see every single action or every single word of one team or rider as evidence of deceit, but ignore the rest. If one team are doing something, the likelihood is that they all are. I've seen a few people citing "the history of cycling" in their argument that Sky dope...that's fine, but "the history of cycling" shows that if one team is doping everybody is. Why is it any different in the present? Fixating on Team Sky means everybody else can get on with their doping in peace.

Not sure if this is a coherent answer but I've just woken up

Of course every team are practicing doping, it's what they do. They're doing it for last 100 years in one form or another. But only two teams done that with the backing of leading governing body. That gave them very, very significant advantage over others. And one team, out of this two, on top of everything presents themselves as some kind of champions of clean cycling. Their arrogance and hypocrisy has no limit, and that's why I called them the worst in history of cycling.

I think you need to do a little research into the funding of cycling. I can start you off with Astana, Euskaltel–Euskadi, Delko–Marseille Provence KTM and FDJ.

Not sure, but I think Blanco was refering to UCI rather than sponsors as governing body with US Postal positives wipes and Cookson for Sky. Might be wrong, in which case indeed Blanco needs a bit of research about funding.

You could well be right, although if that's the case there is some massive supposition going on as macbindle points out. I'm pretty sure the UCI have been accused of covering up for many other riders too.

I think the thinking is that the UCI and Armstrong worked together proactively and the same charge is against sky with the close relationship between sky/BC and cookson being in charge at Bc then the UCI with his son working for sky...arguably different than working re-actively when faced with a positive

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

I think Blanco has also forgotten UCI's supporting of Contador's doping by attempting to bury his positive test.

Like I said, some very selective memories going on here. The UCI is, in essence, a business. The top teams and riders are essential to the business. It doesn't actually matter who they are, just that they are the biggest names.

Bingo. Plain and simple. No surprise.

Why is it ... that anyone who rides a bike more thatn 30K on a Sunday ... thinks he has the right to slap the UCI around, throw pro riders under the bus, clean up cycling with their delusional grandeurs ... and call it a day at the old keyboard!?! Stitch 'n *** crowd, FFS.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

I think the thinking is that the UCI and Armstrong worked together proactively

Is that not equally true of others, though? Let's take the 90s: the UCI did nothing to halt Banesto. And when Pantani got busted, Verbruggen was on the stump for him. In the noughties, wasn't the UCI giving warnings to all the major riders, not just LA? The UCI's culture was simply to not let doping be a PR problem (something they spectacularly failed at achieving - bunch of amateurs that they are).

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

Of course every team are practicing doping, it's what they do. They're doing it for last 100 years in one form or another. But only two teams done that with the backing of leading governing body. That gave them very, very significant advantage over others. And one team, out of this two, on top of everything presents themselves as some kind of champions of clean cycling. Their arrogance and hypocrisy has no limit, and that's why I called them the worst in history of cycling.

I think you need to do a little research into the funding of cycling. I can start you off with Astana, Euskaltel–Euskadi, Delko–Marseille Provence KTM and FDJ.

Not sure, but I think Blanco was refering to UCI rather than sponsors as governing body with US Postal positives wipes and Cookson for Sky. Might be wrong, in which case indeed Blanco needs a bit of research about funding.

You could well be right, although if that's the case there is some massive supposition going on as macbindle points out. I'm pretty sure the UCI have been accused of covering up for many other riders too.

I think the thinking is that the UCI and Armstrong worked together proactively and the same charge is against sky with the close relationship between sky/BC and cookson being in charge at Bc then the UCI with his son working for sky...arguably different than working re-actively when faced with a positive

You can fire conspiracy theories out yer arse all morning ... but they still remain as such ... and their impact, sting is waining by the week, outside of the Clinic. You cam hold onto these ideas for eternity, but you will find, in due course, that the cycling world (Lance included) will have moved on ahead of you.

 

[macbindle]

There may well be a conspiracy.

But do I really care? No.

In the totality of the world's injustices I'm afraid cycling just doesn't figure at all for me personally. Maybe that makes me some sort of heinous schitt, and everybody else can jump up and down and point at me from their moral high ground, but honestly? If doping in cycling is something that gets you so lathered up that you have to post incessantly on a forum then you should probably find a more useful outlet in life for your energies.

It's just one big circus and if today it is Froome and Sky, tomorrow it will be somebody else

 

[macbindle]

I find Froome quite creepy in all honesty.

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

There may well be a conspiracy.

But do I really care? No.

In the totality of the world's injustices I'm afraid cycling just doesn't figure at all for me personally. Maybe that makes me some sort of heinous schitt, and everybody else can jump up and down and point at me from their moral high ground, but honestly? If doping in cycling is something that gets you so lathered up that you have to post incessantly on a forum then you should probably find a more useful outlet in life for your energies.

It's just one big circus and if today it is Froome and Sky, tomorrow it will be somebody else

From one heinous schitt to another ... next pint's on me.

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

I find Froome quite creepy in all honesty.

That pint ... how’s about a pack ‘o crisps ... call it even?