Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Benotti69]

Lol. This sums the clinic up perfectly. There is literally nothing Wiggins could do to convince everyone on this forum he's winning clean. A bit of a shame really, if he is clean.

So you think that the numbers they showed ASO dont prove he rides clean?

If he is clean then provide the evidence.

After Wiggins claiming a few years ago that the TdF winners were tainted why does he want to be lumped into that? Why does he not do all he can, publish his training (after he has won), his bio passport etc ...then he can pedal off into the sunset knowing he has won clean.....

Nah that would be too easy.

He is doing exactly what others have done. Talk the talk.

 

[Digger]

I think folks are giving a bit too much credence to power files as "evidence" of performance, clean dirty or otherwise. Of course, there are a ton of issues with using times as well: wind, drafting, road surface, race situation. The problem with power files is that it's incredibly easy to manipulate the numbers on an SRM (just change the slope), and most riders lie about their weight.

And ultimately, it's the % of change within the rider that you'd really need to know, since the theoretical limits of human performance on a bicycle are quite high.

I know from talking to certain people who know far more than I on this topic, that you're spot on with this post. That Greg's idea of years ago was really a non runner. As is comparing times up climbs etc.

 

[Square-pedaller]

I have a lot of faith in Fedrigo, too.

Fedrigo a 4, along with LA, Evans and Millar

 

[mastersracer]

I agree that "type 1 evidence" is hard to provide. Given the history of cycling, I think that teams who want to be considered clean should really try quite hard.

I'm working on it - brain imaging lie detection.

 

[Square-pedaller]

Lol. This sums the clinic up perfectly. There is literally nothing Wiggins could do to convince everyone on this forum he's winning clean. A bit of a shame really, if he is clean.

Biopassport data would be fine for me. The rest is fluff.

 

[Benotti69]

I know from talking to certain people who know far more than I on this topic, that you're spot on with this post. That Greg's idea of years ago was really a non runner. As is comparing times up climbs etc.

It is probably why Ferarri loves to use it all the time on his website.

 

[The Real GFY]

Type 1 evidence is extraordinarily hard to come by, but this is what everyone here is clamoring for. It would require embedded journalists, lie detectors, etc. In the absence of type 1 evidence, any good performance is suspicious. This is due to simple frequentist probability (prob doping|podium finisher) by filling in the values with the last 10 years of results.

Interestingly, an embedded journalist is exactly what BW blocked.

 

[Lanark]

I think folks are giving a bit too much credence to power files as "evidence" of performance, clean dirty or otherwise. Of course, there are a ton of issues with using times as well: wind, drafting, road surface, race situation. The problem with power files is that it's incredibly easy to manipulate the numbers on an SRM (just change the slope), and most riders lie about their weight.

And ultimately, it's the % of change within the rider that you'd really need to know, since the theoretical limits of human performance on a bicycle are quite high.

I Agree. I would say they are usefull to look at the general state of the peloton, i.e. the fact that the power produced these days is 10% lower than it was 10 years ago shows the peloton is getting 'cleaner'.

But it's useless to use it to prove individual riders are clean. Just look at a guy like Froome. The w/kg he produces now aren't above human (which doesn't say much of course, neither were landis'), but compared to 12 or 24 months ago, he must have improved tremendously. The jump in performance from somebody who was qualified by his DS to be barely employable to one of the premier stage riders of his generation should be explained, not the level he is now.

 

[The Cobra]

So you think that the numbers they showed ASO dont prove he rides clean?

If he is clean then provide the evidence.

After Wiggins claiming a few years ago that the TdF winners were tainted why does he want to be lumped into that? Why does he not do all he can, publish his training (after he has won), his bio passport etc ...then he can pedal off into the sunset knowing he has won clean.....

Nah that would be too easy.

He is doing exactly what others have done. Talk the talk.

Probably something to do with a bunch of 'experts' in the clinic that would say it was evidence of doping even if it was actually the opposite. I think Wiggins probably has enough crap to deal with in terms of doping accusations without a bunch of amateur hematologists giving him grief. Reality is there is a panel of actual experts that decide if there is evidence of doping or not.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Lol. This sums the clinic up perfectly. There is literally nothing Wiggins could do to convince everyone on this forum he's winning clean. A bit of a shame really, if he is clean.

By the way do you care if a rider dope or not?

 

[The Cobra]

Biopassport data would be fine for me. The rest is fluff.

I cant remember exactly who was where on that list but wasnt it generally agreed that the list was useless. People blatantly dodgy scoring very low, and others regarded as clean scoring high?

 

[roundabout]

I cant remember exactly who was where on that list but wasnt it generally agreed that the list was useless. People blatantly dodgy scoring very low, and others regarded as clean scoring high?

Irony ahoy.

Who made you an expert on who the blatantly dodgy people are without any evidence?

 

[The Cobra]

By the way do you care if a rider dope or not?

Of course. Difference is I like to have something more concrete than someone leading a race before accusing them with absolute certainty that they're dopers. The circumstantial evidence against Wiggins/Sky is very weak imo.

 

[The Cobra]

Irony ahoy.

Who made you an expert on who the blatantly dodgy people are without any evidence?

Lol, you may have a point there.

As I say, I cant really remember.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Yep, you can ask. No idea whether either of them is up to no good. Whatever their history, I doubt it at the moment. The reasons for that doubt go way beyond cycling.

And the reasons are/is ........... you

 

[The Real GFY]

Fair enough, I'm glad you made it clear that you are simply repeating hearsay.

TBH, Darryl is coming across as much less vested than you.

 

[BroDeal]

Of course. Difference is I like to have something more concrete than someone leading a race before accusing them with absolute certainty that they're dopers. The circumstantial evidence against Wiggins/Sky is very weak imo.

Yeah, how dare people suspect Wiggins. It's not like there is twenty year pattern of dopers winning every TdF.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Probably something to do with a bunch of 'experts' in the clinic that would say it was evidence of doping even if it was actually the opposite. I think Wiggins probably has enough crap to deal with in terms of doping accusations without a bunch of amateur hematologists giving him grief. Reality is there is a panel of actual experts that decide if there is evidence of doping or not.

I think if Sky hadn't made such a song and a dance about cleanliness it wouldn't have arisen to quite such an extent. It's true that Wiggins is in a damned if he does, damned if he doesn't kind of situation, but with the team having committed to transparency, not providing the data is a problem, because it makes it look like they've got something to hide. After all, if you're prepared to make a song and a dance about being clean, you might be asked at some point to prove it to us, since the likes of Rebellin trumping up their contribution to clean cycling has meant we're a bit more circumspect about giving out love to anybody who talks the talk nowadays. And if you're prepared to publicise things to prove your point, you have to be prepared to hear dissenting views. Publicising his figures won't silence the critics; as you point out those who think Sky are pumped full of dope will look for anomalous figures that can point to the answer they want, while like with Armstrong's 2009 figures, if the figures look dubious then those who are adamant that Sky are 100% clean will look at ways to rationalise it, such as variations due to dehydration, altitude and so on. But if they're announcing they're fighting for clean cycling, and announcing they will be all about transparency... if they talk the talk but we never see them walk the walk, just them telling us they walked it, you don't see how people might be concerned that, in actuality, they mightn't be walking at all?

Fedrigo a 4, along with LA, Evans and Millar

That system did also have things where the number would be increased if a rider hadn't been tested recently. I still have more faith in Fedrigo being clean in 2010 than riders with suspect team histories like, say, Chris Horner or Rubén Plaza, who scored 0 and 1 respectively.

 

[D-Queued]

"I’ve lost count how many times I’ve been tested this week"
Probably over 500

...and they still don't have a clean one.

Dave.

 

[Caruut]

There are far fewer people accusing with absolute certainty than some of you seem to be implying. I am not 100% certain, but I know what I think, for sure. In real life, we do not need 100% certainty to hold a belief. Since I wasn't there, I can't be sure that the trains were running today, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't assume that they were.

 

[thehog]

Yeah, how dare people suspect Wiggins. It's not like there is twenty year pattern of dopers winning every TdF.

That would work to be a lovely pie chart. Dopers whom have won the last 20 editions of the Tour - 99%. Those won clean - 1%.

Yes Wiggins has gone against the trend and done so in the most dominating fashion of all time to prove his cleanliness!

 

[Caruut]

That would work to be a lovely pie chart. Dopers whom have won the last 20 editions of the Tour - 99%. Those won clean - 1%.

Yes Wiggins has gone against the trend and done so in the most dominating fashion of all time to prove his cleanliness!

Where did the 1/5 of a clean rider come from?

 

[BroDeal]

Where did the 1/5 of a clean rider come from?

That was Contador. He once went a whole four days of a Tour de France without doping.

 

[Krebs cycle]

That would work to be a lovely pie chart. Dopers whom have won the last 20 editions of the Tour - 99%. Those won clean - 1%.

Yes Wiggins has gone against the trend and done so in the most dominating fashion of all time to prove his cleanliness!

I personally have no problem with being suspicious, what I think is ridiculous though is basing your suspicions on fairy tales such as "most dominating fashion of all time".

I guess Fignon winning by 10min in 1984 (pre-EPO) was not dominating enough for you, whereas the biggest dominator of all time gets dropped in the mtns by Nibali and his own team mate.


manual roll eyes

edit: surely LA was the most dominant of all time? Team Sky have a LOOOOOONG way to go before we get there. If Wiggins wins 3 in a row and starts blitzing Contador and Shleck in the next few yrs, then I would be much more inclined to believe that he is doping. But until then, I'll reserve judgment and give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[maxmartin]

"Doctors discovered the rather obscure virus and quickly prescribed treatments that kill just about everything in the body, similar to chemotherapy."

Sounds so like Lance's story, guess you just have to kill yourself first hen get a brand new reborn.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...e-battles-parasite-media-cars-expelled_230162

could this be SKY's new trick, we all know some chemo drugs can makes you completely wasted losing dramatic weight in a matter of weeks, and no anti doping agency will bother to test those drugs. Just pure speculation