Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[The Real GFY]

Interesting quote from Evans ...

"Sky have just shown their strength, they've come out firing. They've got eight riders here, the seven of them riding on the front have just been incredible," he said last night, ahead of today's second rest day.

"Their performance in the time trial from their two leaders was also incredible. Their riders have all come on in the best form of their lives. They ride a continuous tempo that's leading the climbers pretty empty when they get to the final. It's making it difficult to do stuff."

 

[maxmartin]

Interesting quote from Evans ...

"Sky have just shown their strength, they've come out firing. They've got eight riders here, the seven of them riding on the front have just been incredible," he said last night, ahead of today's second rest day.

"Their performance in the time trial from their two leaders was also incredible. Their riders have all come on in the best form of their lives. They ride a continuous tempo that's leading the climbers pretty empty when they get to the final. It's making it difficult to do stuff."

Their riders have all come on in the best form of their lives. I think this is as far as Evans can imply in an open interview

 

[biker jk]

Nothing fishy at all. And if you knew anything about cycling your would not even entertain asking such a dopey and loaded question.

"Nothing fishy at all". Really? Is that why Sky has launced the public relations blitz? BTW. Insulting posters does not help your defence of Sky.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Wow. No faith in Armstrong. We have not seen a transformation this miraculous since Wiggins learned to climb. Thanks, BPC. This one takes the biscuit.

I think it is hilarious how former Armstrong fanboys have abandoned their man to hop on the Wiggins bandwagon.

For starters I'm not a Lance fanboy. Secondly I'm not a Wiggins fanboy. I hope Wiggins cracks in the next few days and Cadel takes time back on him and beats the crap out of him in the TT. If I'm a fanboy of anything it is the biopassport. Call me fanbio if you like

500 bucks says that Wiggins will not test positive for blood manipulation in the next 12months.

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? Anyone else?


edit: wait let me guess your response..... "Lance: been tested 500 times and never tested positive". Please spare me that drivel because Lance HAS tested positive for blood manipulation using the biopassport according to USADA. So if they can catch the most fraudulent sneaky kingpin doper ever, then surely they can catch this lanky pommie git

 

[BroDeal]

For starters I'm not a Lance fanboy. Secondly I'm not a Wiggins fanboy. If I'm a fanboy of anything it is the biopassport. Call me fanbio if you like

500 bucks says that Wiggins will not test positive for blood manipulation in the next 12months.

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? Anyone else?


edit: wait let me guess your response..... "Lance: been tested 500 times and never tested positive". Please spare that drivel because Lance HAS tested positive for blood manipulation using the biopassport according to USADA. So if they can catch the most fraudulent sneaky doper ever, then surely they can catch this lanky pommie git

Are you willing to bet that nothing comes out in five years about Wiggins, Froome, Rogers, or Porte?

 

[Krebs cycle]

Are you willing to bet that nothing comes out in five years about Wiggins, Froome, Rogers, or Porte?

No because unlike others around here, I don't pretend to have a magic crystal ball that allows me to see things unknown.

12 months is sufficient time for a case to be launched against Wiggins if he is found guilty of blood manipulation at any time during the current season including this TdF which you and others are so certain that he is doping.

I would go so far as to include Rogers and Porte, but Froome is the only one I am less sure of because I don't know enough about his background to know whether his present performances are totally unrealistic.

 

[BroDeal]

No because unlike others around here, I don't pretend to have a magic crystal ball that allows me to see things unknown.

12 months is sufficient time for a case to be launched against Wiggins...

Uh-huh. We know that all riders are caught within twelve months of doping. It's not like a rider could spend years doping, even decades, retire, and be found out years later.

I would go so far as to include Rogers...

Faith in Rogers, graduate of Freiburg University? That is hilarious. Next up, faith in Menchov. At least Menchov is showing a decrease in performance during this new clean era.

 

[biker jk]

For starters I'm not a Lance fanboy. Secondly I'm not a Wiggins fanboy. I hope Wiggins cracks in the next few days and Cadel takes time back on him and beats the crap out of him in the TT. If I'm a fanboy of anything it is the biopassport. Call me fanbio if you like

500 bucks says that Wiggins will not test positive for blood manipulation in the next 12months.

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? Anyone else?


edit: wait let me guess your response..... "Lance: been tested 500 times and never tested positive". Please spare me that drivel because Lance HAS tested positive for blood manipulation using the biopassport according to USADA. So if they can catch the most fraudulent sneaky kingpin doper ever, then surely they can catch this lanky pommie git

Why are you a fan of the biological passport or indeed for any testing administered by the UCI rather than an independent body?

 

[ianfra]

"Nothing fishy at all". Really? Is that why Sky has launced the public relations blitz? BTW. Insulting posters does not help your defence of Sky.

Oh I am so sorry. Apologies all around. I know that you are not allowed to insult fellow posters, and I know that those self same posters are allowed to insult Wiggins, Froome et al and make stupid and idiotic accusations with no proof whatsoever. Double standards? You can call that one!

 

[ianfra]

Are you willing to bet that nothing comes out in five years about Wiggins, Froome, Rogers, or Porte?

Yes I am willing to bet. On another post (before I got banned for insulting the insulters) I offered my whole 24 bicycle collection and my 500 cycling books to anyone who can prove that Wiggns et al are doping. There have been no takers so far. Why? The answer is obvious guys. You lot do not appreciate hard work and achievement. I know 100% that the guys are clean. The incidence of doping within the pro peloton is falling to very low levels (who can say? perhaps 10%). These days there is nothing to be gained and everything to lose. If other teams started implementing the management policies of Sky (and british cycling come to that) then we'd see stiffer competition all around. There is no easy route to success - those days are gone and the morals are getting stronger. So guys how about putting up or shutting up?

 

[BroDeal]

Yes I am willing to bet. On another post (before I got banned for insulting the insulters) I offered my whole 24 bicycle collection and my 500 cycling books to anyone who can prove that Wiggns et al are doping. There have been no takers so far. Why? The answer is obvious guys. You lot do not appreciate hard work and achievement. I know 100% that the guys are clean. The incidence of doping within the pro peloton is falling to very low levels (who can say? perhaps 10%). These days there is nothing to be gained and everything to lose. If other teams started implementing the management policies of Sky (and british cycling come to that) then we'd see stiffer competition all around. There is no easy route to success - those days are gone and the morals are getting stronger. So guys how about putting up or shutting up?

I always wondered where Baghdad Bob ended up. Who would of thought he would end up a Sky fan posting in The Clinic?

 

[Cerberus]

For starters I'm not a Lance fanboy. Secondly I'm not a Wiggins fanboy. I hope Wiggins cracks in the next few days and Cadel takes time back on him and beats the crap out of him in the TT. If I'm a fanboy of anything it is the biopassport. Call me fanbio if you like

500 bucks says that Wiggins will not test positive for blood manipulation in the next 12months.

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? Anyone else?


edit: wait let me guess your response..... "Lance: been tested 500 times and never tested positive". Please spare me that drivel because Lance HAS tested positive for blood manipulation using the biopassport according to USADA. So if they can catch the most fraudulent sneaky kingpin doper ever, then surely they can catch this lanky pommie git

The only drivel is your "put you money where your mouth is" with a bet you'll likely win no matter how dirty Wiggins might be. The vast majority of dopers simply don't test positive for blood doping, or anything else within any given 12 month window. Let's say that USADA can prove that Lance doped using solely his biopassport (the case is of cause not based solely on that, and there's no reason to think that there'd be a case if not for other factors). That still doesn't change the fact that he if that bet had been made at any point of Armstrongs career it would have been lost.

The odds of catching other proven dopers like Ulrich, Riis or countless others are also far below 50% for any given 12 month window. Hell I'd be wiling to bet that any given rider, will not test positive within 12 months, and I don't even need to restrict it to blood manipulation.

ETA: In fact your Armstrong example only serves to reinforce that. If we assume he can be proven to have doped from his bio passport alone, then why hasn't he been charged until now? There can be various answers to that question, but virtually all of them reinforce the fact that you can't count on dopers being caught within 12 months.

 

[joe_papp]

Yes I am willing to bet. On another post (before I got banned for insulting the insulters) I offered my whole 24 bicycle collection and my 500 cycling books to anyone who can prove that Wiggns et al are doping. There have been no takers so far. Why? The answer is obvious guys. You lot do not appreciate hard work and achievement. I know 100% that the guys are clean. The incidence of doping within the pro peloton is falling to very low levels (who can say? perhaps 10%). These days there is nothing to be gained and everything to lose. If other teams started implementing the management policies of Sky (and british cycling come to that) then we'd see stiffer competition all around. There is no easy route to success - those days are gone and the morals are getting stronger. So guys how about putting up or shutting up?

Just a note of caution - there absolutely is a lot to be gained by doping in pro cycling.

The real deterrent is not in the magnitude of the penalty, but first and foremost the likelihood of actually getting caught. And that probability is still very much in favor of the sophisticated doper.

It would be great if Wiggins was doing this cleanly (and his teammates as well). But just as I have no evidence that they're doping b/c I have no access to Wiggins, you have no evidence to say w/ 100% certainty that SKY isn't doping (as individuals or systemically). Right?

I can appreciate your emphatic defense of Wiggins but we should all avoid projecting our hopes and dreams into the forum as definite assertions of fact (that we can't actually back-up w/ objective data or evidence).

Note: apologies if you're actually related to Wiggins or have some other intimate contact w/ him and his teammates to allow you to unequivocally come to his defense.

 

[Cavalier]

I know 100% that the guys are clean.

No you don't. Can we debate without the ridiculous hyperbole?

 

[joe_papp]

The only drivel is your "put you money where your mouth is" with a bet you'll likely win no matter how dirty Wiggins might be. The vast majority of dopers simply don't test positive for blood doping, or anything else within any given 12 month window. Let's say that USADA can prove that Lance doped using solely his biopassport (the case is of cause not based solely on that, and there's no reason to think that there'd be a case if not for other factors). That still doesn't change the fact that he if that bet had been made at any point of Armstrongs career it would have been lost.

The odds of catching other proven dopers like Ulrich, Riis or countless others are also far below 50% for any given 12 month window. Hell I'd be wiling to bet that any given rider, will not test positive within 12 months, and I don't even need to restrict it to blood manipulation.

It's worth urging everyone to revisit the Scientific American article, "The Doping Dilemma," which uses game theory to attempt to explain the rationale behind doping:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-doping-dilemma

It's a good piece and it explains in very clear terms some compelling scenarios involving doping/not doping.

 

[Franklin]

Yes I am willing to bet. On another post (before I got banned for insulting the insulters) I offered my whole 24 bicycle collection and my 500 cycling books to anyone who can prove that Wiggns et al are doping. There have been no takers so far. Why? The answer is obvious guys.

How many holes do you want in this drivel?

How many top cyclists do have to be found out doping without ever tripping a wire?

You lot do not appreciate hard work and achievement.

The first ever pro's to REALLY train. And of course, let's forget that their DS Knaven yesterday dissmissed the marginal gains theory.

I know 100% that the guys are clean. The incidence of doping within the pro peloton is falling to very low levels (who can say? perhaps 10%).

You are 100% sure because? Yet you admit you are completely talking through your posterior orifice as you have no idea of knowing?

These days there is nothing to be gained and everything to lose.

The nonsense in this post becomes epic. There is no money to be had it seems...

If other teams started implementing the management policies of Sky (and british cycling come to that) then we'd see stiffer competition all around.

Debunked already and yesterday their own DS dismissed the marginal gains theory (it was talent, nothing more).

There is no easy route to success - those days are gone and the morals are getting stronger. So guys how about putting up or shutting up?

And you say this with dry eyes after yet another dope bust

If it wasn't so sad, your post would be hilarious.

 

[ianfra]

I always wondered where Baghdad Bob ended up. Who would of thought he would end up a Sky fan posting in The Clinic?

Pardon? I do not understand your post.

 

[joe_papp]

How many holes do you want in this drivel?

How many top cyclists do have to be found out doping without ever tripping a wire?



The first ever pro's to REALLY train. And of course, let's forget that their DS Knaven yesterday dissmissed the marginal gains theory.




You are 100% sure because? Yet you admit you are completely talking through your posterior orifice as you have no idea of knowing?



The nonsense in this post becomes epic. There is no money to be had it seems...



Debunked already and yesterday their own DS dismissed the marginal gains theory (it was talent, nothing more).



And you say this with dry eyes after yet another dope bust

If it wasn't so sad, your post would be hilarious.

lol. next time I'll table my kind and considered response and just let you post the obvious. d'oh! b-slapped!

 

[ianfra]

How many holes do you want in this drivel?

How many top cyclists do have to be found out doping without ever tripping a wire?



The first ever pro's to REALLY train. And of course, let's forget that their DS Knaven yesterday dissmissed the marginal gains theory.




You are 100% sure because? Yet you admit you are completely talking through your posterior orifice as you have no idea of knowing?



The nonsense in this post becomes epic. There is no money to be had it seems...



Debunked already and yesterday their own DS dismissed the marginal gains theory (it was talent, nothing more).



And you say this with dry eyes after yet another dope bust

If it wasn't so sad, your post would be hilarious.

You may share the same name as me but you stoop to a level that is quite unnecesary. Just provide the proof, that's all I ask. There is no proof. That's why you can't provide it. How about taking my email and then in five years if you are proved right you can come over and pick up the bikes. I'll also pay your air fare.
At the end of the day I simply do not understand why you guys are so negative. We have a great leader, a great race and a great team. We are anticipating a fight back from Evans today and we'll be glued to the TV tonight (our time). If Evans wins and takes over the leadership, I guess you'll all point your fingers at him too. Do you post the same rubbish on tennis or soccer forums? Was Federer doped? Was his win worth anything? How about Murray? Who won the Euro cup? I guess they were doped too. One of the Kids I train got 2nd in the Junior Sprint national series on Sunday. Was he doped? I dropped Albert and Richard on the Canal Road on Tuesday morning. Was I doped? Come on tell me! Really your nonsense is evil. It really is sad.

 

[joe_papp]

breakthrough at 32, 27 of course seems very very suspicious to me and Froom basically achieved nothing and worry about his contract before last year Vuelta.

If tejay van garderen make the podium next year, I will be much much less suspicious, because he is young and have solid previous result to back him up.

RIGHT!

Many moons ago in a different thread I made an exhaustive (exhausting) comparison of age vs. Grand Tour results for Merckx, Hinault, LeMond, Fignon, Indurain and Armstrong - and guess what? The first four all did amazing rides in GT's from their debuts in their early-20s and progressed in a manner that you might think of as linear, whereas the last two were anonymous for years and years (add Riis to that, too) and then suddenly started winning after this unrealistic spike in performance (Relative to what you'd have expected from them given the first 3-4 years they rode GT's)...riiiight.

 

[ianfra]

No you don't. Can we debate without the ridiculous hyperbole?

Yes I do.
Can we debate this without people making accusations with no evidence whatsoever? Can we debate this without a bunch of forum ne'er do wells (losers) insulting riders?

 

[joe_papp]

At the end of the day I simply do not understand why you guys are so negative. ...

Are you serious?

Surely you realize that the negativity is a conditioned response to decades of doping scandals including two recent Tour de France winners who were stripped of their titles?

Are you intentionally trying to get a rise out of these guys? B/c it's fine to be a SKY fan and emphatically support Wiggins, but contending in absolute terms that they are definitely not doping is not only intellectually dishonest, it's downright risky given the past 20 years'history...

 

[Cerberus]

It's worth urging everyone to revisit the Scientific American article, "The Doping Dilemma," which uses game theory to attempt to explain the rationale behind doping:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-doping-dilemma

It's a good piece and it explains in very clear terms some compelling scenarios involving doping/not doping.

It's subscription only, but I can probably guess most of what it says. I'm a Political Science major so game theory is something I'm reasonably familiar with.

 

[sittingbison]

... a bunch of forum ne'er do wells (losers)...

hmmmm not sure how long you are going to last ianfra, the only person who is actually insulting anyone seems to be you

 

[Franklin]

You may share the same name as me but you stoop to a level that is quite unnecesary. Just provide the proof, that's all I ask.
There is no proof. That's why you can't provide it. How about taking my email and then in five years if you are proved right you can come over and pick up the bikes. I'll also pay your air fare.

Once again the strawman is trotted out "there is no solid evidence"!. never mind that this is about suspicion, not solid proof (especially since that is almost never available).

So I'll break it down again.

We have a situation in cycling where a team mirrors USPS, where they hired a dodgy doctor (contrary to the opinion that a team doing that should be banned), where a team refuses to answer journalists questions, where a trainer, Kerrison, is telling falsehoods about transparency, where a rider claims to have better form than in his doping days.

Yet we are not allowed to clamour for transparency? We have to accept being insulted by the race leader? We have to disregard Geert Leinders and believe Sky because of....? Because of? Because of their blue eyes?

At the end of the day I simply do not understand why you guys are so negative. We have a great leader, a great race and a great team. We are anticipating a fight back from Evans today and we'll be glued to the TV tonight (our time).

*Yawn* We had a "great" leader when we had Armstrong. And we had rivalries with Beloki and Ulrich.

If Evans wins and takes over the leadership, I guess you'll all point your fingers at him too.

if you wonder, Sky is hardly singled out. Evans is riding for an extremely dodgy team with an extremely dodgy management. If anything the plausibility of Evans being clean is smaller.

Do you post the same rubbish on tennis or soccer forums? Was Federer doped? Was his win worth anything? How about Murray? Who won the Euro cup? I guess they were doped too.

Puerto certainly indicated that the problem is mich much bigger. And considering the fame and cash involved you can be sure there will be doping.

One of the Kids I train got 2nd in the Junior Sprint national series on Sunday. Was he doped? I dropped Albert and Richard on the Canal Road on Tuesday morning. Was I doped? Come on tell me! Really your nonsense is evil. It really is sad.

Hyperbole. Nobody is even remotely going into this directoion. An emotional tearjerky post does not make for a convincing argument