Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[lemoogle]

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?

What qualifies as "evidence", I think there's plenty of "evidence" just no "undeniable proof" . If by evidence you mean a bloodtest or a testimony from wiggins himself then you're not making sense: if we had that it wouldn't be a "debate".

 

[ianfra]

Out of interest what is the wonder drug that Team Sky have access to that none of the other teams do? Given that allegedly they have been doping for anywhere between 12 and 48 months that is one heck of a secret.

Yes. The drug is called hard work, great training and good organisation. Same as any company - if you strive for excellence then you can achieve it. Look at what Clough achieved at Forest! Now Brailsford is the new Clough! You may not like my answer but that's how it is.

 

[ianfra]

ianfra, welcome back. Did you know tom simpson personally back in the day?

Yes I did. If you look in Cycling Weekly magazine from the 1960s you'll find a picture or two in there of me with Simpson. I kid you not. But I guess the cynics on this board wouldn't believe me.
Just a note: Yes I was banned for 'insulting fellow posters'. I'd rather insult posters than insult riders from Sky as the boarders here seem to enjoy doing. Double standards exist on this forum!

 

[ianfra]

Sounds like you are trolling here. If you are so upset by these comments and this thread in the clinic, then why post? Looks like you are just trying to get a rise.

What does "a rise" mean? Please translate.

 

[ianfra]

This is a cycling forum...so that point is mute.
Secondly, all top level cyclists are talents...all of the train hard, so your last point is also mute. You talk about Evans, the same guy who worked with Ferrari and refused to say last year it was a win for clean cycling.
The rest of your stuff saying you know for certain etc etc is not worth responding to...

Sad as I said.

 

[ianfra]

How about avoiding the clinic. Seems it might be better for you as you refuse to take of the union jack blinkers.

The clinic discusses doping of all colours and all nationalities. Do a search there are threads in here for everyone from Directeur Sportifs to Soigneurs.

Why? Because that is the sport as created by those who run it, those who are controlling it and those who are competing in it.

This TdF has had 2 positives. 1 for a direutic the other for allgedly dealing.

And currently beating these dopers is TeamSky!

Yes 100%. And 2 + 2 equals 5. Well done. You have a very sharp intellect.

 

[ianfra]

No, you don't. Your location says Thailand. Unless you're putting false information on that, it's reasonably simple to draw the conclusion you can't be 100% certain of when Brad's knocking one out, let alone possibly taking something he shouldn't be. You cannot possibly know, because you're not with him 100% of the time.

It really is that simple.

Investigations come about as a result of suspicion, as a result of extraordinary circumstances. What we're seeing here is people putting together those circumstances. A great deal of it may be wrong, some of it may be right. If you don't like that, you're posting in the wrong place.

Yes, I live in Thailand. Great place for training. Knocks spots off of Majorca. Two weeks ago I was riding the Manchester velodrome and speaking to the guys at BC. So I'm not totally out of touch. I also have personal experience of doping and I hate doping with a vengeance. But I am not such a buffalo that I would accuse riders with hate-posts here when I have no evidence that they are riding dirty. Indeed, my intellect and reasoning abilities tell me that Sky is 100% clean so I don't need smart-*** comments dissecting my posts and trying to pick holes into every nuance. This is what you guys do. Why, I really don't know. And although I hate this board as much as I hate doping, I hate the posturing of the people who post here and their stupid, irrational comments far more. Unfortunately the forum would not allow me to explicitly state what I think of you people. I'm just so glad that I can
continue to ride 300 miles per week with cycling colleagues who are truly nice people and genuinely love this sport.

 

[The Real GFY]

What does "a rise" mean? Please translate.

Insulting posters or making provocative comments to posters in an effort to get them to be insulting or upset. In other words, you are trolling.

 

[will10]

Froome time

 

[ianfra]

Insulting posters or making provocative comments to posters in an effort to get them to be insulting or upset. In other words, you are trolling.

But surely the people here who are making insulting comments about the Sky riders and Wiggins in particular are the ones who should be named called by you!

 

[UlleGigo]

Wow. Is this troll doped? Almost a whole page of posts from the nugget.

 

[Franklin]

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?

Ah yes, debate on believe and faith instead of facts.

No thanks ianfra, I prefer facts over faith, that's how progress is made.

*And if you say that there are no facts I will gladly trot them out for you to think about.

 

[mastersracer]

Ah yes, debate on believe and faith instead of facts.

No thanks ianfra, I prefer facts over faith, that's how progress is made.

*And if you say that there are no facts I will gladly trot them out for you to think about.

I'd be interested to see your facts re Sky doping.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Yes I did. If you look in Cycling Weekly magazine from the 1960s you'll find a picture or two in their of me with Simpson. I kid you not. But I guess the cynics on this board wouldn't believe me.
Just a note: Yes I was banned for 'insulting fellow posters'. I'd rather insult posters than insult riders from Sky as the boarders here seem to enjoy doing. Double standards exist on this forum!

Was it widely known that he was doping back then?

 

[Von Mises]

Ah yes, debate on believe and faith instead of facts.

No thanks ianfra, I prefer facts over faith, that's how progress is made.

*And if you say that there are no facts I will gladly trot them out for you to think about.

To be honest these facts are quite weak and circumstantial, not much better than this faith you are mentioning.

 

[ianfra]

Was it widely known that he was doping back then?

As far as I can recall it was never discussed. Doping wasn't the emotive issue then that it is now.

 

[Bonkstrong]

Ah yes, debate on believe and faith instead of facts.

No thanks ianfra, I prefer facts over faith, that's how progress is made.

*And if you say that there are no facts I will gladly trot them out for you to think about.

I haven't seen 1 single even semi-compelling fact in over 300 pages...

 

[Franklin]

I'd be interested to see your facts re Sky doping.

Cute, I adressed your strawman a few times, but it seems you just love to erect it again.

There is no solid evidence of doping. But there are quite a few facts that show that Sky is intransparant, breaks own policies and have a trainer who actually is being really edging blatant lieing about it.

I hope you will stop to throw at me that I claim to have proof of doping in a few pages. It's a bit tiresome to burn down strawmen, especially since you avoid the hard questions.

To be honest these facts are quite weak and circumstantial, not much better than this faith you are mentioning.

Tsktsktsk... facts can't be weak or circumstantial, you are talking about evidence.

I haven't seen 1 single even semi-compelling fact in over 300 pages...

I could quote your discomfort about the intransparency

It's a bit odd you rail against this thread when you yourself have doubts

 

[mastersracer]

Cute, I adressed your strawman a few times, but it seems you just love to erect it again.

There is no solid evidence of doping. But there are quite a few facts that show that Sky is intransparant, breaks own policies and have a trainer who actually is being really edging blatant lieing about it.

I hope you will stop to throw at me that I claim to have proof of doping in a few pages. It's a bit tiresome to burn down strawmen, especially since you avoid the hard questions.



Tsktsktsk... facts can't be weak or circumstantial, you are talking about evidence.



I could quote your discomfort about the intransparency

It's a bit odd you rail against this thread when you yourself have doubts

Again, the Sky accusers are simply cherry picking 'facts' and are suffering from confirmation bias. That is, they are finding 'facts' that fit their preconceptions about Sky. Choose any rider in the top 10 and you could do exactly the same - e.g., wow, look at Evans losing so much time. That is a 'fact' that he showed a 'spike in performance' last year and must have been doping. And on it goes.

 

[Franklin]

It's time to list the undeniable facts again it seems. The amusing part is that they are not adressed so far

Facts (as in undisputable things that happened and have been said)

1. Wiggins: If a team has a 1% suspicion of working with a tainted doctor, the team should be banned.

=> Sky hires Leinders.

2. Sky is intransparent:

=> Sky hires Leinders, but strangely enogh no mention at all on their website. None whatsoever.

3. The role of Leinders is belatedly explained.

=> he is hired for heatstrokes and saddlesores. *note that even Bonkstrong finds this incredible

4. Michael Rogers jubilantly claims he turns out better numbers than ever.

=> Michael rogers thus is better than the time in his prime when he was heavily implicated with the Freiburg scandal.

5. Wiggins easily insults Sastre by naming Evans the first clean winner in 20 years, but states he loves Lance Armstrong.

6. Wiggins: I understand it will take many years till the public will remotely start trusting us.

=> Wiggins: How dare you question us?

7. Sky throws out journalists that question Wiggins about doping.


1-4 demand explenation if they don't want to be suspected.
5-7 is behavior that's deplorable and which needs to be pointed out.

All of these are facts, facts which should give anyone pause to laud Sky, especially since we know the history of cycling.

 

[Bonkstrong]

I could quote your discomfort about the intransparency

It's a bit odd you rail against this thread when you yourself have doubts

Quote it all you want, it's a question that needs answering but far far far from being a smoking gun as far as doping proof goes, it's barely even a damp-squib in the "reasons to think Sky are doping" camp.

I'm railing against it because I am yet to see anything to point towards doping. There is a lot of manipulation of facts but nothing more. But Sky are being made out to be the worst thing in cycling since USPS and that's simply not true at all.

I'd like to think I'm being fairly reasonable on the topic and will question why they're not being as transparent as they promised, but that in no way makes them a dirty team and to label them as dirty in the way they have been is wholly unfair on many levels.

 

[Franklin]

Choose any rider in the top 10 and you could do exactly the same

Are you seriously noticing that now? And yet you wonder why we are so suspicious?

And before anyone brings this up: Sky was treated relatively benign in the Clinic (see the Tenerife thread) until stage 7 and Wiggins declaration of war.

 

[LastDamnation]

I'm pretty sure what he said was that we finally had a winner everyone can believe in. Pretty sure there were a larger group who didn't believe in Sastre than in Evans (probably true being Spanish)

 

[Franklin]

Quote it all you want, it's a question that needs answering but far far far from being a smoking gun as far as doping proof goes, it's barely even a damp-squib in the "reasons to think Sky are doping" camp..

The doctor who was involved with Michael Rasmussen and accused of sporting fraud (hiding hereabouts) is hired for saddle-sores

I wonder, why would you hire someone with the benign reputation of Leinders?

 

[BullsFan22]

Again, the Sky accusers are simply cherry picking 'facts' and are suffering from confirmation bias. That is, they are finding 'facts' that fit their preconceptions about Sky. Choose any rider in the top 10 and you could do exactly the same - e.g., wow, look at Evans losing so much time. That is a 'fact' that he showed a 'spike in performance' last year and must have been doping. And on it goes.

Ummm, bad days happen, even when you dope. Please, tell me one guy in the top 10 who isn't doping? If I had to choose, I'd say TJVG.