Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Zinoviev Letter]

Wiggins is a track rider that eventually turned his focus to the road. His career follows a very different trajectory to traditional continental road racers, British riders have generally cut their teeth on the track then moved to the road, down to the way the sport is set up in this country. Yours is a moot point.

Strange that no "track riders" who "eventually turn their focus to the road" have ever in the history of the sport enjoyed a career trajectory like that of Wiggins, isn't it? Are you under the impression that no trackie ever tried the road before?

This is what's known as special pleading. Many, many, riders from the track and from other cycling and sporting disciplines have shifted their focus gradually to the road. Not one of them has ever gone from spending years in the grupetto to winning a grand tour.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

But you are tarring Wiggins with the same brush: exactly the sort of assumption I am criticising. It becomes a self-perpetuating delusion, you merely re-inforce your prejudice at every turn by the acts of others. Bradley Wiggins ISN'T Lance Armstrong. He career follows an entirely different trajectory and he has an entirely different cultural background. They are distinct people, separated not only nationality but by generation. To condemn Bradley for lance's actions is a crime in itself. 3 times gold medal winner, 7 times world Champion on the track. He came to the road late but applied that clear natural talent in the same way and has proved himself. Tearing that down through doping-by-assumption smacks of prejudice and an agenda based on motives I can guess at but won't voice.

REPEAT: Wiggins isn't Lance Armstrong. Sky aren't US Postal. The latter can **** off, I loathe them for what they have done to this sport. Don't continue that damage by attempting to destroy everything that comes after them.

If you do what hope is there for cycling.

OK, maybe Lance wasn't the best example. But people can still change over 5 years, and how somebody reacts to something 5 years ago cannot always be taken as read that they will react the same way now.

In 2007 Wiggins also said that everybody would be within their rights to question anybody who won the next six Tours. Here we are in the fifth, and he's called people who question a bunch of four letter words.

In 2007 Wiggins also said that anybody, any doctor, any DS with "1% suspicion" should be excluded from the Tour; here we are in the Tour, and he's on a team which hired Geert Leinders and Sean Yates, and I'd hardly say there is less than 1% suspicion about Mick Rogers either.

As I said, each tree seems explicable, but the whole forest is hard for me to take. The "agenda" you have in mind is nothing more than world-weariness based on several generations of cyclists who've been touted as the cleanest ever, and turned out not to be, and a heavy dose of cynicism coming from that, and an exasperation at the lack of spectacle. Come on, what's the agenda you think I have? Anti-Britain? Anti-sideburns? Do I just hate excellence and love bilharzia?

 

[JimmyFingers]

Stuff too lengthy to quote

I don't know what the point of all that was, apart from to say that Sky, in existence for 3 years, and Bradley Wiggins, racing in the Tour since 2007, haven't actually done a lot until this year.

Doesn't mean a lot, and it's simply a matter of spin to what conclusions you choose to draw from it. You choose that Sky is doping.

And went I said history I meant far more the rampant doping in the 1990s and 2000s, not the more recent history you want to throw at me me to justify your opinion.

Compare Sky's numbers to those eras. Wiggins would have been spanked on all the climbs. Seems desperate to smear them with the same guilt as those who have gone before.

Wiggins is a great athlete, that surely is beyond doubt. No reason why he can't succeed on the road as well as the track.

 

[straydog]

Hi there Straydog. May i ask if you work in a official capacity for BC/Sky?

This is a genuine question and not sarcasm.

Who is G? Is it short for Geert?

If you have mentioned the answers to these questions before,then forgive me.

No I don't. If I did, do you really think I'd be posting here?

I know some from riding, from quite far back, some from more recently in a work capacity, but I have never worked for BC directly.

UK cycling isn't a massive world, to be honest.

Frankly, BC don't pay enough, you get to drive a hideous logo strewn company car and you have to move to Manchester. And I'd never want to work for a road team. Not that they offered mind.

And to whoever said it above, yes I did miss my ride for this, and that has taught me my lesson.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Wiggins is a great athlete, that surely is beyond doubt. No reason why he can't succeed on the road as well as the track.

Usain Bolt is a greater athlete. Presumably, you wouldn't be startled to see him succeed at distance running? This is a nonsensical line of argument.

 

[BYOP88]

Usain Bolt is a greater athlete. Presumably, you wouldn't be startled to see him succeed at distance running? This is a nonsensical line of argument.

He's doing the marathon in Rio, so I guess we'll find out then.

 

[_frost]

So what substances used in that era provided gains similar to those of blood doping?

Sorry if there was already an answer for this, didn't have time to read through all. But blood doping started already in 70's, pioneered by Finnish runners. It wasn't banned by then but actually if I recall right the first studies recommended it as a healthy operation for athletes.

 

[Telmisartan new]

No I don't. If I did, do you really think I'd be posting here?

I know some from riding, from quite far back, some from more recently in a work capacity, but I have never worked for BC directly.

UK cycling isn't a massive world, to be honest.

Frankly, BC don't pay enough, you get to drive a hideous logo strewn company car and you have to move to Manchester. And I'd never want to work for a road team. Not that they offered mind.

And to whoever said it above, yes I did miss my ride for this, and that has taught me my lesson.

Thanks, just wondered if you knew them as your posts indicate a familiarity with them, nicknames etc, oklay doklay, glad we got that sorted.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Strange that no "track riders" who "eventually turn their focus to the road" have ever in the history of the sport enjoyed a career trajectory like that of Wiggins, isn't it? Are you under the impression that no trackie ever tried the road before?

This is what's known as special pleading. Many, many, riders from the track and from other cycling and sporting disciplines have shifted their focus gradually to the road. Not one of them has ever gone from spending years in the grupetto to winning a grand tour.

Way back most riders would ride both, six day races on the track and road races both. Merckx was a great track rider, Indurain broke the hour record. To claim the two disciplines are mutually exclusive is soft-sighted: at the end of the day you are propelling a bike as fast as you can over distances, sometimes endurance, sometimes sprinting. To claim it isn't possible to crossover like Wiggins isn't truth, isn't fact, it's just a lazy supposition. Great road racers have been MTBer, even been BMXers. Its just riding bikes FFS.

 

[simoni]

Usain Bolt is a greater athlete. Presumably, you wouldn't be startled to see him succeed at distance running? This is a nonsensical line of argument.

the 100m and 4k pursuit are NOT comparable events!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Wiggins is a track rider that eventually turned his focus to the road. His career follows a very different trajectory to traditional continental road racers, British riders have generally cut their teeth on the track then moved to the road, down to the way the sport is set up in this country. Yours is a moot point.

Just to help you out in case someone asks about Froome, Rogers, Linders etc

Froome is a mountainbike rider that eventually turned his focus to the road. His career follows a very different trajectory to traditional continental road racers, British riders have generally cut their teeth on the mountainbikes then moved to the road, down to the way the sport is set up in this country. Yours is a moot point

Rogers is a track rider that eventually turned his focus to the road. His career follows a very different trajectory to traditional continental road racers, Australian riders have generally cut their teeth on the track then moved to the road, down to the way the sport is set up in that country. Yours is a moot point

Linders has a dodgy past, but eventually turned his focus to the straight road. His career follows a very different trajectory to traditional doping doctors, British riders who have generally cut their teeth on the track then moved to the road, have shown Linders the true path down to the way the sport is set up in this country. Yours is a moot point

 

[JimmyFingers]

Usain Bolt is a greater athlete. Presumably, you wouldn't be startled to see him succeed at distance running? This is a nonsensical line of argument.

it is well known that pursuiters on the track make good time triallers on the road. At the heart of them is a good athlete. Wiggins has changed his physicality drastically from his time on the track to adapt to the demands on the road. It is nonsensical to dismiss that is possibility that someone adept at a certain pursuit cannot change to the demands of another.

And you choose two polar opposites to back up your claim. Cav is a sprinter, Hushvod too, I would never claim either of them could win the TdF. Wiggins is not a sprinter, never has been.

 

[straydog]

Question for Straydog/Jimmy Fingers (or anybody else who wants to comment):

Did you think/know that Millar was doping before he got busted? If so, had you always known or was it something that you gradually/suddenly found/worked out?

Yes Millar was doping before he got busted. Did i think so then? I kind of gave him the benefit of the doubt because he was always phenomenally talented but didn't 100% believe him, because he was also prone to being a monumental kn*bhead. I certainly didn't know though.

When he was first at Cofidis I wondered if he'd have the mental strength to resist what was the norm at that time, especially there. And clearly he didn't. Or clearly his searing ambition got the better of him, depending on your view. But here is not the place.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Just to help you out in case someone asks about Froome, Rogers, Linders etc

Froome is a mountainbike rider that eventually turned his focus to the road. His career follows a very different trajectory to traditional continental road racers, British riders have generally cut their teeth on the mountainbikes then moved to the road, down to the way the sport is set up in this country. Yours is a moot point

Rogers is a track rider that eventually turned his focus to the road. His career follows a very different trajectory to traditional continental road racers, Australian riders have generally cut their teeth on the track then moved to the road, down to the way the sport is set up in that country. Yours is a moot point

Linders has a dodgy past, but eventually turned his focus to the straight road. His career follows a very different trajectory to traditional doping doctors, British riders who have generally cut their teeth on the track then moved to the road, have shown Linders the true path down to the way the sport is set up in this country. Yours is a moot point

None of that is remotely relevant, intelligent, or funny. I can't see myself bothering to read any of your posts in the future.

 

[Christian]

In 2007 Wiggins also said that anybody, any doctor, any DS with "1% suspicion" should be excluded from the Tour; here we are in the Tour, and he's on a team which hired Geert Leinders and Sean Yates, and I'd hardly say there is less than 1% suspicion about Mick Rogers either.

When Sky arrived in the pro peloton they had a lot of revolutionary concepts, radical principles and most high morals. Some of them stuck but a lot of those turned out to be useless, counterproductive, inapplicable or straight out cr*p. They've had to "pour a lot of water into their wine" as a German saying goes, they came down from their high horse and have arrived in reality. And the reality is that you can't shield yourself in a doping-free bubble and you can't avoid everyone with a "1% suspicion" because professional cycling is a small world and you run out of squeaky clean people pretty fast. And the reality might be that it is difficult - maybe too difficult for an impatient sponsor with a huge event coming up - to achieve anything with a zero tolerance policy.

 

[BYOP88]

So in a few years time Jack Bobridge will become a GT winner?

 

[Square-pedaller]

Yes Millar was doping before he got busted. Did i think so then? I kind of gave him the benefit of the doubt because he was always phenomenally talented but didn't 100% believe him, because he was also prone to being a monumental kn*bhead. I certainly didn't know though.

When he was first at Cofidis I wondered if he'd have the mental strength to resist what was the norm at that time, especially there. And clearly he didn't. Or clearly his searing ambition got the better of him, depending on your view. But here is not the place.

Thanks for the answer.
S-P

 

[Libertine Seguros]

When Sky arrived in the pro peloton they had a lot of revolutionary concepts, radical principals and most high morals. Some of them stuck but a lot of those turned out to be useless, counterproductive, inapplicable or straight out cr*p. They've had to "pour a lot of water into their wine" as a German saying goes, they came down from their high horse and have arrived in reality. And the reality is that you can't shield yourself in a doping-free bubble and you can't avoid everyone with a "1% suspicion" because professional cycling is a small world and you run out of squeaky clean people pretty fast. And the reality might be that it is difficult - maybe too difficult for an impatient sponsor with a huge event coming up - to achieve anything with a zero tolerance policy.

This is all true, but it's still illustrative of the point that Wiggins stated something in an emotive state in 2007, and has been willing to (or has had to) compromise on that in the intervening five years, and so reactions from five years ago cannot be taken as confirmation that he would or would not do something, as he may have had to, or been willing to, compromise in other areas in the interim.

I've actually defended Sky on that in the past when they were being criticised for quietly dropping their very vocal "nobody involved in doping ever!" spiel, because as you say finding experienced DSes and so on without ties to the EPO era either as DSes or riders must be nigh on impossible.

 

[richtea]

So in a few years time Jack Bobridge will become a GT winner?

I've seen someone say this before and regardless of what you think of Wiggins or Bobridge it has no relevance. No one is claiming all pursuit riders can become stage racers so the answer to this question is not even tangentially related to the discussion.

 

[JimmyFingers]

OK, maybe Lance wasn't the best example. But people can still change over 5 years, and how somebody reacts to something 5 years ago cannot always be taken as read that they will react the same way now.

In 2007 Wiggins also said that everybody would be within their rights to question anybody who won the next six Tours. Here we are in the fifth, and he's called people who question a bunch of four letter words.

In 2007 Wiggins also said that anybody, any doctor, any DS with "1% suspicion" should be excluded from the Tour; here we are in the Tour, and he's on a team which hired Geert Leinders and Sean Yates, and I'd hardly say there is less than 1% suspicion about Mick Rogers either.

As I said, each tree seems explicable, but the whole forest is hard for me to take. The "agenda" you have in mind is nothing more than world-weariness based on several generations of cyclists who've been touted as the cleanest ever, and turned out not to be, and a heavy dose of cynicism coming from that, and an exasperation at the lack of spectacle. Come on, what's the agenda you think I have? Anti-Britain? Anti-sideburns? Do I just hate excellence and love bilharzia?

I understand the cynicism believe me. There are times my head has turned the same way but I can't deny the numbers simply don't back the suspicions up. They simply aren't riding as fast, climbing as well or recovering as quickly as the dopers have in the past. Yes Sky has been dominant this year but is clearly isn't the strongest Tour and their dominance can be explained through training and organisation. You haven't seen Sky riders just riding away from fast moving pelotons, you've seen them expend each individually-talented riders in measured and calculated ways. That yellow jersey sits on Wiggins' shoulders because of a team effort not matched by any other in the peloton. That matches the minutiae of Sky's effort, the attention to detail, the professionalism.

I DO understand why people doubt, but surely eventually you have to try to put side those doubts, otherwise why watch the sport. Nothing Sky have done is superhuman or extra-ordinary, just well-drilled, well organised and well-executed.

Nibali has said he didn't recce any of the climbs or descents on the tour. In the BMC team it is the first time Cadel has raced with some of them. Not the case at Sky and it shows.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

None of that is remotely relevant, intelligent, or funny. I can't see myself bothering to read any of your posts in the future.

I know, neither was the original.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Way back most riders would ride both, six day races on the track and road races both. Merckx was a great track rider, Indurain broke the hour record. To claim the two disciplines are mutually exclusive is soft-sighted: at the end of the day you are propelling a bike as fast as you can over distances, sometimes endurance, sometimes sprinting. To claim it isn't possible to crossover like Wiggins isn't truth, isn't fact, it's just a lazy supposition. Great road racers have been MTBer, even been BMXers. Its just riding bikes FFS.

I really wish that there was some kind of filter to prevent nationalist fanboys from turning up in July.

I have absolutely no idea where you got the idea that I think it's impossible for someone to be both a good track rider and a good road rider. I never said or implied anything of the sort. What I did say was that many, many riders have "switched their focus to the road" from a track or other discipline background and none of them - not one, not ever - has had a career trajectory like that of Wiggins.

Those who could ride track but also contend for GC could do so from a relatively young age, just like everybody else who could contend for GC. There are many, many riders who started out in other disciplines. But none of them had a road career where they went from years in the grupetto to late career Tour winner. None of them. Not pursuit specialists. Not other trackies. Not mountain bikers. Not speed skaters. Not six day racers. Not crossers. Not anybody.

In the pre-EPO era nobody had a career trajectory even remotely, slightly, a tiny bit, resembling that of Wiggins. In the post-EPO era there are a number of riders who were nowhere in GC terms in the early years of their road career and then ended up winning the Tour. Indurain, Riis, Armstrong, Wiggins.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

the 100m and 4k pursuit are NOT comparable events!

So you will no doubt be able to point me to the long list of other pursuit champions who have late in their career emerged from the grupetto to win Grand Tours?

 

[will10]

OK, maybe Lance wasn't the best example. But people can still change over 5 years, and how somebody reacts to something 5 years ago cannot always be taken as read that they will react the same way now.

In 2007 Wiggins also said that everybody would be within their rights to question anybody who won the next six Tours. Here we are in the fifth, and he's called people who question a bunch of four letter words.

In 2007 Wiggins also said that anybody, any doctor, any DS with "1% suspicion" should be excluded from the Tour; here we are in the Tour, and he's on a team which hired Geert Leinders and Sean Yates, and I'd hardly say there is less than 1% suspicion about Mick Rogers either.

As I said, each tree seems explicable, but the whole forest is hard for me to take. The "agenda" you have in mind is nothing more than world-weariness based on several generations of cyclists who've been touted as the cleanest ever, and turned out not to be, and a heavy dose of cynicism coming from that, and an exasperation at the lack of spectacle. Come on, what's the agenda you think I have? Anti-Britain? Anti-sideburns? Do I just hate excellence and love bilharzia?

I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles Libertine

 

[BYOP88]

I've seen someone say this before and regardless of what you think of Wiggins or Bobridge it has no relevance. No one is claiming all pursuit riders can become stage racers so the answer to this question is not even tagentially related to the discussion.

I'm neither yay or nay on Wiggins or Bobridge. The only way Wiggins/Sky can prove those who think they're doping wrong is to get various people such as Michael Ashenden to look at the data and give their view on the subject, and also get rid of those staff with dodgy backgrounds.

On a side note was there this much 'chat' during last years Vuelta or is it just the summer 'heat' that starts the madness?