Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[sniper]

For goodness sake newbie...
it is opinion and likely biased.
It is not fact.

It may be true...

...and it may not be true!

Disappointment that your preferred cyclist did not perform better does not mean that those that did doped.

biased towards what? reality?
not a fact, but certainly not a maybe either. more like a probability, imo.
My assumption is this: without doping and without any body fat (wiggo) you'd be sick or half dead after one week TdF.

 

[T_S_A_R]

20 days racing so far.

60 possible 1-2-3 places.

sky have claimed 16 of them which is 26.6%

ridiculous.

 

[pmcg76]

I have refrained from posting during the Tour and dont post much nowadays anyway but I have to say this Tour left me cold.

Like most long term-followers of the sport, I found SKYs claim of winning the Tour within 5 years on entering the sport as ridiculous PR bravado and spin. I was more than happy to give them the benefit of their clean approach like I did with Garmin. Now just a few years later, we have just seen SKY absolutely decimate the Tour in a way we have rarely witnessed.

Wiggins transformation from pursuit rider to Tour dominator has been unreal but it is Froome that really gets me, I just cannot believe in Froome. Average level pro to almost best in the world overnight is too much to take. Froome is on the level of the Riis transformation. Even that word 'transformation' makes me uncomfortable straighaway and the Eurosport commentators and analysts used it constantly today.

I am not of the 'everyone dopes' brigade and I like to believe our own Irish riders and many more are not doping. To me though, the likes of Roche, Martin and Deignan were about or above the level of Froome previously but if any of them ever improved like Froome has, I just wouldnt believe it.

I also dont get those who say they can believe in Wiggins but not Froome. They are both on the same team who are allegedly super analytical, organised etc so the idea of Froome doping without SKY knowing about it is totally ridiculous.

I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a healthy dose of skepticism towards SKY and their 'clean' approach. Anyone who feels differently clearly has not followed this sport long enough. The exact same arguments that have been used in defence of SKY are the exact same arguments as were used in defence of Armstrong and we know the reality of that situation even if he is never convicted.

I

 

[pmcg76]

This is the only part of the forum where doping discussion is tolerated.

It means that we can have discussions on race threads without every thread being derailed by doping talk and dope-based tantrums like when Evans was losing to Valverde everywhere in 2009 or when Contador was winning the Giro; it means we can discuss the race itself. But it does mean that any doping talk comes here.

That does mean that a lot of genuine analysis gets buried under an avalanche of emotive posts. When a performance as ridiculously good as Sky's in this TDF happens, you get meltdown. A lot of people watching it can't help "joining the dots"... but they can't join the dots in the PRR forum, because they'll get banned. So they come to the Clinic, where they are allowed to be a bit freer with their accusatory tone. And when it happens at a massive race like the TDF, when forum viewing figures are at their highest, then of course the emotive posts ("this guy won something I bet he is so doped he looks dopey" vs. "I know he just won the time trial by half an hour and rode up Anglirú faster than the ghost of Bahamontes on a motorbike, but I like him so I think he's clean") far outweigh the genuine analysis, and also the sheer number of posts bury a lot of the talking points several pages back so discussions go round in circles, and even the most rational and measured participants in discussion - on both sides of the debate - can grow tired of regurgitating their points over and over and resort to aggression or Cartman-style "screw you guys, I'm going home" outbursts.

If you read some of the topics in here, there are plenty of discussions full of analysis, there are even some articles about clean riders (the Moncoutié one in particular stands out, where much of the Clinic 'mob' actually railed against those suggesting he wasn't clean). But July is not the best time to come here if you want to read reasoned analysis, simply because the traffic to the site and the volume of posting is too great for it to be able to be treated thoroughly.

Great post as always.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Well, well , well The Tour De Farce is almost over, a "Brit" born in Belgium to an English mother and Australian father has won and another "Brit" born in Kenya has finished 2nd. Doping is still very much part of the pro scene( but only "Johnny Foreigner " does it), giving anything from 5..15 % advantage and fanboys and girls are wildly waiving there union jacks cus obviously , being "Brits" and crushing all before them, having two dodgy DS,s. one Australian, one Londoner with a positive medical control in his history and a dodgy Dutch doctor known to have assisted riders to pass medical controls in previous Tours , riding for a company with one of the most contemptible and corrupt Australian media moguls in the world as its boss, that clearly wouldn't give the UCI or Tour organisers any incentive to "assist" these "True Brits" they couldn't possibly have hit the source,,cus, well that wouldn't be "British" would it.
Ya cant make this stuff up .

 

[Square-pedaller]

Maybe people come here because, like me, they're not sure and are looking for some informed opinion (for or against).

Livertine's post is excellent, but I just want to add:

If there was incontrovertible evidence, then action would be taken by the appropriate ADA. (It could aslo be hushed up, but that's just another case of my argument.) So the only time that there is anything to discuss about whether particular riders are doping is when there isn't incontrovertible evidence, and opinion is all that anyone has to go on. Like all internet sites, there is a complete range from experts to people talking complete bs. The only way you're going to work out which is which is by listening, thinking, reading links etc, and gradually forming an opinion. In the end you're never going to know whether someone was doping unless they get busted. The tragedy of doping is that clean riders have no way of proving that they're clean.

The corollary is that noone can know whether someone is clean. Not even if they're married to them, or their identical twin. (Well perhaps if they're a siamese twin.) I therefore don't take too much notice of people who say that they know that someone isn't/wouldn't dope (just as I'm inclined not to believe people making wild claims in the other direction).

 

[Cauberg]

Thank you, and Libertine Seguros, for your measured respose(s). Perhaps, on reflection. now wasn't the best time to start posting but you have to start somewhere.

Anyway, I've been enlightened and educated to some extent. I shall continue following the discussions and maybe chip in occasionally.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

The corollary is that noone can know whether someone is clean. Not even if they're married to them, or their identical twin. (Well perhaps if they're a siamese twin.) I therefore don't take too much notice of people who say that they know that someone isn't/wouldn't dope (just as I'm inclined not to believe people making wild claims in the other direction).

I agree with this. People that claim to know someone does not dope are generally as reliable as the people who claim that someone is definitely doping.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

 

[spetsa]

Well, well , well The Tour De Farce is almost over, a "Brit" born in Belgium to an English mother and Australian father has won and another "Brit" born in Kenya has finished 2nd. Doping is still very much part of the pro scene( but only "Johnny Foreigner " does it), giving anything from 5..15 % advantage and fanboys and girls are wildly waiving there union jacks cus obviously , being "Brits" and crushing all before them, having two dodgy DS,s. one Australian, one Londoner with a positive medical control in his history and a dodgy Dutch doctor known to have assisted riders to pass medical controls in previous Tours , riding for a company with one of the most contemptible and corrupt Australian media moguls in the world as its boss, that clearly wouldn't give the UCI or Tour organisers any incentive to "assist" these "True Brits" they couldn't possibly have hit the source,,cus, well that wouldn't be "British" would it.
Ya cant make this stuff up .

Great post Darryl. Many of the world's great thinkers have written about the realationship between pride and vanity in regards to evaluation of the self. Most agree, that nationalism is one one of the base forms of pride. Enjoy the Olympics. As another poster wrote earlier, gold medals and knighthood to all!

 

[Forunculo]

Congrats to Nibali

 

[maxmartin]

Porte is just a joke.
where is he in last year TT?
Just a in a year, he TT into 5th place after massive efforts riding in front of the peloton for nearly two weeks.

I hope these dopers get caught soon.

 

[taiwan]

Weird pic. Kissing or squaring up? Bit of both I suppose.

 

[The Cobra]

Wiggins response to this thread:

''Kiss my arse!''

 

[Cerberus]

Weird pic. Kissing or squaring up? Bit of both I suppose.

Weird pic indeed, but probably just a hug that got photographed at the right/wrong moment.

 

[Jeanne]

doesn't that belong in the cycling-bromance section?

 

[skeptics anonymous]

grown men watching this smashing performance by one team over the last three weeks and (having the knowledge of the ridiculously high rate of doping winners in the last 20 yrs.) not even thinking twice about the possibility of something not smelling right is just embarrassing. these people must of not taken it well when they found out there is no santa claus. that is, if in fact they have accepted that yet.

you have more than enough history here to not expect incontrovertible 'proof' of doping as the be all end all. of course it is easier to believe that wiggins can TT, can reel-in any attacks in the mountains with ease and can also be the leadout for the teams sprinter. wiggo hasn't had a bad day all year, incredible. froome? who is that? his TT ability and acceleration to the top in stage 7, also incredible. He looked like he was coasting down hill on EVERY mountain stage, astonishing. the domestiques for sky, all incredible. training at altitude and warming down after a stage, brilliant! leindeers work on saddle sores, also incredible.

i just convinced myself of how incredible it all was. i believe in miracles now. i will also set out a glass of milk and two cookies for santa come midnight dec. 24th.

 

[taiwan]

Weird pic indeed, but probably just a hug that got photographed at the right/wrong moment.

True, I'm seeing it as a prolonged pose, but was prolly as you say.

 

[BroDeal]

"I can't believe we got away with it."

"Me neither."

 

[uphillstruggle]

Here are the average speeds of the final TT in the tour for the past few years. I know these numbers don't account for route or conditions but as you can see Wiggins today was no slower than the winning times in previous year. Not proof of anything but at least these are facts we can talk over

2005 55.5 at 46.4 kmph/28.8mph Armstrong.
2006 57km 50.4797kmph/31.36 Honchar
2007 55.5km at 53kmph/32.98mph Leiphemier
2008 53km at 49.54kmph/30.78mph Cancellara
2009 40km at 50.1 kmph/31.13 Contador
2010 52 km at 51.2kmph/31.81 Cancellara
2011 43km at 46.44kmph/28.85mph Martin
2012 53.5 at 49.98kmph/31.06 Wiggins

 

[the big ring]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-the-tour-is-a-lot-more-human-now

Sky’s cerebral but romance-free approach has hardly thrilled the neutral over the past three weeks, but Wiggins looked to place his win in the context of the ongoing fight against doping. “When we were riding on the front at 450 watts or whatever, someone would attack and Mick Rogers would say ‘just leave him, he can’t sustain it,’” Wiggins said.

“It’s all these small little percentages that make the difference in sport. That’s our philosophy at Sky and at the start we got laughed at, small things like the warming down'

 

[thehog]

Here are the average speeds of the final TT in the tour for the past few years. I know these numbers don't account for route or conditions but as you can see Wiggins today was no slower than the winning times in previous year. Not proof of anything but at least these are facts we can talk over

2005 55.5 at 46.4 kmph/28.8mph Armstrong.
2006 57km 50.4797kmph/31.36 Honchar
2007 55.5km at 53kmph/32.98mph Leiphemier
2008 53km at 49.54kmph/30.78mph Cancellara
2009 40km at 50.1 kmph/31.13 Contador
2010 52 km at 51.2kmph/31.81 Cancellara
2011 43km at 46.44kmph/28.85mph Martin
2012 53.5 at 49.98kmph/31.06 Wiggins

Faster than Lance!

...and faster than Martin who travelled a shorter distance and wasn't defending the jersey.

I love clean cycling.

 

[stampedingviking]

Just find it weird that people who've just joined the forum always seem to head to the clinic first, wouldn't the road chat be the most obvious place to start?

Maybe they start in road chat but with all the references to the Clinic in there they pop in here to see what all the saddoes are on about

 

[BroDeal]

Anyone else get p!ssed off at hearing about Sky's marginal gain schtick? They stole it from Slipstream.

Still laughing at Rogers riding at 450 Watts and not bothering to chase anyone because he knew they could not sustain it. Farce.

 

[Cerberus]

Here are the average speeds of the final TT in the tour for the past few years. I know these numbers don't account for route or conditions but as you can see Wiggins today was no slower than the winning times in previous year. Not proof of anything but at least these are facts we can talk over

2005 55.5 at 46.4 kmph/28.8mph Armstrong.
2006 57km 50.4797kmph/31.36 Honchar
2007 55.5km at 53kmph/32.98mph Leiphemier
2008 53km at 49.54kmph/30.78mph Cancellara
2009 40km at 50.1 kmph/31.13 Contador
2010 52 km at 51.2kmph/31.81 Cancellara
2011 43km at 46.44kmph/28.85mph Martin
2012 53.5 at 49.98kmph/31.06 Wiggins

Average speed is to simplistic, because wind, hills and the technical difficulty of the route can have a major impact. Usually you look at climbing times and use some formulas to estimate power by taking wind into consideration, if possibly checking your results against those rider who have power meters. Using those data the speed has gone significantly down. These estimates shows significant drops in power in recent years compared to for example the Armstrong years.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/07/tour-in-mountains-analysis-discussion.html