Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[the big ring]

SELECTIVE COMPREHENSION MUCH?

their domestic and junior records

According to Porte's wiki entry he started cycling in 2006. 3yrs later he places 3rd at the Australian TT championships 1min behind Rogers. So considering everyone thinks Rogers has been doping since his T-Mobile days, I'd say that shows some considerable talent at an early point in his cycling career.

Don't get too snooty mate, there's nothing wrong with my comprehension. You're an Aussie claiming to work for AIS and know damn well what "junior" means in this cycling context. I hope you communicate to athletes a little more succinctly...

I have cycling buddies who raced with Porte at Praties - if you really want to talk up Porte's potential, you'd be better off talking about his dominance at A grade Tour of Bright Stage 1/2 in his second year of racing.

And follow up by mentioning Michael Matthews (who I believe is riding for Rabobank) in B grade of the same race that year (as a 16 year old ) was only 30 seconds slower in the TT and minutes quicker in the Hotham stage the next day...

 

[Krebs cycle]

Rogers doping for many years? You don't say. Nah, could not have happened.

Nah that is what YOU say. I can't say that Rogers has never been a doper. He was part of T-Mobile afterall during a very messy period. But I think it is quite possible that he hasn't been a doper for many years.

In the 2009 Australian National TT champs, a guy called Ben Cureton was 10th and came in 3'37" behind Rogers on a 40km course. Ben Cureton is a lightweight ROWER ffs. He isn't even a full time cyclist and you reckon that Rogers, a 3x world TT champion and fully seasoned pro on a doping program can only manage a paltry 3'37".

If Rogers was doping he should have smashed the top five guys by 4 or 5mins. He only came in 6min faster than an A-grade mate of mine who was 41yrs old at the time.

What you are suggesting just doesn't make any sense when you examine results over many years.

Either he is doping, which means the opposite re Australian talent based on the above 2009 results ie: it means we have superb local talent, but oh noes! that would render your Richie Porte has no talent argument completely nonsensical.

Or, he isn't doping which you refuse to accept.


I am posting a vast array of race results in combination with scientific evidence from a years of research to support my opinions and you guys support your conspiracy theories and baseless accusation with "rolleyes" icons, facial expressions and creative psychological analysis of riders post race interviews. What a joke!!

 

[Krebs cycle]

Don't get too snooty mate, there's nothing wrong with my comprehension. You're an Aussie claiming to work for AIS and know damn well what "junior" means in this cycling context. I hope you communicate to athletes a little more succinctly...

I have cycling buddies who raced with Porte at Praties - if you really want to talk up Porte's potential, you'd be better off talking about his dominance at A grade Tour of Bright Stage 1/2 in his second year of racing.

And follow up by mentioning Michael Matthews (who I believe is riding for Rabobank) in B grade of the same race that year (as a 16 year old ) was only 30 seconds slower in the TT and minutes quicker in the Hotham stage the next day...

Actually I have to thank you for filling in some important gaps in my knowledge of Porte's background. If he started cycling at 21yrs of age and within a 1 or 2 years he was winning national series road races, then that only confirms he was an exceptional talent.

If Porte had been cycling and racing since he was 15 or 16 yet had only achieved the same results at 22-23yrs in domestic races, but then suddenly leaped upwards to pro level at 24yrs and becomes best young rider in the Giro at age 25, well that would be a lot more suspicious.

 

[hrotha]

Krebs, few riders in the peloton have dodged more bullets than Rogers, the Ferrari client and Freiburg visitor.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Small tangent here....

From what I have learned from cycling coaches it takes about 4 or 5 yrs of consistent fulltime cycling training (ie: 25-35,000km per year) for anyone to reach 98-99% of their true genetic potential. After that it is still possible to have marginal gains in performance eg: 1% by peaking at the right time, and very small continual gains (0.1-0.5%) per year up to the early-mid 30s.

Secondly, the aerobic energy system is NOT highly dependent on neural mechanisms to function at its peak level, whereas the anaerobic system is. So if you want to be a world class sprinter for example, there is a window of opportunity in your teenage years that you simply cannot afford to miss. ie: an important window for development of the co-ordination necessary to move your limbs very fast, is between 14-18yrs. If Usain Bolt didn't train to be a sprinter in his teens, he could never become world class in his 20s.

But when it comes to the aerobic system, and especially cycling which does not have a high motor skill component (compared to swimming for example), you can basically exist as a regular fit teenager, take up cycling at age 18-20, and you could be a pro cyclist by the time you are 25-26yrs of age. You obviously need the right genetics to achieve that.

So what this means is that this idea that you must show early potential in stage racing to be considered a future GC contender is a myth. If you are naturally gifted and you start cycling at age 15, then in all likelihood you will show GC potential at age 20-22. If you start cycling at 19 or 20. It could take until you are 25-26 for that potential to show.

It seems to me that both Porte and Froome had a relatively late start to their cycling careers, yet both are naturally gifted which explains their present world class performance level. Wiggins changed his training at a late stage in his career which could explain his late "blossoming" as a GT contender.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Krebs, few riders in the peloton have dodged more bullets than Rogers, the Ferrari client and Freiburg visitor.

I was highly suspicious of Rogers back in 2006 when the whole Uni of Freiburg story broke. But what I realize now, is that if Rogers has been doping since then, it means that Porte must have been a prodigious talent back in 2009 when riding 100% clean for a local tassie team, since he could almost match the 3x world champ after only 3yrs as a cyclist.

So if Porte was such an amazing talent back then, and now he is doping, then why the hell is he 1hr 20min back on GC? He should be up in the top 10 easily.

Nothing you guys say makes any sense.

 

[roundabout]

Huh? Doping means that a rider will beat 5th place by 4-5 minutes over 40km?

I'll say it again. Huh? How much of a power advantage would that be to be 8-10% faster?

Are you even a real scientist?

 

[sniper]

I recall Krebs Cycle supporting Dopador's steak-tale.
He's either an apologist or a true optimist.

 

[roundabout]

And Porte almost matching Rogers is bull****.

You might as well then say that Gretsch "almost matched" Wiggins yesterday.

 

[hrotha]

I was highly suspicious of Rogers back in 2006 when the whole Uni of Freiburg story broke. But what I realize now, is that if Rogers has been doping since then, it means that Porte must have been a prodigious talent back in 2009 when riding 100% clean for a local tassie team, since he could almost match the 3x world champ after only 3yrs as a cyclist.

So if Porte was such an amazing talent back then, and now he is doping, then why the hell is he 1hr 20min back on GC? He should be up in the top 10 easily.

Nothing you guys say makes any sense.

2009 Rogers wasn't 2006 Rogers. Rogers wouldn't be in a particularly good shape for that race, whereas for the locals it'd be peaking season.

Porte *could* have finished in the top 10, if he hadn't softpedalled here and there when his job was done. Plus, Porte wasn't such an amazing talent, because your first premise doesn't hold.

 

[taiwan]

...the gap between each successive placing is consistently fairly close (15-30 seconds or so). Then there is Wiggins, a full two minutes ahead of everyone else.

...I will post the time which separates the top 5...expressed as sec/km...

You missed the point - it was the winning margin of the fina TT compared to the gaps between the subsequent riders which Blakeslee was pointing out. It was above average but not huge.

09WCTT (gap to 2nd) 87"/(gap to 5th)189" = 0.46
10WCTT = 0.34
11WCTT = 0.43
10Giro = 0.09
11Giro = 0.11
12Giro = 0.64
10Tour = 0.09
11Tour = 0.08
12Tour = 0.41
09Vuelta = 0.17
10Vuelta = 0.19
11Vuelta = 0.63

 

[doperhopper]

Good one.

But actually, I'm more convinced that he wasn't doping then, and might be now. His rant when they were chucked out of the Tour sounded like a genuine cry from the heart, but now it's all the usual weasel words, and nothing about wanting to catch dopers and supporting anti-doping activity.

maybe he only intended to dope (or used a secret zen meditation technique of thinking that you actually doped which makes the miraculous placebo effect)

 

[sniper]

So why did Sky hire Leinders again?

Brailsford has announced that Sky are planning to investigate Leinders’ past. This happening only now? Why? Leinders’ past is a matter of public record. It’s all out there. Everybody knows about it. Wouldn’t a team that is sold on the idea of zero-tolerance have done this before they brought him in to the stable in 2010? Brailsford says that, after the death of Gonzalez, he realised that his riders needed special expertise on the medical front, but Leinders, the special expert, hasn’t been on the Tour this year. Had any of Sky’s riders contracted a sudden illness then Leinders was not there to do the job that Brailsford says he was brought in to do.

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on...candals-that-have-dogged-this-sport-1-2426229

 

[Benotti69]

So why did Sky hire Leinders again?


http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on...candals-that-have-dogged-this-sport-1-2426229

At last a newspaper doing it's job.

Bet we dont get an answer.

Why have they not published Geert Leinders CV on their website that tells us his area of expertise and the job he does at Sky?

I bet Thomas Dekker could tell us. I bet he told JV too

Did any of Leinders Rabo riders ever test positive i wonder? Must look it up.

 

[taiwan]

Krebs cycle got banned for a week?!

 

[sniper]

Wiggins reiterating his (anti-)doping stance:

"Sometimes I think for certain people, whatever you do will never be enough, unless they came and lived with me for 12 months. And I'm not prepared to do that. Certainly not (with) Paul Kimmage," added Wiggins.

"The test of time is more important really, and the continuation of the fantastic job the UCI do," said Wiggins.

"I've lost count of the number of times I've been tested this week, blood and urine. It's the more we do that, the better our sport is becoming."

http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8499724

 

[roundabout]

Krebs cycle got banned for a week?!

Yeah, what's up with that?

Sure, he could be a little loose with certain interpretations, but on the whole he wasn't such a bad guy.

 

[Caruut]

It's a good article but I can't say I have ever heard of the newspaper. It just seems to be one that is sold up in Scotland. It would of been much better and more interesting to see that printed on The Sunday Times, Mail on Sunday, Sunday Mirror, The Sun on Sunday, or The Sunday Telegraph. It would of carried a lot more weight but at the same time I could'nt see any of those papers allowing one of their journalists to write something along those lines on a day like today. It probably would'nt be allowed to go to print. They would want a more celebratory theme to their papers today.

It is a respected paper, with a higher circulation in Scotland than the UK-wide broadsheets.

Sun and Times would never print it, being linked to Sky via Murdoch. Surely an exposé in the Guardian or Indy would carry more weight that the Mail or Mirror. Sadly the Graun is compromised too by having Wiggins on the payroll. The Indy or the Telegraph it is, then!

 

[will10]

No chance of that being printed in mainstream papers today. But maybe something similar will pop up in the coming days, who knows.

 

[Dead Star]

Think someone's missing here?

 

[Caruut]

[image snipped for space]
Think someone's missing here?

LOL, that's priceless.

 

[taiwan]

Yeah, what's up with that?

Sure, he could be a little loose with certain interpretations, but on the whole he wasn't such a bad guy.

Bit anoying with all the "ZOMG I'm a scientist! White knight of reason and rationality! Don't you get it? *rolleyes*"

However at least there were some arguments there. Dunno what specifically his/her offence would have been.

 

[sniper]

Think someone's missing here?

From Zeit:

Bradley Wiggins spricht nicht über seinen Teamarzt. Die Presseabteilung der Mannschaft sagt, er "kann dazu gar nichts sagen." Dave Brailsford, der Manager des Sky-Teams, sagt: "Hat er betrogen, seitdem er bei uns ist? Nein. War er ein guter Doktor? Ja, brillant.“ Jedes weitere Gespräch über die fragwürdige Personalie lehnt er ab. Auf weitere ZEIT-ONLINE-Anfragen antwortet das Management: "Wir haben zu dem Thema nichts hinzuzufügen. Leinders ist bei dieser Tour gar nicht vor Ort. Jetzt liegt unser Fokus komplett auf der Tour.“ Warum ein Arzt beschäftigt wird, der eindeutig gegen die Gründungsprinzipen verstößt? Und ob sich das Team mit dessen Vergangenheit auseinandergesetzt hat? Diese Fragen bleiben ohne Antwort. Und lassen Raum für Spekulationen.

Bradly Wiggins doesn't speak about his teamdoctor. Sky's press department states that "he cannot say anything about it". Dave Braislford says: "Did he cheat since he's with us? No. Has he been a good doctor? Yes, brilliant". Every other conversation about the doctor is declined. After further inquiries by Zeit-Online Sky's management answers: "We have nothing to add to the topic. Leinders isn't even present at the TdF." Why a doctor has been employed who clearly violates the team's founding principles? And whether the team has looked into his past? These questions remain unanswered and leave room for speculation.

 

[Normandy]

It is a respected paper, with a higher circulation in Scotland than the UK-wide broadsheets.

Sun and Times would never print it, being linked to Sky via Murdoch. Surely an exposé in the Guardian or Indy would carry more weight that the Mail or Mirror. Sadly the Graun is compromised too by having Wiggins on the payroll. The Indy or the Telegraph it is, then!

It is one of the 2 main daily newspapers in Scotland. It is on a par with the Times north of the border. Its a lot more than a local paper.

 

[Ferminal]

Think someone's missing here?

Kerrison is there...