Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Armchaircyclist]

It's hard to discuss doping with Norwegians, I'm from Norway, I should know. People are way more indoctrinated than the british about OUR athletes being clean. So of course, our great cyclists have never been doping, sky's performances are seen as average in a weak tour and weak olympics, and Hushovd's best friend in cycling could never have touched dope, and is in no way suspicious.

Trondheim-Oslo is regarded as a very easy route, although of course very long.

People her buy into the laughable stuff about cyclists never training professionally or scientificly enough until sky came along. It's almost as sky has invented the wheel.

 

[Knutsen]

Right now, we can agree to disagree. The bromance is still in full honeymoon mode and something that looks like a duck and quacks like a duck can't possibly be a duck.

When the wheels come off this show, and they will, let's revisit.

I don't think any of us has said that nobody dopes at Sky. Its the "evidence" that is put forward that doesn't hold water. If one believes there is a team wide doping program at Sky, the drama queen-ish statements about "extra terrestrial performance" just hurt your case. In this case I think you actually sees it.

But you have a safe position. Since we never can prove that somebody is clean, you will either be right, or we will never know.

And no, that's not a duck, that's Lance.

 

[Franklin]

I don't think any of us has said that nobody dopes at Sky.

After the schooling you needed on how dope worked now you deny that people here are adamant that Sky is clean? You are a fantastic asset for a good discussion

It's fact time again, because clearly you need to be remembered and I noticed that some people really need to be remembered every once in awhile:

1. There are many people here who are absolutely in arms about the certainty of Sky being clean (Hi; armchairclimber, ianfra)
2. Every mentioning of the dodgy doctors is met with silence or... butbutbut the perforances are believable! Note that the count is now two, not one.
3. When pointed out that a guy like Ferrari has higher estimates (someone who is normally quite precse on these matters) Ferrari somehow is in cahoots to get Sky discredited.
4. When pointed out that the zero hypothesis is that a TdF winner is indeed a doper and that suspicion is the logical baseline... it's met by... silence.
5. The undeniable fact that the performance and resulting effects are a dominance not seen before is answered by silence or a comparison between Hinault/lemond. When pointed out that comparison is "quite exceptional" there is stony silence and handwaving.
6. Tom Boonen, who called the whole peloton knackered is denied flat out by experts here who have ridden Oslo Trondheim.
7. Team Germany, decried during the race for not helping is now credited with substantial help. It's clear all viewers, experts and followers were blind.

And I know exactly what will be the irresistible answer: That's not evidence (yes it is)! That's not proof (indeed it isn't). however, everyone who wants clean cycling should clamor for answers. There is no reason not to be adamant about it... unless you really don't want to hear the truth.

Yet somehow the charges are that the critics don't love cycling

If we are talking about ducks: the same thing happened a little while back with an American racer. Critics were under fire from fans and the rider himself. I'd say it's a very good thing that the critics didn't let themselves bullied.

Let the handwaving continue

 

[greatking88]

It's hard to discuss doping with Norwegians, I'm from Norway, I should know. People are way more indoctrinated than the british about OUR athletes being clean. So of course, our great cyclists have never been doping, sky's performances are seen as average in a weak tour and weak olympics, and Hushovd's best friend in cycling could never have touched dope, and is in no way suspicious.

Trondheim-Oslo is regarded as a very easy route, although of course very long.

People her buy into the laughable stuff about cyclists never training professionally or scientificly enough until sky came along. It's almost as sky has invented the wheel.

Totally agree, living in Norway and trying to discuss the possibility of doping within cycling or their beloved cross country skiing is impossible. You'd swear you were accusing Norwegians of crimes against humanity with the reaction you get.

 

[Snafu352]

Blah blah blah and more blah completely lacking in substance but with a good dose of angst thrown in

 

[Franklin]

I thought you wanted evidence and facts?

I thought you wanted clean cycling?

Guess it's clear you don't really care about those things. It's cool, now I know how to read all your posts.. much posturing, little truth

 

[Snafu352]

I thought you wanted evidence and facts?

I thought you wanted clean cycling?

Guess it's clear you don't really care about those things. It's cool, now I know how to read all your posts.. much posturing, little truth

I've not made any claims; so this comment of yours rather reveals that it you who is posturing mate.

All i've done is examine much of the hot air posted by the regulars here and concluded that there is little to no substance to the claims and pointed that out.

As i've stated a couple of times if you've got the evidence get it to an effective authority to act upon.

If you can't do that then you are either part of the problem or just spouting rubbish to suit your own agenda.

 

[Franklin]

I've not made any claims; so this comment of yours rather reveals that it you who is posturing mate.

All i've done is examine much of the hot air posted by the regulars here and concluded that there is little to no substance to the claims and pointed that out.

As i've stated a couple of times if you've got the evidence get it to an effective authority to act upon.

If you can't do that then you are either part of the problem or just spouting rubbish to suit your own agenda.

Oh my, It seems you forget that I can also read your other posts. What a mistake to make

Yet none of these "experts," part time or former, can provide anything other than un-substaniated gossip to support their suspicions??

There, I have undeniably proved it's not gossip and hearsay, care to retract it? Here you have the facts and evidence you demanded

I'm fully aware that cycling has been plagued for many years with doping and i deplore it.

You deplore dirty cycling, obviously you retracted that/shown your true color's in above post? I already assumed you didn't care, but this clinches it.

I also deplore rubbish being posted and treated as fact just because it fits in with personal agendas.

Now I posted irrefutable facts, care to treat them as such? Or doesn't that fit your personal agenda?

 

[richtea]

1. There are many people here who are absolutely in arms about the certainty of Sky being clean (Hi; armchairclimber, ianfra)
2. Every mentioning of the dodgy doctors is met with silence or... butbutbut the perforances are believable! Note that the count is now two, not one.
3. When pointed out that a guy like Ferrari has higher estimates (someone who is normally quite precse on these matters) Ferrari somehow is in cahoots to get Sky discredited.
4. When pointed out that the zero hypothesis is that a TdF winner is indeed a doper and that suspicion is the logical baseline... it's met by... silence.
5. The undeniable fact that the performance and resulting effects are a dominance not seen before is answered by silence or a comparison between Hinault/lemond. When pointed out that comparison is "quite exceptional" there is stony silence and handwaving.
6. Tom Boonen, who called the whole peloton knackered is denied flat out by experts here who have ridden Oslo Trondheim.
7. Team Germany, decried during the race for not helping is now credited with substantial help. It's clear all viewers, experts and followers were blind.

And I know exactly what will be the irresistible answer: That's not evidence (yes it is)!

Is this a serious post? Perhaps you could explain how points 1, 3, 4 can be construed as evidence of Sky doping? 5, 6, and 7 are in fact the same point (i.e. performances beyond physiological limits) but are not supported by estimates of the power outputs and speeds. Only point 2 raises questions.

 

[Knutsen]

After the schooling you needed on how dope worked now you deny that people here are adamant that Sky is clean? You are a fantastic asset for a good discussion

I believe the topic now was the statements about "extra teresterial performance" and "never seen before" in the olympic road race, and "evidence" pro/contra that. You put the subject forward all over the place and must be happy to get some response.

I can not answer for the 4000 other posts in this thread, and I will apologize to all other posters of giving the impression that I was speaking on behalf of them. So on this topic I will just conclude: to ME, I don't see the olympic road race as any kind of evidence that there is team wide doping at Sky. That does NOT say that there are not riders that are doping at Sky. Happy with that?

After tomorrows ITT all this will repeat itself again, as I guess it will in every race from now on if a Sky rider do well. I hope I can restrain myself from chiming in. Most sane voices has left this thread long time ago. Happy with that?

If we are talking about ducks: the same thing happened a little while back with an American racer. Critics were under fire from fans and the rider himself. I'd say it's a very good thing that the critics didn't let themselves bullied.

Please don't play the victim card. I think you should ask yourself who is doing the bullying this time around. Even if some of you have seen the new morning, for some others of us the jury is still out concerning that Brad is the new Lance. And actually you are not helping us see it.

If you really believe you have schooled me in how doping works I will just leave that to you. I think I'm getting the picture on how you percieve the world around you, but that is of no interest to this forum.

 

[DirtyWorks]

But you have a safe position. Since we never can prove that somebody is clean, you will either be right, or we will never know.

Now you are being dishonest. I was being fair in leaving it at agreeing to disagree for now. I have substantial reservations anything you've posted has been done honestly given your reply.

If there are no post-Sky positives as team members leave Sky, then indeed the overwhelming suspicion that at minimum Sky's GC riders are doping is false. At that time, I'm happy to declare I was wrong. Furthermore, it would be nice if I was wrong.

I'm not wrong though. This is Pro Cycling and most of us have seen this fairy tale before. It ends badly.

 

[mastersracer]

After the schooling you needed on how dope worked now you deny that people here are adamant that Sky is clean? You are a fantastic asset for a good discussion

It's fact time again, because clearly you need to be remembered and I noticed that some people really need to be remembered every once in awhile:


6. Tom Boonen, who called the whole peloton knackered is denied flat out by experts here who have ridden Oslo Trondheim.

Boonen:

"Everyone was waiting. It looked like they had situation completely under control and then everyone fell a little asleep I think"

"When we came the last time on the climb it was 50 seconds and it looked like they would close it any minute. Then we turned back here and it was a little bit of a headwind, and [Great Britain] are only human. If you pull like that for 200k, you get tired."

"Everyone thought that the gap to the breakaway would be closed down, and I myself believed that they had everything under control."


So, how exactly is the fact that GB was unable to control the race evidence of doping? What about Boonen calling their performance 'human' and no omerta code words for doping? What about the lead group that was able to stay away most of the day? What about Gilbert bridging up and then putting in big attacks? How exactly is the fact that the main group was tired evidence of doping? Didn't people accuse fresh-looking riders at the end of races doped?

 

[Montanus]

And what about Kristoff? Sprinter going in the early break after 20k, manages 9 laps on Box Hill without dropping from the break and is there in the end getting the 3rd spot. That was in my view, the performance of the day. Who knew Kristoff could do that! Classics next year?

 

[luckyboy]

New Wiggins column, talks about how he changed cadence (lol) after seeing Martin TT last year - http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/...ins-olympic-time-trial?cat=sport&type=article

 

[D-Queued]

New Wiggins column, talks about how he changed cadence (lol) after seeing Martin TT last year - http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/...ins-olympic-time-trial?cat=sport&type=article

It was one thing to swear and label the audience with epithets when asked about doping. But, I never thought Wiggins would be so bold in considering all of us as idiots.

Dave.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Haha Hilarious

 

[kanari]

And what about Kristoff? Sprinter going in the early break after 20k, manages 9 laps on Box Hill without dropping from the break and is there in the end getting the 3rd spot. That was in my view, the performance of the day. Who knew Kristoff could do that! Classics next year?

He was actually dropped from the break but managed to latch on to Van Garderen and some other rider and ended up in the front again as the different groups ahead of the peloton came together. Not sure if there's really anything suspicious about that. He's shown some potential on long distances before, came 15th in Vlaanderen after leading out for Freire and is two times road race champion of Norway.

 

[taiwan]

Always good to have a swimming coach on hand to consult about your cadence. Maybe they can spring for a nutritionist next year to have a look at his TT position.

 

[Sigmund]

New Wiggins column, talks about how he changed cadence (lol) after seeing Martin TT last year - http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/...ins-olympic-time-trial?cat=sport&type=article

From Wiggins blogpost: "I still lost a minute and 20sec, which was high given the power I averaged. To keep my usual high cadence and go faster than Tony, I'd have had to average a power output that would have been mind blowing." following up with: "Tim studied it over the winter and decided maybe it was the cadence which was the problem. They worked out Tony's rpm compared to mine and something to do with rolling resistance and with the gears" and ending with: " So at the Tour, in the time trials I was making what I call a Jan Ullrich-esque effort – powering the gear a lot rather than spinning along, and that forward momentum for the same power has helped me go a bit further"

This is patently ludicrous. To go faster in a time trial you can either 1. Produce more power, or 2) become more aero. Now spinning a higher cadence doesnt make you go faster for the same wattage, that is quite obvious.

 

[Montanus]

He was actually dropped from the break but managed to latch on to Van Garderen and some other rider and ended up in the front again as the different groups ahead of the peloton came together. Not sure if there's really anything suspicious about that. He's shown some potential on long distances before, came 15th in Vlaanderen after leading out for Freire and is two times road race champion of Norway.

It was still a really strong performance, but I didn't mean to imply something suspicious. Four of the guys who went in the early break were there in the end, some had dropped due to hard domestique work last 40k, for example Schar and Castroviejo. That so many guys from the early break where there in the end shows I think that the GB team performance was not extraterrestrial as some here claims - but still very good.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Is this a serious post? Perhaps you could explain how points 1, 3, 4 can be construed as evidence of Sky doping? 5, 6, and 7 are in fact the same point (i.e. performances beyond physiological limits) but are not supported by estimates of the power outputs and speeds. Only point 2 raises questions.

I can't speak for the rest of the post, and don't with to disrupt the debate, but you're a little unfair here. Point 1 is of course not evidence of Sky doping, but it is a counter to a claim made in the post being responded to:

I don't think any of us has said that nobody dopes at Sky.

Actually, there have been at least a couple of posters who have stated that they know, unequivocally and without doubt, that Team Sky are clean. Hence why that was being refuted.

 

[D-Queued]

These are the kind of secret benefits and advantages that makes the pros pros, and keep people like you (and me) amateurs.

You obviously don't understand the physics involved.

If you are, say, 95-8% efficient (like, really, really efficient) in your pedaling stroke at 90 rpm, but increase that to, say, 120 rpm, even though you might drop, say 5% in efficiency, you go way faster because going the same speed takes more energy.

Get it?

Honestly. Try using a slide rule. You don't need to be a rocket scientist.

Dave.

 

[roundabout]

I thought he was super duper efficient since his track days and could always TT.

Now I find that he had to work to improve and it wasn't simply the competition getting slower.

What gives

 

[Sigmund]

These are the kind of secret benefits and advantages that makes the pros pros, and keep people like you (and me) amateurs.

You obviously don't understand the physics involved.

If you are, say, 95-8% efficient (like, really, really efficient) in your pedaling stroke at 90 rpm, but increase that to, say, 120 rpm, even though you might drop, say 5% in efficiency, you go way faster because going the same speed takes more energy.

Get it?

Honestly. Try using a slide rule. You don't need to be a rocket scientist.

Dave.

Indeed, although I believe he claimed he slowed up his cadence,

 

[D-Queued]

Indeed, although I believe he claimed he slowed up his cadence,

Sounds like he tried one, then the other.

Cannot decide if he wants to be Jan or Lance... Freiburg, Fuentes or Ferrari.

All roads lead to an 'F' for FAIL.

Dave.