Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[the big ring]

It's purely coincidental that this is the guy I choose to discuss, but will watch with interest as he leaves Sky to see how he goes in a different environment where he does not have all the marginal gains to count on.

Sounds like under the auspices of Sky he managed to improve significantly, wonder if he'll echo USPS leavers and get pinged in 2013/4.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/nordhaug-leaving-sky-for-rabobank-at-end-of-season

Nordhaug began the 2012 season at the Challenge Majorca where he won the third day of racing in the Trofeo Deia. The Norwegian dropped his breakaway companions on the day’s final climb and soloed to the finish. He then went on to take fourth overall at the Critérium du Dauphiné and sixth at Vuelta al Pais Vasco. He wasn’t however, selected for his Sky team’s Giro d’Italia or Tour de France line-up.

Sky is a great team, I was satisfied there, but I am ready to develop myself further.

Clearly not a believer in Sky's marginal gains...

 

[JimmyFingers]

Clearly not a believer in Sky's marginal gains...

Or not good enough to get selected for the GTs....

 

[the big ring]

Or not good enough to get selected for the GTs....

You're probably right.

4th at Criterium Dauphine and 6th at Vuelta al Pais Vasco are truly ordinary results.

 

[roundabout]

He wasn't 4th in the Dauphine.

But you are right, it will be interesting to see how he does outside of Sky.

 

[JimmyFingers]

You're probably right.

4th at Criterium Dauphine and 6th at Vuelta al Pais Vasco are truly ordinary results.

I will clarify: he wasn't high enough up in the pecking order at Sky to get picked for the Grand Tours, so he is moving teams to get better opportunities to be leader

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Nordhaug is more of a rider for the hilly classics so pretty 'useless' for tempoing up the mountains in a GT imho.

And let's see his progress next year.

 

[richtea]

He wasn't 4th in the Dauphine.

But you are right, it will be interesting to see how he does outside of Sky.

I think they mean Criterium International

 

[the big ring]

I think they mean Criterium International

I just quoted CN - so it's their info that I didn't check.

ETA:

You are right. Criterium International -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Petter_Nordhaug

He places in tours, won a mountain classification, podiumed at national RR and TT.

No results listed for 2010.

 

[Sigmund]

I just quoted CN - so it's their info that I didn't check.

ETA:

You are right. Criterium International -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Petter_Nordhaug

He places in tours, won a mountain classification, podiumed at national RR and TT.

No results listed for 2010.

He was national champion in Norway first time in 2006, on a very tough course.

 

[red_death]

I don't know much about track cycling, but since the British just set a new world record in the qualifier, and two of those guys in that squad are from team Sky (Thomas and Kennaugh), would that be enough to tip the scales assuming the other two non-Sky riders are clean?

Well considering they both came to Sky from track cycling originally (and Thomas rode in the 2008 Olympics) then why would half the team be clean and half not? Of course the simpler answer is that they are all clean...

Must be one hell of an omerta programme for British Cycling to have kept it secret since 2000...even USPS didn't manage that.

 

[the big ring]

He was national champion in Norway first time in 2006, on a very tough course.

Sure as hell looks like a potential GT domestique to me

Cannot really see much cycling results difference between him and Froome tbh, if anything Nordhaug looks more accomplished.

 

[Ferminal]

Yeh, might have stood out a bit more if he was part of the A-Team, not that it will get any better at Rabo (LLS )

 

[DirtyWorks]

Well considering they both came to Sky from track cycling originally (and Thomas rode in the 2008 Olympics) then why would half the team be clean and half not? Of course the simpler answer is that they are all clean...

I see what you did there. Leaping to ridiculous logical extremes is a fail. The simpler answer is the weakest parts of the program are/were doped.

If Sky had a program all the way back to 2000, why would that be exceptional in Pro Cycling? The French would be the only and most likely clean team since then. The rest, pretty likely. Are there clean individuals/athletes in Pro Cycling? Yes. They don't do very well though.

 

[red_death]

No. The simpler answer is the weakest parts of the program are/were doped.

??? But why would you only dope half? That wouldn't make any sense given if you dope the lot then the stronger members can work harder/quicker on the front. So no, that is not really the simpler answer.

Edit - pray explain what is ridiculous about the logic?

 

[DirtyWorks]

??? But why would you only dope half? That wouldn't make any sense given if you dope the lot then the stronger members can work harder/quicker on the front.

Because the process of doping does not return 100% success in performance increases. Of the doping doctors/chemists that have had interviews published, they all mention it takes a while to find it for some and others simply do not respond.

Why risk returning an AAF that the UCI might actually process on an event that doesn't need it? Plus the money saved...

 

[TubularBills]

- Time Out -

Factoids:

Rupert Murdoch owns SKY.

Brailsford acts like a 16 year old at a stripper convention when it comes to $.

'News of the World' hacks into a missing/murdered child's cell phone.

Indictments of the highest order follow.

So... Modern doping & masking techniques are (perhaps or obviously) undetectable, most likely simply ignored or not administered. $.

So. You guys tell me.

Is it likely SKY doped?

Absolutely.

Are the Olympics a profitable international spectacle?

.

Lance wishes he was SKY.

He'd be Knighted.

Sir Guy Fawkes.

 

[TubularBills]

Well considering they both came to Sky from track cycling originally (and Thomas rode in the 2008 Olympics) then why would half the team be clean and half not? Of course the simpler answer is that they are all clean...

Must be one hell of an omerta programme for British Cycling to have kept it secret since 2000...even USPS didn't manage that.

Excellent observation.

Omerta. Not comprehensive. Common Thread.

Brailsford + Talent.

Simple.

Yoda.

 

[red_death]

Because the process of doping does not return 100% success in performance increases. Of the doping doctors/chemists that have had interviews published, they all mention it takes a while to find it for some and others simply do not respond.

Why risk returning an AAF that the UCI might actually process on an event that doesn't need it? Plus the money saved...

Yet your fellow doubters swear blind that doping = success so which is it? Does it work or doesn't it?

Your fellow doubters also (erroneously) claim that GB win because of their large budget and systematic team-wide doping yet you are claiming they can't afford to dope everyone...again which is it?

 

[Lanark]

Yet your fellow doubters swear blind that doping = success so which is it? Does it work or doesn't it?

No, they say that pretty much everyone who had succes in the last 20 years in cycling has doped. That doesn't mean that everyone who doped had succes. At least try to make an effort.

Your fellow doubters also (erroneously) claim that GB win because of their large budget and systematic team-wide doping yet you are claiming they can't afford to dope everyone...again which is it?

Erroneously? Seriously, you claim to know they haven't used doping? How could any honest person who is capable of critical thinking and has any knowledge of the history of cycling make such a claim?

 

[red_death]

No, they say that pretty much everyone who had succes in the last 20 years in cycling has doped. That doesn't mean that everyone who doped had succes. At least try to make an effort.

Erroneously? Seriously, you claim to know they haven't used doping? How could any honest person who is capable of critical thinking and has any knowledge of the history of cycling make such a claim?

And another one who can't read - you don't see the inconsistency in the statements?

As for your comment about "everyone who had succes in the last 20 years in cycling has doped" - so things can never change? Furthermore if you had bothered to read we were actually discussing Gb's track team which means that GB have been doping since 92 (and managed to keep it all quiet).

I don't claim to "know they haven't used doping", but I do know that I have as much evidence (if not more so) to support that hypothesis as the opposite...perhaps I will be proved wrong, but strangely enough we still believe in innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Stueyy]

And another one who can't read - you don't see the inconsistency in the statements?

As for your comment about "everyone who had succes in the last 20 years in cycling has doped" - so things can never change? Furthermore if you had bothered to read we were actually discussing Gb's track team which means that GB have been doping since 92 (and managed to keep it all quiet).

I don't claim to "know they haven't used doping", but I do know that I have as much evidence (if not more so) to support that hypothesis as the opposite...perhaps I will be proved wrong, but strangely enough we still believe in innocent until proven guilty.

Just look at the BALCO scandal. Not testing positive really only means you were never caught. When if ever have UKAD investigated British cyclists the way USADA go after some of their drug cheats? Would it be in the best interest of British Cycling, UCI, IOC etc etc to uncover a systematic doping program in British Cycling? What out of competition random drug testing did the GB track cyclists undergo and how random was it does anyone know?

 

[Lanark]

And another one who can't read - you don't see the inconsistency in the statements?

No, as I've shown, there is not inconsistency (and even if there would be, pointing out inconsistensies between the opinion of the person you're debating with and some vague summary of opinions defended by a completely other person on the same forum (if those statements were even made, which you haven't shown) is poor debating at best).

As for your comment about "everyone who had succes in the last 20 years in cycling has doped" - so things can never change?

Where do I say it can't?

I don't claim to "know they haven't used doping", but I do know that I have as much evidence (if not more so) to support that hypothesis as the opposite...perhaps I will be proved wrong, but strangely enough we still believe in innocent until proven guilty.

Ok, so the hypothesis that the succes by British cycling is due to a large budget and a doping program isn't erroneous, it's only just as likely or slightly less likely than the alternative.

Innocent until proven guilty is a provision regarding the role between government and civilians, not a method to base your personal opinion on regarding possible cheating by a cycling team.

 

[richtea]

Ok, so the hypothesis that the succes by British cycling is due to a large budget and a doping program isn't erroneous, it's only just as likely or slightly less likely than the alternative.

I think the real issue is that there is some very flimsy evidence being used to suggest that Sky may be more likely than average to be using a doping programme. Its particularly irritating when someone takes some snippet from a press conference as superior evidence to the detailed analyses of power outputs being undertaken in the other thread!

 

[Lanark]

I think the real issue is that there is some very flimsy evidence being used to suggest that Sky may be more likely than average to be using a doping programme. Its particularly irritating when someone takes some snippet from a press conference as superior evidence to the detailed analyses of power outputs being undertaken in the other thread!

I don't think that's the real issue at all, unless you ignore the dozens of well argued posts by quality posters and only focus on the idiots who shout doping every time someone crosses the finish line in first place.

I'm not sure why you bring up power outputs to be honest, because those numbers support either hypothesis.

 

[richtea]

I don't think that's the real issue at all, unless you ignore the dozens of well argued posts by quality posters and only focus on the idiots who shout doping every time someone crosses the finish line in first place.

I'm not sure why you bring up power outputs to be honest, because those numbers support either hypothesis.

I'm not coming from a position of hypothesising whether Sky are clean or doping. However, I haven't seen a convincing argument that Sky are worthy of elevated suspicion, although certainly there is some probability that they are doping. The power outputs do corroborate this: the performances achieved are at least within the realms of the physiologically possible (and you can contrast that with say, Lance Armstrong), subject of course to the caveats associated with such estimates.