Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Garmin vs Sky (non-doping related)

1246711

Posts

  • salsiccia1salsiccia1 Posts: 3,693
    The Truth wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    FFS guys just leave the troll alone and the thread will die. The last PoS doping thread has finally been closed so a new one is being created, all that's going to happen is the same old circular arguments and this site spiralling even further down the s*itter.

    You sound angry. I just wanted to make a comparison between the two cleanest teams in the peloton.

    No one has presented any evidence that shows how sky can be so much better.

    I have - IT'S THE DRUGS
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • RichN95 wrote:
    The Truth wrote:
    No one has presented any evidence that shows how sky can be so much better.
    Well I presented the evidence that Sky have about three times the budget that Garmin do - but you used your lack of understanding to refute its relevance.

    I don't think its that simple. Team sky are dominating the other rich teams too.
  • salsiccia1salsiccia1 Posts: 3,693
    The Truth wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    The Truth wrote:
    No one has presented any evidence that shows how sky can be so much better.
    Well I presented the evidence that Sky have about three times the budget that Garmin do - but you used your lack of understanding to refute its relevance.

    I don't think its that simple. Team sky are dominating the other rich teams too.

    They're filthy. There's no other possible explanation
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,678
    I'd like to ask, under "the truths" theory that money doesn't matter and all athletes are equal, why accrington stanley aren't in the Premier league?
  • above_the_cowsabove_the_cows Posts: 11,278
    edited February 2014
    Salsiccia1 wrote:
    They're filthy. There's no other possible explanation

    Well I had that lovely Bernie Eisel around my house last week and well I can tell you... Oh no sorry, not that kind of filthy, ummm yes as you were. :oops:

    Some great Echelons in Qatar again today and someone won in Mallorca.
    Correlation is not causation.
  • sjmclean wrote:
    I'd like to ask, under "the truths" theory that money doesn't matter and all athletes are equal, why accrington stanley aren't in the Premier league?

    Duh, because they don't drink milk.
    Correlation is not causation.
  • sjmclean wrote:
    I'd like to ask, under "the truths" theory that money doesn't matter and all athletes are equal, why accrington stanley aren't in the Premier league?

    :lol::lol::lol:
  • The Truth wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    The Truth wrote:
    No one has presented any evidence that shows how sky can be so much better.
    Well I presented the evidence that Sky have about three times the budget that Garmin do - but you used your lack of understanding to refute its relevance.

    I don't think its that simple. Team sky are dominating the other rich teams too.

    Yes, and the evidence we have to back this up is that Little Richie Porte has there only win of the 2014 season so far. :roll:
    I've got a nice chart to support my evidence, too:

    http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/Vi ... ?year=2014

    Total domination............not! :lol:

    ATC: Mallorca...........spoiler.
    8pm, tonight. :wink:
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • sjmclean wrote:
    I'd like to ask, under "the truths" theory that money doesn't matter and all athletes are equal, why accrington stanley aren't in the Premier league?

    I would say the difference between two pro tour teams is alot smaller than that.

    And where did I say all athletes are equal? I'm pretty sure Talansky is a vastly superior talent to Froome, to name one example.
  • ATC: Mallorca...........spoiler.
    8pm, tonight. :wink:

    Oh sorry, sorry.

    I'll edit.
    Correlation is not causation.
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    Salsiccia1 wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    I think the FACT that Froomes times up some of the tours cols, puts him quicker than a whole bunch of dopers is quite telling.

    IMO

    Absolutely. He's obviously off his tits.

    I would not go that far, Just enough to win at ease.

    Good to see you finally come round to the truth :lol:
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,678
    Realistically, Sky only won 4 WT races last year. They fail to do anything in the one dayers, the national team (90% Sky) have been poor in most WC (barring Cav's win but he wasn't a Sky rider).

    If you look at riders like Cav, he came from HTC being the "fastest man" in the peloton and won half as many races. Sky couldn't string together a sprint train to save themselves. They only do best on the climb, because the destroy all their own riders for the greater good of the main GC guy. Look at Porte loosing 10 minutes on the 8th stage in order to deal with Garmin and Movistar attacked.
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    ddraver wrote:
    Telling of what pray tell?

    I shall reply to thee with this comment....

    That you have to have sh%% in your eyes if you think his ride up the Ventoux was clean for instance.

    Amen :lol:
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,678
    [quote="The Truth"
    And where did I say all athletes are equal? I'm pretty sure Talansky is a vastly superior talent to Froome, to name one example.[/quote]

    Your obsessed with, numbers and pretending you understand what they mean. Can you give me some figures to prove Talansky pushes better numbers than Froome? As you are so obsessed with times up climbs I'd like to see some climbs where Talansky beat Froome, as this is obvious proof who is the better athlete.
  • sjmclean wrote:
    They only do best on the climb, because the destroy all their own riders for the greater good of the main GC guy. Look at Porte loosing 10 minutes on the 8th stage in order to deal with Garmin and Movistar attacked.

    They even left poor Lil' Pete down a canyon on that stage, such is their total disregard for the minions.*


    *OK this is a slight exaggeration but its about as factual as some of the other evidence offered. I mean I saw it with my eyes. My own eyes.
    Correlation is not causation.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,437
    edited February 2014
    The Truth wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    The Truth wrote:
    No one has presented any evidence that shows how sky can be so much better.
    Well I presented the evidence that Sky have about three times the budget that Garmin do - but you used your lack of understanding to refute its relevance.

    I don't think its that simple. Team sky are dominating the other rich teams too.
    Yeah, because the other rich teams spend 2.3 million on Thor Hushovd but don't bother to hire a coach.

    Here's Garmin v Sky from the horse's mouth:

    12439925393_976c8e1cd4_o.png
    12439792605_83f8353132_o.png
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • The Truth wrote:
    sjmclean wrote:
    I'd like to ask, under "the truths" theory that money doesn't matter and all athletes are equal, why accrington stanley aren't in the Premier league?

    I would say the difference between two pro tour teams is alot smaller than that.

    And where did I say all athletes are equal? I'm pretty sure Talansky is a vastly superior talent to Froome, to name one example.

    I'm pretty sure he's not.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • sjmclean wrote:
    The Truth wrote:
    And where did I say all athletes are equal? I'm pretty sure Talansky is a vastly superior talent to Froome, to name one example.

    Your obsessed with, numbers and pretending you understand what they mean. Can you give me some figures to prove Talansky pushes better numbers than Froome? As you are so obsessed with times up climbs I'd like to see some climbs where Talansky beat Froome, as this is obvious proof who is the better athlete.

    It's not even Froome. In the 'race of truth' up Col d'Eze at last year's Paris-Nice Porte bested Talansky by 23 seconds over 9.6km. You'll have to ask Salsiccia1 the reason why.
    Correlation is not causation.
  • Your obsessed with, numbers and pretending you understand what they mean. Can you give me some figures to prove Talansky pushes better numbers than Froome? As you are so obsessed with times up climbs I'd like to see some climbs where Talansky beat Froome, as this is obvious proof who is the better athlete.


    So then Bjarne Riis is the best cyclist in history. And Cobo is one of the best riders of his generation.

    It's not about who pushes the highest numbers. We all know Froome does that. But that doesn't mean he is the biggest talent. Look at how much Talansky has accomplished at a young age, and compared that to what Froome did at the same age, and report back with your findings.
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    sjmclean wrote:
    Realistically, Sky only won 4 WT races last year. They fail to do anything in the one dayers, the national team (90% Sky) have been poor in most WC (barring Cav's win but he wasn't a Sky rider).

    If you look at riders like Cav, he came from HTC being the "fastest man" in the peloton and won half as many races. Sky couldn't string together a sprint train to save themselves. They only do best on the climb, because the destroy all their own riders for the greater good of the main GC guy. Look at Porte loosing 10 minutes on the 8th stage in order to deal with Garmin and Movistar attacked.


    And what about Portes other rides where he was almost toying with Contador.

    What about the fact that no one else can hang on to the Sky train like Froome can.

    They tried to attack Sky like Quitana did on the Ventoux but Froomy chased him down just like Armstrong did to Pantani ,,,,very easily. Meanwhile back down the climb the best of the rest climbers in the world have been dropped like a cannon ball off the roof of the Empire state building.

    IMO :lol:
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    What does Vaughter's mean by the quote "You guy's know what's going on"

    Can someone put that in context for me.
  • mike6mike6 Posts: 1,199
    The Truth wrote:
    mike6 wrote:
    Why did you label this thread (None doping related) when all you wanted to do was talk about Sky and your obsession with claiming they are doping? And as there was not a Sky doping thread running currently, you thought you would invent one. :roll:
    I want to know how the forum experts that think sky are clean explain these things. So far the answers have been far from convincing.


    Two things. First you failed to answer my question regarding the "None doping related" thread title.

    Second, I dont have to answer any questions. You tend to invent the question and your own answer, so why ask in the first place? :roll: :roll: :roll:
  • rayjay wrote:
    What does Vaughter's mean by the quote "You guy's know what's going on"

    Can someone put that in context for me.

    Vaughters doesn't say it.
    Correlation is not causation.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,437
    The Truth wrote:
    It's not about who pushes the highest numbers. We all know Froome does that. But that doesn't mean he is the biggest talent. Look at how much Talansky has accomplished at a young age, and compared that to what Froome did at the same age, and report back with your findings.
    My findings are that the US Cycling & Garmin provide a better development programme than Kenya & Barloworld.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • RichN95 wrote:
    The Truth wrote:
    It's not about who pushes the highest numbers. We all know Froome does that. But that doesn't mean he is the biggest talent. Look at how much Talansky has accomplished at a young age, and compared that to what Froome did at the same age, and report back with your findings.
    My findings are that the US Cycling & Garmin provide a better development programme than Kenya & Barloworld.

    Touche.
    Very convincing.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,678
    Ok so can we establish is Froome only the best rider when he has a train or not?

    If you look at times he was left on his own or with one man he lost time almost every time to the pure climbers:

    stage 18 Froome lost 1"18 to Quintana
    Stage 20 Froome lost 28" to Quintana

    Now look at Porte (on froome):

    Stage 9 lost 10+ minutes
    stage 11 lost 1'9"seconds
    stage 15 (he ended this stage 32+ minutes down on froome) lost 2'49
    stage 17 lost 4'49
    stage 20 lost 1'48"

    Finishing over all 39'+ down.

    Hardly the dominating rides from both you are claiming
  • mike6mike6 Posts: 1,199
    I am totally convinced, so end of stupid pointless troll thread.
  • salsiccia1salsiccia1 Posts: 3,693
    sjmclean wrote:
    I'd like to ask, under "the truths" theory that money doesn't matter and all athletes are equal, why accrington stanley aren't in the Premier league?

    Duh, because they don't drink milk.

    *applause*

    Brilliant retro-advert reference :D
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • sjmclean wrote:
    [quote="The Truth"
    And where did I say all athletes are equal? I'm pretty sure Talansky is a vastly superior talent to Froome, to name one example.

    Your obsessed with, numbers and pretending you understand what they mean. Can you give me some figures to prove Talansky pushes better numbers than Froome? As you are so obsessed with times up climbs I'd like to see some climbs where Talansky beat Froome, as this is obvious proof who is the better athlete.[/quote]

    How did you reach that conclusion?
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,678
    Funny how when some people try and give logical arguments they both run away.

    Also I'd like to nominate ATC for post of the week for the milk comment.
This discussion has been closed.