Sky - Page 906 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #9051  
Old 11-23-12, 22:01
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 5,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellow Velo View Post
It's one day, vs 3 years.

When they win the Tour and a bunch of other races, dominating the bunch all year, and then have their PR officer's brother cite their cleanliness every chance he gets, then we can talk
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
Reply With Quote
  #9052  
Old 11-23-12, 22:16
JimmyFingers's Avatar
JimmyFingers JimmyFingers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,850
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine Seguros View Post
And as I said about Brailsford before, I feel that to say that he had been naďve enough to believe Yates, de Jongh, Julich and Barry had never been involved in any doping ever, credits him with way too little intelligence for my liking, suggesting that Rogers had all the fairest intentions in the world when he used a guy who was banned from acting as a doctor or pharmacist due to abusing that position to dope professional athletes, and was simply unaware of the implications of that, credits Rogers with too little intelligence too.
The chances that Rogers didn't dope are minimal, and are unnecessary to bother debating IMO. But as I said, whether he did or didn't is moot, he shouldn't have been hired in the first place.

And therein lies the crux of the matter. Clearly Brailsford isn't stupid, and more so there are other people within the organisation that aren't stupid. Pragmatism meant they exploited the burden of proof: you can claim zero-tolerance and hire people that have never tested positive and bingo,you have zero-tolerance.

But that's a smokescreen for the ignorant, the informed know there are more than just questions marks over many in the pro-peloton, and Rogers is a proper example of that.

For me this is as close to as fact as we will get: Sky hired these people with knowledge of their suspect past and choose to give a blind eye to it. And here it is dependant on your level of cynicism as to why.

I think one reason is that they didn't see the whole USADA thing coming. If they had, not only do I think they wouldn't have hired those characters, I don't believe Sky would have happened at all. Reservations were strong IN BC about a road team because of doping taint, if they had seen Lance's outing coming that would had cemented their decision to stay away.

And without the USADA, they would have got away with it. Reliant on an ignorant public of a niche sport in the country of their target demographic, who you would struggle to get to name a proven doper like Landis, let alone suspect ones, they thought it wouldn't be noticed by the fans or the media. And without the USADA they would probably be right. I think in a nod to Garmin perhaps, while operating under a facade of zero-tolerance, the reality was they were hiring people with suspect pasts but those whom they were confident were clean and repentant. As I said, depends on your cynicism level.

And now they are caught out, dependant on staff's honesty and restricted by employment law to properly purge the organisation and try to move it closer to the original ideal upon which Sky was formed.

And yes they failed to uphold it, this much is clear. Again it boils down to your cynicism levels or personal bias whether you think this is forgiveable or not. I still think (so an opinion) that despite the mistakes they are trying to do the right thing.

Just not very good at it. But then, who is?
Reply With Quote
  #9053  
Old 11-23-12, 22:25
Le Baroudeur Le Baroudeur is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 429
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine Seguros View Post
On the first point, Andreas Klöden made a point during the 2008 Giro to state that only a few of the teams had strong internal testing regimes. Slipstream was one, High Road another, CSC another and Astana the other.
Just to clarify, the testing regime at CSC wasn't so much internal, but rather, and importantly, it was wholely independent of the team, being designed and run by one of the sports and teams foremost critics and experts at the time, with no restrictions in scope, and strict financial and organisational barriers between the testers and the team. Further, all test data and results were published in full for transparency.

The testing started in 2007, and concluded when the Biological Passport system came online to replace it (being an all but identical testing system afaik).

The Astana testing was based on the CSC programme, with the exclussion of Armstrong who had his own test programme iirc?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RHRH19861986 View Post
These internal tests aren´t created to prevent riders from doping, but to avoid doped riders risk to test positive later in UCi/Wada tests.

I think, whatever managers and DS say in public, towards their riders, they´re all like Tinkov: do what you want to be fast, don´t get caught.
See above... I'm not sure how this correlates with the CSC test programme at all? I see how it might with teams that do do there own tests internally, but again, it would be just as beficial to the team to remove and prevent issues by control of offending riders. Just because a team doesn't want a scandal, doesn't mean they aren't actively discouraging or working against doping, and pushing out riders that don't get the message?
Reply With Quote
  #9054  
Old 11-23-12, 22:41
JimmyFingers's Avatar
JimmyFingers JimmyFingers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,850
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
It's one day, vs 3 years.

When they win the Tour and a bunch of other races, dominating the bunch all year, and then have their PR officer's brother cite their cleanliness every chance he gets, then we can talk
I thinks this gets down to the brass tacks: you are basically saying that proof is in performance, no just suspicion. For Sky to be innocent, they would be losing.

The antipathy towards Sky is clearly generated, in a large part, by their PR of being clean. By saying their clean and winning, and by espousing constantly a mantra of marginal gains, they are more a target. Sky was the most successful team in 2012 yes, but dominance? The rider that topped the rankings was from Katusha, the winner of the Giro rode for Garmin, the Vuelta for Astana. OPQS dominated the one-day classics (which Sky won none of). Where Sky dominated were the short stage races and the Tour de France, and through Mark Cavendish, who you felt won inspite of them rather than because of them. In the Worlds they manged a silver from EBH, no more.

So successful yes, dominant no. So many races in the season of huge significance they didn't win that they tried very hard to do. When Boonen broke away at P-R with 53k to go there were 3 Sky riders in the lead group, combined they couldn't get him back. In M-SR they tried and failed miserably in delivering Cav to the line.

I suppose all that does is re-focus attention to the 'core' of the TdF team, and the one that one Paris-Nice, Romandie and Dauphine, around which suspicion mostly revolves. But it also should dispell a dominant season. Sky won fifty times, 15 of those were Cavendish alone, but they lost a hell of a lot too
Reply With Quote
  #9055  
Old 11-23-12, 22:48
Libertine Seguros's Avatar
Libertine Seguros Libertine Seguros is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Land of Saíz
Posts: 13,935
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Baroudeur View Post
Just to clarify, the testing regime at CSC wasn't so much internal, but rather, and importantly, it was wholely independent of the team, being designed and run by one of the sports and teams foremost critics and experts at the time, with no restrictions in scope, and strict financial and organisational barriers between the testers and the team. Further, all test data and results were published in full for transparency.

The testing started in 2007, and concluded when the Biological Passport system came online to replace it (being an all but identical testing system afaik).

The Astana testing was based on the CSC programme, with the exclussion of Armstrong who had his own test programme iirc?



See above... I'm not sure how this correlates with the CSC test programme at all? I see how it might with teams that do do there own tests internally, but again, it would be just as beficial to the team to remove and prevent issues by control of offending riders. Just because a team doesn't want a scandal, doesn't mean they aren't actively discouraging or working against doping, and pushing out riders that don't get the message?
I wasn't trying to call out CSC or anything, more that I didn't actually know anything about their tests and controls, but plenty have had suspicions about the Riis-led squad.

The reason for mentioning them was solely to do with comparing Stapleton's announcing Rogers was clean in 2007, thanks to the excellent internal controls at the team run by himself, to Andreas Klöden's interview with Gazzetta dello Sport during the 2008 Giro.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/csf-...ns-accusations
Quote:
"At the Giro, there are only four teams with a tight control system - Slipstream, High Road, CSC and Astana... [Davide] Rebellin and [Riccardo] Riccň, I don't know how often they have controls like me. I don't want to talk about the team of Priamo."
Now, while you may point out that Klöden's dopedar was pretty accurate, picking out two guys on two dubious squads who tested positive later that year, and it is interesting how he picked out Priamo from CSF-Navigare even as Pérez Cuapio, Baliani, Pozzovivo and of course Sella floated around the mountains, as after all Sella's testimonies showed Priamo to have been the dealer at CSF, however he trumps up the tight internal controls at Astana, but we know that that team continued to dope under Bruyneel. Without a more objective source, do we just accept Klöden's testimony that 2008-era Astana have tight doping controls, or are we entitled to suspect that the tight control may have been used for less (or more) sanguine purposes?

It's ambiguous, because as we know from testing full stop, a lot of guys slip the net. But we also have every reason to suspect in the wake of subsequent positives and the USADA case that doping continued on under Bruyneel.
__________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrFiUlhAPes

Forever tęte de la course.
Reply With Quote
  #9056  
Old 11-24-12, 01:42
Ferminal Ferminal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16,446
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Baroudeur View Post
Just to clarify, the testing regime at CSC wasn't so much internal, but rather, and importantly, it was wholely independent of the team, being designed and run by one of the sports and teams foremost critics and experts at the time, with no restrictions in scope, and strict financial and organisational barriers between the testers and the team. Further, all test data and results were published in full for transparency.

The testing started in 2007, and concluded when the Biological Passport system came online to replace it (being an all but identical testing system afaik).

The Astana testing was based on the CSC programme, with the exclussion of Armstrong who had his own test programme iirc?



See above... I'm not sure how this correlates with the CSC test programme at all? I see how it might with teams that do do there own tests internally, but again, it would be just as beficial to the team to remove and prevent issues by control of offending riders. Just because a team doesn't want a scandal, doesn't mean they aren't actively discouraging or working against doping, and pushing out riders that don't get the message?
Yes Astana used Daamsgard. It was such a good independent program that they managed to wrongfully dismiss a rider they considered to be a doper.
Reply With Quote
  #9057  
Old 11-24-12, 02:34
Le Baroudeur Le Baroudeur is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 429
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferminal View Post
Yes Astana used Daamsgard. It was such a good independent program that they managed to wrongfully dismiss a rider they considered to be a doper.
Ouch, who was that, and did they give a reason for the suspision?
Reply With Quote
  #9058  
Old 11-24-12, 08:45
Spencer the Half Wit's Avatar
Spencer the Half Wit Spencer the Half Wit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 181
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
It certainly helps to explain it like that. I am directly quoting him from an interview.



I'd like to see how you have heaps of advisers without having them advising you - and that's the same team he rode for in 2011, not like all of a sudden the back office staff changed to any degree.

Personally I am more inclined to believe the interview over a film recently aired, no doubt produced by Sky and their PR department vs a generally open and honest Wiggins in an interview right in the thick of a disappointing year, a month after they had a soigneur die and a bunch of riders withdraw from the Vuelta.
The film might have recently aired but that interviews in it were conducted over the whole year. The bit where he talks about the 2010 Tour was conducted at the start of the year before he had won anything. So unless he can see in the future or have unbelievable hindsight to foresee your argument about him going from good to crap to good between 09-12 I'm more inclined to believe the film.
Reply With Quote
  #9059  
Old 11-24-12, 08:54
MatParker117 MatParker117 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 967
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyFingers View Post
I thinks this gets down to the brass tacks: you are basically saying that proof is in performance, no just suspicion. For Sky to be innocent, they would be losing.

The antipathy towards Sky is clearly generated, in a large part, by their PR of being clean. By saying their clean and winning, and by espousing constantly a mantra of marginal gains, they are more a target. Sky was the most successful team in 2012 yes, but dominance? The rider that topped the rankings was from Katusha, the winner of the Giro rode for Garmin, the Vuelta for Astana. OPQS dominated the one-day classics (which Sky won none of). Where Sky dominated were the short stage races and the Tour de France, and through Mark Cavendish, who you felt won inspite of them rather than because of them. In the Worlds they manged a silver from EBH, no more.

So successful yes, dominant no. So many races in the season of huge significance they didn't win that they tried very hard to do. When Boonen broke away at P-R with 53k to go there were 3 Sky riders in the lead group, combined they couldn't get him back. In M-SR they tried and failed miserably in delivering Cav to the line.

I suppose all that does is re-focus attention to the 'core' of the TdF team, and the one that one Paris-Nice, Romandie and Dauphine, around which suspicion mostly revolves. But it also should dispell a dominant season. Sky won fifty times, 15 of those were Cavendish alone, but they lost a hell of a lot too
Eleven wins from Boasson Hagen as well
Reply With Quote
  #9060  
Old 11-24-12, 09:02
Mellow Velo's Avatar
Mellow Velo Mellow Velo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9,304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
It's one day, vs 3 years.

When they win the Tour and a bunch of other races, dominating the bunch all year, and then have their PR officer's brother cite their cleanliness every chance he gets, then we can talk
Meh, so now we have to have a very lengthy time span and multiple "cleanliness" strikes before Astana become hypocritical?
I didn't post the link in defence of Sky, but to show Benotti that Astana had just blown a hole in his rational.
As for your post, I hadn't realised Sky had been so dominant, all conquering for 3 seasons and that Astana won nothing of importance, this year.
__________________
They use thought only to justify their injustices, and speech only to disguise their thoughts. Voltaire
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:57.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.