Geert Leinders

[bianchigirl]

Surely the more interesting thing about Gonzalez is his past - soigneur for dusk alter and saunier duval? Why is a clean team touching him with a bargepole

 

[sniper]

don't worry Cycle Chic.
it's just haters in here

anyway, I appreciated your argument. intriguing, original and clever thinking, I like that, even if it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

at least our nr 1 national sport, speedskating, is nice 'n clean. no doping there. just one against one, fair contest.
oh wait.
http://nos.nl/artikel/466594-ook-dopinggebruik-in-schaatsen.html

Thought u were German dude, lol

But indeed, Dutch Do Not Dope.

I asked you to go and find somebody who has said Sky are definitively clean.

You haven't been able to have you...

Guess the 'ignore button' works both ways my friend.

This is the problem. The Sky defenders are defending Sky. But not excusing them. I argue that there is nothing going on at Sky but I do not deny the proof, just what it is used for. I ask the same questions as you do and probably a couple more seeing as I follow Sky more closely (just I do not air those out loud in this forum). The only theories and ideas I mock and reject totally out of hand are the ones from guys like Sniper, Hog and recently cc which are generally quite crackpot and you do not seriously expect me to take those seriously? Also deriding Sky fans for being single minded is a bit hypocritical when the other side do exactly the same thing with not looking for any loopholes for Sky. What I get most aggravated about here is the certainty by some posters that Sky are doping. There is no other way about it, I would suspect it is some innate, immense arrogance that they are better than all others and are capable of working out that Sky are definitely dirty.

Why not just do your own research and make your own conclusion? Instead of headbanging on a forum while you know the obvious?

 

[Froome19]

I don't support their position... but in this they do have a HUGE thing on their side:

Statistics. Chances of a GT winner being clean are extremely rare.

The position that a GT winner is probably clean and we should go from there is absolutely belied by the historic facts. I certainly would say justice needs to work that way, but for the educated onlooker it's the other way around.

So it's not jealousy, it's simply that they take the pragmatical approach.That approach hasn't been wrong in almost 25 years.

Historic facts. But I am of the opinion that the sport has moved on from then and can now produce a clean GT winner. It will surely happen soon if not already with high quality certainly clean riders (unlike Wiggins and Sky) mixing it with the very best. There will be a time when the sport would have broken through the clean GT barrier and I believe the time has already come and gone. What really concerns me is the cycling fans who seem to be refuse to ever accept the possibility (contrary to what they claim), if that time has come/will come then they are jepoardising the sport by saying otherwise.

I believe Hesjedal was clean, just my opinion. And when we are looking at statistics of GT winners being clean you can not look at those in isolation. Look at it whilst looking at marginal gains, whilst looking at the competition, whilst looking at the numbers produced.. after all that then you can look back at those statistics and decide whether they are applicable.

 

[meat puppet]

Historic facts. But I am of the opinion that the sport has moved on from then and can now produce a clean GT winner.

Joachim, this one's for you apparently.

I believe Hesjedal was clean, just my opinion.

Put it this way: on the road it surely looked cleaner than many other victories. Hesjedal was not blistering and had ups and downs.

Yet there are problems, such as a bump in HB in the data provided by JV himself to the good captain / doc veloclinic. Also the data indicated a season's peak HB just before the event, which was due to a measuring error according to JV. Retics are also high thruout, IMO. A very high baseline, or? It was discussed here, too.

Look at it whilst looking at marginal gains...

Actually, never mind.

 

[Froome19]

Joachim, this one's for you apparently.


Put it this way: on the road it surely looked cleaner than many other victories. Hesjedal was not blistering and had ups and downs.

Yet there are problems, such as a bump in HB in the data provided by JV himself to the good captain / doc veloclinic. Also the data indicated a season's peak HB just before the event, which was due to a measuring error according to JV. Retics are also high thruout, IMO. A very high baseline, or? It was discussed here, too.

There is always going to be suspicion. Hesjedal's bump could be just natural or even a lab error. The thread you link to seems to be more in support of Hesjedal being clean than against him. But anyways that is another discussion for another day.

Something I also realised there is that no one here really knows what is going on. That bump could mean a tonne of things and tbh whatever people are pretending to know they really dont have a clue.

Actually, never mind.

Seems you already have made up your mind. Oh well.

 

[D-Queued]

This is a lot of Ryder support on a Leinders thread.

Historic facts. But I am of the opinion that the sport has moved on from then and can now produce a clean GT winner. ...

I believe Hesjedal was clean, just my opinion. And when we are looking at statistics of GT winners being clean you can not look at those in isolation. Look at it whilst looking at marginal gains, whilst looking at the competition, whilst looking at the numbers produced.. after all that then you can look back at those statistics and decide whether they are applicable.

I believe Hesjedal was clean as well.

He was clean before he started doping, and before he joined USPS.

As for his marginal gains, how much margin did he gain from doping in the early days?

There is always going to be suspicion. Hesjedal's bump could be just natural or even a lab error. ...

Or?

Dave.

 

[meat puppet]

There is always going to be suspicion. Hesjedal's bump could be just natural or even a lab error. The thread you link to seems to be more in support of Hesjedal being clean than against him. But anyways that is another discussion for another day.

"Less enhanced" would be the expression of choice for me.

Seems you already have made up your mind. Oh well.

True. Wiggins' legs spoke for themselves in 2009. As for Sky, Vuelta 2011 raised the question, Dauphine 2012 provided the answer, TDF and the Leinders gate underlined it. Which brings us back on topic.

 

[Franklin]

Historic facts. But I am of the opinion that the sport has moved on from then and can now produce a clean GT winner.

Based on what evidence?
Based on which tremendous change?

Dr. Menuet still has a job.
Ibarguen is still doling out his advice.
Leinders had to be incriminating about 1000 times before the BWB decided to ask a few questions. Let's see what they do now.

I certainly share your hope, but the facts as they look now hardly support a revolutionary clean peloton. And yet that's needed before we see clean winners.

 

[Franklin]

I asked you to go and find somebody who has said Sky are definitively clean.

You haven't been able to have you...

Go to Sky page and you can pile up a boat load.

And we have those like you who simply refuse to discuss the facts and thus can maintain Sky is most likely clean.

You are among the funniest in evasion and thus denial. You fully know DB is a liar. You sideskip the isue as you know the facts are so irrefutable that it would make you agree wit the critics.

It's rather transparent. It's like Armchairclimber, Master racer and the other stalwarts who believe Sky is definitely clean. Even a whiff of sinsitre facts and they stop replying.

The denial is strong here.

 

[Joachim]

Jeez. You just see what you want to see. I have posted many times that I don't know if Sky are clean or not. I've posted that if they ARE doping I hope they get caught.

As for the other people you mention, they can stand up for themselves plenty well enough.

 

[Froome19]

Based on what evidence?
Based on which tremendous change?

Dr. Menuet still has a job.
Ibarguen is still doling out his advice.
Leinders had to be incriminating about 1000 times before the BWB decided to ask a few questions. Let's see what they do now.

I certainly share your hope, but the facts as they look now hardly support a revolutionary clean peloton. And yet that's needed before we see clean winners.

A bunch of factors, yet none of them conclusive and none which I will elaborate on for that reason.

What I have found revealing is the amount of riders coming out and speaking about it. Near to every single interview I read conducted by British media to cyclists, the cyclists always discuss the issue of doping and how they combat it etc. It is more in the open now, less hidden away. And most of all there is a new generation now coming through. Guys like Taylor Phinney can compete clean against Tony Martin and equal him. Guys like Tejay can compete with the best, Durbridge etc. The guys actually say the right things, they actually post their stats online, they dislike doping (not the Bradley Wiggins "dislike")

Jobs within the peloton do not necessarily mean anything. If the doping was to be eradicated then what would happen to those staff> They would still go on being employed in cycling and anyways maybe they are involved in doping to a degree, just not masterminding the peloton's doping.

That is not to say doping has been eradicated in the peloton. Just ask Hounard/Galimzyanov. But I certainly do not believe it is the team wide thing it was.

 

[Benotti69]

Can you point me to anybody,and I mean anybody that is stating definitively that Sky are clean?

apart from UCI, Brit Cycling, Sky themselves, JV and Dave Millar you mean?

 

[Froome19]

apart from UCI, Brit Cycling, Sky themselves, JV and Dave Millar you mean?

Well they are in the know so you can't blame them for saying that can you?

 

[Benotti69]

Well they are in the know so you can't blame them for saying that can you?

If UCI are 'in the know' that does not bode well for Sky.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Surely the more interesting thing about Gonzalez is his past - soigneur for dusk alter and saunier duval? Why is a clean team touching him with a bargepole

It's OT, but Txema was described as a "close, personal friend" by one David Millar - you may have heard of him? Related to Fran Millar? Best buddies with David Brailsford?

 

[Froome19]

If UCI are 'in the know' that does not bode well for Sky.

Well discluding the UCI, but that much was obvious..

 

[bianchigirl]

He wrote quite a eulogy for him, I seem to recall wiggo...and I'd still love to know why dave b was with millar the night he got popped by the French police

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's OT, but Txema was described as a "close, personal friend" by one David Millar - you may have heard of him? Related to Fran Millar? Best buddies with David Brailsford?

Can you back that quote up?

Because thats sounds like a gross exaggeration - Txema was soigneur at SD when Millar was there. They were certainly friendly and on great terms - but thats it.

 

[ferryman]

OK. Some unsavoury and ridiculous posts in this thread today. I'm not going to go back and delete but please folks let's get back on topic (sorry, broken record I know).

Cheers.

 

[Parker]

and I'd still love to know why dave b was with millar the night he got popped by the French police

They were making plans for the Olympics which was less than two months away.

 

[sniper]

and I'd still love to know why dave b was with millar the night he got popped by the French police

interesting. didn't know that yet.

 

[MatParker117]

He wrote quite a eulogy for him, I seem to recall wiggo...and I'd still love to know why dave b was with millar the night he got popped by the French police

The Athens Olympics were a few months away I imagine they were discussing preperations for the Time Trial (Millar was world champion at the time).

 

[martinvickers]

interesting. didn't know that yet.

Are you serious? How can you consider yourself informed on doping, esp Brit doping, and not know this?

 

[Caruut]

Are you serious? How can you consider yourself informed on doping, esp Brit doping, and not know this?

Where has he described himself as an expert on British doping?