Geert Leinders

[taiwan]

OK, but can you see the difference between a team employing him full time (for 4 years?) to manage their programme and one that employs him for 80 days on a sessional basis.

I´m sure in both cases Leinders did what he was told: what do you think Sky would be expecting of him on that basis?

Deniability.

 

[Caruut]

He is saying we are.all bitter conspiracy theorists who can't stand the fact that wiggins won clean.

I think its possible that mastersracer is ligget. The intelligence bracket seems to be a perfect fit as is the tendency to rely almost.totally on the pr machine for ones arguments.
Add in the tendency to repeat flawed arguments a lot as if they were clever and the frequent failure to understand discussions and it looks possible.

Usually I understand what he's trying to say, though, even if I often totally disagree with it. That one I just couldn't work out the message.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Usually I understand what he's trying to say, though, even if I often totally disagree with it. That one I just couldn't work out the message.

He's saying that those who doubt or have suspicions are conspiracy theorists.

Because they are conspiracy theorists, they are Betonköpfe, unlike the more rational believers.

Hitch noted - in a post critical of somebody who believes Sky are doping - that just because an investigation has begun into somebody with a doping past, this does not guarantee that all of the dirt will come out (how many times has Ferrari been mentioned? How long did Lance deflect? How well-handled was Operación Puerto? How far did that Freiburg investigation go before Klöden paid for it to go away? How many Humanplasma clients were there?). Nor does it guarantee that if the dirt comes out that Team Sky will be implicated (as we do not yet know the full extent of what the investigation entails). Therefore it is unreasonable to assume that Team Sky will be brought down by this investigation.

Hitch noted this and expressed it through the medium of sarcasm, which mastersracer interpreted as being directed at the investigation rather than the poster.

Mastersracer believes that Hitch, as a conspiracy theorist (after all, he doesn't believe in the Total Brilliance of Sky (or its abbreviation "Total BS")), is afraid that the investigation will not turn up evidence that Team Sky are doping. Hitch therefore is trying to smear the investigation by suggesting that it's no good, so that when it inevitably does not turn up evidence that Team Sky are doping (owing to their just being super duper awesome sexy clean power marginal gains~!) he can dismiss it by saying that Team Sky are doping, and it was only because the investigation was useless that this wasn't found.

That's how I interpreted it, anyhow.

 

[Caruut]

As ever, LS takes the jackpot. What threw me was "implicating the investigation". You can't just implicate it, you've got to have something to implicate it in.

Can't remember who it was, but one poster here said that to believe in Sky, you must believe a far larger conspiracy - that almost everyone else was doping way more for way longer.

 

[mastersracer]

As ever, LS takes the jackpot. What threw me was "implicating the investigation". You can't just implicate it, you've got to have something to implicate it in.

Can't remember who it was, but one poster here said that to believe in Sky, you must believe a far larger conspiracy - that almost everyone else was doping way more for way longer.

Yes, LS summarizes what I intended very well. The fact is, the doping operations so far haven't exactly been the stuff of international espionage. When a criminal investigation (obviously a different matter from an anti-doping agency case) proceeds with judicial power behind it (warrants, subpoenas, etc.), it has turned up rather low-tech operations that leave clear tracks - financial transactions, communications, etc. I'm no expert in Belgian criminal law, but I'm supposing this investigation will likewise have broad investigative powers.

I very much doubt if the anti-Sky diehards here would ever consider the lack of evidence against Sky in this criminal case against Leinders as evidence that Sky is not doping. Rather, if the case turns up nothing, we will be bombarded with conspiracy theories regarding Sky paying off authorities, the Queen calling in a favor, etc. Hitch has already begun to hedge.

 

[sniper]

...
I very much doubt if the anti-Sky diehards here would ever consider the lack of evidence against Sky in this criminal case against Leinders as evidence that Sky is not doping. Rather, if the case turns up nothing, we will be bombarded with conspiracy theories regarding Sky paying off authorities, the Queen calling in a favor, etc. Hitch has already begun to hedge.

perhaps the thought of it turns you on, but really there are no anti-Sky diehards here. As far as I'm able to tell, there's just people who think they dope.

btw, why would anybody with a mind "consider the lack of evidence against Sky in this criminal case against Leinders as evidence that Sky is not doping"? I can't see anybody other than Phil agree with you here.

 

[peterst6906]

Doping is not just a question of cheating, it is also a matter of the health of the athletes. Not to mention the trafficing aspect.

I would have thought that's exactly the type of reason to involve the criminal justice system.

A conviction there will result in athletic sanctions as well, but also carry potentially more significant consequences.

Additionally, the involvement of law enforcement or public prosecution doesn't have to occur with the absence of the athletic federation. Both types of investigations can be occurring and assisting each other.

 

[Caruut]

Yes, LS summarizes what I intended very well. The fact is, the doping operations so far haven't exactly been the stuff of international espionage. When a criminal investigation (obviously a different matter from an anti-doping agency case) proceeds with judicial power behind it (warrants, subpoenas, etc.), it has turned up rather low-tech operations that leave clear tracks - financial transactions, communications, etc. I'm no expert in Belgian criminal law, but I'm supposing this investigation will likewise have broad investigative powers.

I very much doubt if the anti-Sky diehards here would ever consider the lack of evidence against Sky in this criminal case against Leinders as evidence that Sky is not doping. Rather, if the case turns up nothing, we will be bombarded with conspiracy theories regarding Sky paying off authorities, the Queen calling in a favor, etc. Hitch has already begun to hedge.

Why would anyone see it not directly implicating Sky as conclusive proof that Sky haven't doped? All it would be conclusive proof of is that Belgian authorities had been unable to find sufficient evidence of Leinders doping whilst on Sky to make it worth being part of a criminal prosecution.

And as Sniper says, there are no real anti-Sky diehards, much as you might like to think there are.

 

[mastersracer]

Why would anyone see it not directly implicating Sky as conclusive proof that Sky haven't doped? All it would be conclusive proof of is that Belgian authorities had been unable to find sufficient evidence of Leinders doping whilst on Sky to make it worth being part of a criminal prosecution.

And as Sniper says, there are no real anti-Sky diehards, much as you might like to think there are.

Why would anyone see it not directly implicating Sky as conclusive proof that Sky haven't doped? All it would be conclusive proof of is that Belgian authorities had been unable to find sufficient evidence of Leinders doping whilst on Sky to make it worth being part of a criminal prosecution.

And as Sniper says, there are no real anti-Sky diehards, much as you might like to think there are.

I said 'evidence' not 'conclusive proof.' Not to give a class in epistemic logic/rational warranted belief again, but 'conclusive proof' is only found in math departments, which deal with axiomatic, deductive systems.

Let us suppose that the investigation is thorough and there is a statement to the effect that no evidence was uncovered indicating Leinders was running a doping program at Sky. Then, if you don't believe that the probability that Sky is doping given no investigative evidence is lower than the probability that Sky is doping given Leinders, you aren't rationally updating your beliefs. Hence, it is merely a requirement of rationality to count the lack of evidence against Sky as rational warrant to raise one's subjective degree of belief in the proposition that Sky is not doping (and that is 'evidence').

Re no diehard anti-Sky people here, it would be illustrative if they could articulate one bit of evidence they would consider indicative of Sky not doping. So far, both A and not-A (for a variety of A's) has been used as evidence against Sky. Their belief that Sky is doping appears to be insensitive to any rational revision.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Also, we don't yet know if Leinders' time at Sky is anything to do with the investigation. If they investigate Leinders' time at Rabobank, of course nothing about Sky doping will come up because the authorities weren't looking for evidence of that, so it wouldn't matter if it was there or not.

Hitch wasn't criticising the investigation - just saying that it is foolish to believe that the investigation will bring Sky down before it's even begun. And saying that an investigation won't uncover all the full facts is a LONG way from saying that it's worthless and using that as an opportunity to continue to say Sky is dirty even if the investigation doesn't implicate them. After all, even the Reasoned Decision, one of the most comprehensive documents on one of the most thorough investigations into doping in the sport's history (in any sport's history), there are still glaring omissions. Why did the investigation not challenge testimonies from guys like Leipheimer that they stopped doping in 2006, when his sporting results and continued/renewed association with the subject of the investigation might have indicated it to be worth further investigation? Because the investigation wasn't about Levi Leipheimer. Its objective was not to uncover the doping of Levi Leipheimer.

Similarly, this investigation is about Geert Leinders. Its objective is not to uncover doping at Team Sky. Therefore, if the investigation fails to uncover concrete evidence of doping at Team Sky, it does not logically follow that the only possible explanation for that is that there was no doping at Team Sky.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Hitch wasn't criticising the investigation - just saying that it is foolish to believe that the investigation will bring Sky down before it's even begun

Geert L. has been doping riders for 25 years so we have to be patient on SKY.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Geert L. has been doping riders for 25 years so we have to be patient on SKY.

Dont count your chicken before they hatch, thing i suppose. I like eggs.

 

[martinvickers]

perhaps the thought of it turns you on, but really there are no anti-Sky diehards here. As far as I'm able to tell, there's just people who think they dope.

btw, why would anybody with a mind "consider the lack of evidence against Sky in this criminal case against Leinders as evidence that Sky is not doping"? I can't see anybody other than Phil agree with you here.

Oh, come on, Sniper!!

that's just bollox. Grade 1 bollox, too.

Sky have lots of cr*p that's suspicious, it is indisputible that Leinders looks bad, that Froome looks sus; there's plenty to get the teeth into.

But to suggest some of our clinic residents don't have their nose out of joint on Sky is just not credible. Come on, snipes, you're better than that...

 

[thehog]

Usually I understand what he's trying to say, though, even if I often totally disagree with it. That one I just couldn't work out the message.

What you will notice is there's no one here stating Sky are clean.

There are many who just knock those saying they are dirty by saying "you don't have proof".

Sky have zero support from anyone saying they are clean. Which is telling.

Most here are just fighting those who are saying they are dirty with the Phil_Liggart.mp3 "no proof" rap.

 

[Froome19]

What you will notice is there's no one here stating Sky are clean.

There are many who just knock those saying they are dirty by saying "you don't have proof".

Sky have zero support from anyone saying they are clean. Which is telling.

Most here are just fighting those who are saying they are dirty with the Phil_Liggart.mp3 "no proof" rap.

Or maybe it is just that the Sky defendants are not crazy or arrogant enough to claim that they have definite proof Sky are clean unlike some other posters on this forum?

Goodnight Hog.

 

[The Hitch]

Why would anyone see it not directly implicating Sky as conclusive proof that Sky haven't doped? All it would be conclusive proof of is that Belgian authorities had been unable to find sufficient evidence of Leinders doping whilst on Sky to make it worth being part of a criminal prosecution.

Because they are rational human beings and not david icke like conspiracy theorists who come up with totally ridiculous ideas like that cyclists may dope.

Or at least, if you want your posting exchanges with this poster to be anything more than pixels on a screen, thats the kind of intellectual level you will have to stoop down to.

And as Sniper says, there are no real anti-Sky diehards, much as you might like to think there are.

Actually I do think hog and blackat at the very least would go down as anti sky diehards and a few others as well.

Not that there is anything shameful about being anti sky given some of the disgraceful behaviour Wiggins and Bailsford have demonstrated. Bailsford using Txemas death as an explanation for hiring Lienders. Wiggins tearing Floyd like a Piniata even though he knew Floyd was telling the truth Bailsford saying he is shocked to find out lance was doping and hadno idea Barry and the like were dopers Wiggins casting doubt on Sastres win and on anyone who won the TDF then saying that people who do that to him are ****ers totally beneath him. Bailsford saying not to worry he will soon explain the Lienders situation then playing PR for the next 6 months and doing jack ****.

Etc.

These are not unproven allegations either dreamt up by sky haters but a matter of record.

Just because one finds such behaviour repulsive though and as a result comes to dislike sky does not make one biased against them or incapable of rational thought and argument.

 

[thehog]

Or maybe it is just that the Sky defendants are not crazy or arrogant enough to claim that they have definite proof Sky are clean unlike some other posters on this forum?

Goodnight Hog.

"Here's to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes... the ones who see things differently -- they're not fond of rules... You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can't do is ignore them because they change things... they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do."


Sweet dreams Froome19.

 

[The Hitch]

Or maybe it is just that the Sky defendants are not crazy or arrogant enough to claim that they have definite proof Sky are clean unlike some other posters on this forum?

Umm, there have been a few. There are also plenty such people in journalism unfortunately.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Leinders left Rabo because they were cleaning house, he was not okay with that new policy. So, the leopard suddenly goes to work at SKY who were to win the Tour clean in five years?

Please Pedro, do not be late with your waking up, you did that back in 1989 man.

For that matter, the less race more train myth of SKY is right out of the textbook of Leinders. He was rambling this 10 years ago.

FGL, when I was speaking about 'impact' I meant the impact that charges against Leinders would have on Sky. If nothing on Sky comes out then it will be minimal. If something does then it will have a much bigger impact depending on the revelations.

To me Leinders being part of the Sky setup is a huge red flag as it is to most people. Add to that the super-human performances and, yes, we have seen this many times before and know where it will probably end.

That said I am going to wait and see what happens with these charges. Even if nothing comes out about Sky that still of course does not mean there was any wrong doing going on.

I have never said that Sky are not doping or am to foolish enough to think that there is not a reasonable chance of it. When I tend to defend Sky it is when posters come up with irrational arguments (Sky ordered the cremation of their previous doctor).

When riders are caught doping I am often disappointed but rarely surprised.

 

[Caruut]

I said 'evidence' not 'conclusive proof.' Not to give a class in epistemic logic/rational warranted belief again, but 'conclusive proof' is only found in math departments, which deal with axiomatic, deductive systems.

Let us suppose that the investigation is thorough and there is a statement to the effect that no evidence was uncovered indicating Leinders was running a doping program at Sky. Then, if you don't believe that the probability that Sky is doping given no investigative evidence is lower than the probability that Sky is doping given Leinders, you aren't rationally updating your beliefs. Hence, it is merely a requirement of rationality to count the lack of evidence against Sky as rational warrant to raise one's subjective degree of belief in the proposition that Sky is not doping (and that is 'evidence').

Re no diehard anti-Sky people here, it would be illustrative if they could articulate one bit of evidence they would consider indicative of Sky not doping. So far, both A and not-A (for a variety of A's) has been used as evidence against Sky. Their belief that Sky is doping appears to be insensitive to any rational revision.

Sorry, conclusive proof was too far indeed.

It would make me slightly more trusting of Sky if the Belgian authorities looked for Leinders-Sky doping links and did not find any. However, given how well known Leinders' doping with Rabo is without any official sanction, I think it's a bit too much to suggest any investigation is worth revising my position by very much.

There are lots of things that are indicative of Sky not doping, when taken in isolation. Wiggins' track focus, Froome's bilharzia, the initial policy against tainted employees, the lack of a quality field in 2012. These are all reasons to doubt the hypothesis that Sky might be doping. None of them happen to be strong enough to swing me over the 50-50 line to say "on balance, I do not believe they dope", however.

You are far more die-hard pro-Sky than anyone is anti-Sky here.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Belgian cycling federation and Sky to claim ignorance:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...ation-in-Belgium-over-doping-allegations.aspx

A good first step is a WADA ban. The second, jail time.

 

[sniper]

Belgian cycling federation and Sky to claim ignorance:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...ation-in-Belgium-over-doping-allegations.aspx

A good first step is a WADA ban. The second, jail time.

Nice last sentence to the article:

“This summer, as promised, we looked fully into his work with us, interviewed him and talked to riders and the full medical team.

“We had no doubts about his work with us or his approach. Before employing him we also made checks, gathered references and he was interviewed by (sports psychiatrist) Dr Steve Peters.”

If Leinders is ultimately found guilty on doping charges, the thoroughness of those background checks will come into question.

cycling is still run by liars, omertists, and cheaters, and i'm not even exaggerating here.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

So, the first man to leave dear old SKY will be the shrink? How pathetic.

 

[coinneach]

So, the first man to leave dear old SKY will be the shrink? How pathetic.

He left about 3 months ago, and it was widely commmented on in the Sky thread, linking it to the Leinders fiasco (well, by me anyway!)

 

[coinneach]

There was a very interesting article on teh Guardian about the relation between doctors and sports organisations/clubs (not just cycling ones):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/feb/15/drug-cheat-dilemma

I took from it the position of doctor is very subservient to the manager/owner of team.....some doctors even do it for nothing so they can advertise their services as being associated with the team!
But if the boss says jump, the doctor either jumps or jumps ship.

Doesn´t prove anything definitive about Leinders on way or the other; but I would suggest there would be no way he´d be doping (at Sky or Rabbo) without it being directly ordered by the team managers