Sunweb

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

DanielSong39 said:
Tom Dumoulin now favored to win the 2018 Tour de France due to Froome's legal troubles.

The Sky Train will now have to make way for the Sunweb Express. I am expecting a first class performance.

Michael Matthews may be going Green once again but that might be a bridge too far.
Going green? :confused:
Would that be due to doping?
Else wrong forum ;)
 
Dec 21, 2016
44
0
0
pastronef said:
Yes, that was my association as well.

However, there are also some differences between the two cases.

The first difference is that in this case the money doesn't go through a major stakeholder in the sport (i.e., the UCI), but directly to an organization that should be relatively independent (an anti-doping agency). So, unlike Armstrong, Sunweb doesn't involve the UCI president in a secretive scheme involving money and payments.

The second difference is that the money isn't meant to finance (or dictate) a very specific testing regime. In Amstrong's case, he financed a very specific piece of lab equipment to analyze samples, thereby dictating how samples were going to be tested. We now know that one of the reasons for doing so was so he could manage his own blood values in order to not test positive as he had access to such a machine as well. It was basically a bribe to ensure the use of a testing method he could anticipate and take counter-measures against, all under the pretense of supporting the anti-doping effort.

In the case of Sunweb, this isn't really what's happening. They are basically financing the anti-doping agency to do more tests, without being involved in the details of the tests being performed, the selection of athletes, or the timing of the tests. I don't see how doing that would give Sunweb better means of anticipating and counter-measuring the anti-doping efforts. So, in principle, if we were living in a fully transparent world without scheming behind the scenes, then this wouldn't increase Sunweb's chances of defeating the tests.

The third difference is that in Armstrong's case it wasn't exactly sure where the results of the tests performed with the machine were ending up (did they only end-up at the UCI or were they send to WADA post 1999?). In Sunweb's case, the tests will be treated as regular tests, with their results being shared to WADA and recorded in the ABP. This should leave less room for selective favoritism from the UCI.

Now, everything I said here is "in theory if everything were to be fully transparent". If things aren't going to be transparent, then we have no way of knowing what actually happens to the money, with the testing regime, and the results. Still, I would rate funding an independent anti-doping agency to do additional tests above buying a specific machine for the UCI so you know how to defeat it.
 
Strange Loop said:
pastronef said:
Yes, that was my association as well.

However, there are also some differences between the two cases.

The first difference is that in this case the money doesn't go through a major stakeholder in the sport (i.e., the UCI), but directly to an organization that should be relatively independent (an anti-doping agency). So, unlike Armstrong, Sunweb doesn't involve the UCI president in a secretive scheme involving money and payments.

The second difference is that the money isn't meant to finance (or dictate) a very specific testing regime. In Amstrong's case, he financed a very specific piece of lab equipment to analyze samples, thereby dictating how samples were going to be tested. We now know that one of the reasons for doing so was so he could manage his own blood values in order to not test positive as he had access to such a machine as well. It was basically a bribe to ensure the use of a testing method he could anticipate and take counter-measures against, all under the pretense of supporting the anti-doping effort.

In the case of Sunweb, this isn't really what's happening. They are basically financing the anti-doping agency to do more tests, without being involved in the details of the tests being performed, the selection of athletes, or the timing of the tests. I don't see how doing that would give Sunweb better means of anticipating and counter-measuring the anti-doping efforts. So, in principle, if we were living in a fully transparent world without scheming behind the scenes, then this wouldn't increase Sunweb's chances of defeating the tests.

The third difference is that in Armstrong's case it wasn't exactly sure where the results of the tests performed with the machine were ending up (did they only end-up at the UCI or were they send to WADA post 1999?). In Sunweb's case, the tests will be treated as regular tests, with their results being shared to WADA and recorded in the ABP. This should leave less room for selective favoritism from the UCI.

Now, everything I said here is "in theory if everything were to be fully transparent". If things aren't going to be transparent, then we have no way of knowing what actually happens to the money, with the testing regime, and the results. Still, I would rate funding an independent anti-doping agency to do additional tests above buying a specific machine for the UCI so you know how to defeat it.
Good post.

Another problem is that by financing the doping authority they could influence the independency of it.

If sunweb's intentions are indeed bad you could compare it with the maffia giving money to the police.

That could still backfire though if the doping authority wont let themselves get bribed.

Still its unlikely the doping authority is corrupt in the netherlands... then again you never know these days.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Kwibus said:
Strange Loop said:
pastronef said:
Yes, that was my association as well.

However, there are also some differences between the two cases.

The first difference is that in this case the money doesn't go through a major stakeholder in the sport (i.e., the UCI), but directly to an organization that should be relatively independent (an anti-doping agency). So, unlike Armstrong, Sunweb doesn't involve the UCI president in a secretive scheme involving money and payments.

The second difference is that the money isn't meant to finance (or dictate) a very specific testing regime. In Amstrong's case, he financed a very specific piece of lab equipment to analyze samples, thereby dictating how samples were going to be tested. We now know that one of the reasons for doing so was so he could manage his own blood values in order to not test positive as he had access to such a machine as well. It was basically a bribe to ensure the use of a testing method he could anticipate and take counter-measures against, all under the pretense of supporting the anti-doping effort.

In the case of Sunweb, this isn't really what's happening. They are basically financing the anti-doping agency to do more tests, without being involved in the details of the tests being performed, the selection of athletes, or the timing of the tests. I don't see how doing that would give Sunweb better means of anticipating and counter-measuring the anti-doping efforts. So, in principle, if we were living in a fully transparent world without scheming behind the scenes, then this wouldn't increase Sunweb's chances of defeating the tests.

The third difference is that in Armstrong's case it wasn't exactly sure where the results of the tests performed with the machine were ending up (did they only end-up at the UCI or were they send to WADA post 1999?). In Sunweb's case, the tests will be treated as regular tests, with their results being shared to WADA and recorded in the ABP. This should leave less room for selective favoritism from the UCI.

Now, everything I said here is "in theory if everything were to be fully transparent". If things aren't going to be transparent, then we have no way of knowing what actually happens to the money, with the testing regime, and the results. Still, I would rate funding an independent anti-doping agency to do additional tests above buying a specific machine for the UCI so you know how to defeat it.
Good post.

Another problem is that by financing the doping authority they could influence the independency of it.

If sunweb's intentions are indeed bad you could compare it with the maffia giving money to the police.

That could still backfire though if the doping authority wont let themselves get bribed.

Still its unlikely the doping authority is corrupt in the netherlands... then again you never know these days.
Why, are they not human?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dutch_sportspeople_in_doping_cases

When it appears all other ADAs are at best PR for their home athletes and IQ testers, why should the Dtuch ADA be any different?
 
It's internal testing, so only riders need to consent to being tested i'd imagine, which probably is already part of their contracts as they are ADAMS athletes already. Their nado doesn't need to approve another nado to allow them to test a rider and update bio passport as this happens anyway as each athlete travels around the world being tested by all other countries nados already.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
It's internal testing, so only riders need to consent to being tested i'd imagine, which probably is already part of their contracts as they are ADAMS athletes already. Their nado doesn't need to approve another nado to allow them to test a rider and update bio passport as this happens anyway as each athlete travels around the world being tested by all other countries nados already.
They dont need the riders consent. They can be tested at any time.
 
Re:

roundabout said:
I admit to not being fully up to date on the overall procedure, but wouldn't any testing by a Dutch NADO require consent from non-Dutch athletes and their respective NADOs?
Yeh my thinking was it would only apply to Dutch riders. Pretty sure this is correct and that NADOs would only conduct tests for riders not registered locally in the case of events where they are specifically given authority to conduct the testing by the sanctioning sporting federation (why the AFLD can't do tests in July?). @samhocking I thought only the UCI could tell NADOs to test athletes they don't have authority over. Indeed if the NADO does not have authority over a rider and tests them anyway (because their employer said they must subject to testing) it raises questions as to whether or not that test actually means anything in the context of the ADRs.

I guess we can't comment until we see any proper details (and if we don't that is already a red flag) but pretty normal to treat these moves with some cynicism.
 
Heh, totally wrong, all good as long as you are in-country. Kind of gives it away a bit though in terms of when you might get your bonus test.

Also see the UCI regulations which they are entitled to uphold as per the Code, so only UCI sanctioned testing during races.

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/WADA-2015-NADO-Model-Rules-v3.0-EN.docx

1.3 Application to Persons
NOTE: Article 5.2.1 of the Code gives a National Anti-Doping Organization jurisdiction over all Athletes who are nationals, residents, license-holders or members of sports organizations of its country or who are present in that country. Within that very broad pool of Athletes, the top tier of Athletes will fall within their respective International Federations' definitions of International-Level Athletes. The National Anti-Doping Organization needs to identify which of the remaining Athletes will be classified as National-Level Athletes (see Article 4.3 of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations). It should still retain the anti-doping jurisdiction conferred on it by the Code over all other Athletes in its country, so that it can test them and bring anti-doping rule violation proceedings against them in appropriate circumstances. However, in accordance with Article 4.3 of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations, the main focus of a National Anti-Doping Organization's test distribution plan should be National-Level Athletes, and National-Level Athletes should be prioritized in terms of provision of advance TUEs and collection of whereabouts information.

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rulesandregulation/16/85/60/20161216UCIADRPart14-FINALversionenligne2016.12.16_English.pdf

5.3 Event Testing

5.3.1 Except as otherwise provided below, only a single organization should be responsible for initiating and directing testing at Event Venues during an Event Period. At UCI International Events, the collection of Samples shall be initiated and directed by the UCI.

At UCI International Events, any Testing during the Event Period outside of the Event Venues shall be coordinated with the UCI
 
Lmao what the hell is this. One year after Dumoulin leaves the team they take a bunch young guys and middling known guys into elite stage hunters and classics riders then they create the strongest mountain train in the Giro by far out of nothing.
 
Reactions: F_Cance
Jul 2, 2019
130
119
1,030
Lmao what the hell is this. One year after Dumoulin leaves the team they take a bunch young guys and middling known guys into elite stage hunters and classics riders then they create the strongest mountain train in the Giro by far out of nothing.
IN FAIRNESS a bunch of the other domestiques died (especially Astana) and SKA's wins were more down to tactics than brute force


but yeah Sunweb deciding "yeah let's just re-eanct Ax 3 Domaines 2013" is hilarious
 
Reactions: Red Rick
well almeida did 6.3 w/kg in the final 3kg alone and he was losing time

You are not going to convince me the quality was poor etc
I'll just quote this here. I wasn't claiming the ride wasn't strong. If anything it seems like there's new juice in the peloton and there's a huge gap between riders who are on it and those who don't. To me that's the opposite of a strong field, when the field is basically Ineos, Sunweb and DQS.
 
Sunweb case is odd.
They genuinely looked like one of the most advanced team (even for doping practices) back in 2017. Then they stalled and made a few riders burn out, dunno if doping was involved.
And now they're back in the game, challenging DQS and Ineos in the biggest stage races.

Hindley was always a good climber. But today was something else.
 
I remember me and a few users saying that Sunweb was one of the strongest/one of the most suspicious teams in terms of GT riding back in 2017/2018 and I expected Sunweb to take over the GT reign from Sky. Then last year they were nowhere and I thought it was a 2 year rise that had an end but they seem to be back in the game.
 
I know about Sunweb from behind the scenes and they are squeaky clean ...not even an asprin .In fact when Ineos and JV were all doing ketones they would NOT let their riders

I know it seems easier for some of you to believe it dodgy but its not

There is something else at play here with youngsters and lockdown ...not just at Sunweb .Lack of racing and lack of need for stamina is part of it

Sunweb were very very efficient during lockdown and have an iron hand when it comes to training

They also employ and develop the best youngsters

THis year without racing has played to the strength of v young riders imo

Though I would appreciate some inside analysis on the whole thing by a good journalist
 
Reactions: Cookster15
I know about Sunweb from behind the scenes and they are squeaky clean ...not even an asprin .In fact when Ineos and JV were all doing ketones they would NOT let their riders

I know it seems easier for some of you to believe it dodgy but its not

There is something else at play here with youngsters and lockdown ...not just at Sunweb .Lack of racing and lack of need for stamina is part of it

Sunweb were very very efficient during lockdown and have an iron hand when it comes to training

They also employ and develop the best youngsters

THis year without racing has played to the strength of v young riders imo

Though I would appreciate some inside analysis on the whole thing by a good journalist
I don't find Sunweb particularly dodgy, but if they were indeed entirely clean that would bode well for cycling in general, because then obviously you can be extremely competitive without doping, not only as a single rider, but as a whole team.
Honestly as much as I would wish it to be true, it seems too good to be true.
I am not doubting though they are doing a lot of things right with their training methods and they seem to be at the sharp end regarding newer scientific knowledge.
 
It's a strange difference between yesterday and Etna. Some of it is explainable because the GC had not taken shape until the Etna, but surely Hindley who rode practically everyone into the ground from the front yesterday would have done better on the Etna.

And yes, I understand that it could have been a 'worse' day for Hindley on the Etna. But it still means that he has improved massively this year which rightfully makes people suspicious.

And yes, I know that he is young, I know his U23 results. But I can't really think of a previous performance close to this one, so it may be seen that an improvement in his performance accelerated quite massively in or around (slightly after) the period of limited racing.
 
I know the mom of a Sunweb rider personally, she contacts me to talk about him, how he's doing etc every now and then. The team even denied him to get treated for an injury because they are so anal about what chemicals they might get in their body even when a TUE would be the most logical solution. They actually sent the rider knowingly injured into the race, where he had to abandon after +/-70km.

I think Sunweb might be a sh!t team, but i doubt they have an elaborate doping scheme going on.

I'll also quote myself from the Fuglsang 's watts topic since it is relevant to Sunweb's efforts:

Also, this Giro had already a rather weak-ish field before it started, but with Yates, Thomas, Vlasov, Kruijswijk + Jumbo Visma entirely, Lopez... gone (a total of 40 riders already have DNF), it isn't that hard to believe that the overall pace / difficulty has also dropped, making it easier to control a race without spending too much energy, hence saving energy for the actual climbs.
 
Last edited:
It's a strange difference between yesterday and Etna. Some of it is explainable because the GC had not taken shape until the Etna, but surely Hindley who rode practically everyone into the ground from the front yesterday would have done better on the Etna.

And yes, I understand that it could have been a 'worse' day for Hindley on the Etna. But it still means that he has improved massively this year which rightfully makes people suspicious.

And yes, I know that he is young, I know his U23 results. But I can't really think of a previous performance close to this one, so it may be seen that an improvement in his performance accelerated quite massively in or around (slightly after) the period of limited racing.
Maybe in Etna he was saving himself? Agree it was an incredible ride by him to Piancavallo . I hope he is clean or at least as "clean" as everyone else.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY