Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Graham_S]

Massive improvement out of nowhere?

Where have we heard that before....

He had shown potential, then been ill.

Obviously hindesight is a wonderful thing.

 

[RownhamHill]

That would be a fair point - if it was the same person.
I have never argued that "it is impossible to catch Sky doping" - so now that I have taken the straw from your post, would you care to discuss why Sky (who are ZTP) would end up hiring a guy who goes positive?

Is that a standard you would accept from such a self righteous team?

I've got to say it's this kind of stuff that I find a bit silly on this forum. Why would any team who profess to be ZTP (or any team for that matter) hire a guy who goes positive? I think the most likely answer is because they didn't know he was going to go positive? (Unless you're seriously going to suggest that any team would hire someone knowing that they were guaranteed to go positive the following season, with the associated bad publicity and guilt by association that would bring the team.)

So I guess the important questions are whether the team was involved in the positive (either by encouraging doping, offering doping, or just turning a blind eye to 'freelance' activities). From the rumours we've heard about this case it looks like the anomolous was from 2012, so there isn't strong evidence to suggest Sky were involved in doping JTL in 2013, so then the next question is whether they should have taken the risk on that particular rider in the first place? Because, let's face it, hiring any rider brings with it a risk that they have doped in the past, are doping now, or might dope in the future.

So, if Sky weren't involved in actually doping JTL they are guilty of a bad risk assessment in signing him. Why did they make that mistake? I don't know, but the perceived self-righteousness of the team doesn't really come into it, accept in the distribution of schadenfreude after the fact does it?

 

[MartinGT]

He had shown potential, then been ill.

Obviously hindesight is a wonderful thing.

Bless you.

So he comes out of illness, has a decent ToB 2011 taking the KOM classification. Then the year after he smashes a load of WT riders at Tour of Med, Tour du Haut Var. He then was second to a little rider called Quintana at Vuelta Murcia.

Then IIRC Broke his collar bone at a Premier Calender race. So who knows where the rise could have stopped.

Returns, places decent at Route de Sud and then wins Tour Alsace, then smashes the sh!t out of people like Samu Sanchez, Haas, Van Vanmarcke etc.

Prior to this? Aye, MASSIVE potential shown.

 

[Graham_S]

Bless you.

So he comes out of illness, has a decent ToB 2011 taking the KOM classification. Then the year after he smashes a load of WT riders at Tour of Med, Tour du Haut Var. He then was second to a little rider called Quintana at Vuelta Murcia.

Then IIRC Broke his collar bone at a Premier Calender race. So who knows where the rise could have stopped.

Returns, places decent at Route de Sud and then wins Tour Alsace, then smashes the sh!t out of people like Samu Sanchez, Haas, Van Vanmarcke etc.

Prior to this? Aye, MASSIVE potential shown.

I had thought he was a very very good U23?

Clearly the people on here who think 100% of everyone dopes are having a great time with the "I told you so's"

 

[The Hitch]

Tbf to sky, Jtls transformation absolutely pales in comparison to the ones undergone by their own riders so I understand why they may have not noticed it.

 

[MartinGT]

I had thought he was a very very good U23?

Clearly the people on here who think 100% of everyone dopes are having a great time with the "I told you so's"

I am not like some on here who think Sky were involved in his doping. However, I do think they have turned a blind eye and got their fingers burnt.

Sky make out they leave no stone unturned, attention to minute detail is key, marginal gains etc. Yet for some reason they dont do due dilligance on a rider thats smashed everyone that year (including a fantastic WC ride) after seemingly nothing in comparison a few years before.

He may have been a great U23 rider. But we have seen great U23 riders failing to make it at pro ranks and thats without, what, 3 year break due to illness? So he has a break from racing, comes back, is ok and then *bang* right back on it.

Sorry if you buy it, but I dont.

But thats Sky I suppose, they seem to be able to pick riders that have this secret "potential" and make them the world beaters that the were destined to be!

 

[sniper]

Tbf to sky, Jtls transformation absolutely pales in comparison to the ones undergone by their own riders so I understand why they may have not noticed it.

lol
10 chars...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

But thats Sky I suppose, they seem to be able to pick riders that have this secret "potential" and make them the world beaters that the were destined to be!

Going as far as saying as much in the media.

 

[SundayRider]

I am not like some on here who think Sky were involved in his doping. However, I do think they have turned a blind eye and got their fingers burnt.

Sky make out they leave no stone unturned, attention to minute detail is key, marginal gains etc. Yet for some reason they dont do due dilligance on a rider thats smashed everyone that year (including a fantastic WC ride) after seemingly nothing in comparison a few years before.

He may have been a great U23 rider. But we have seen great U23 riders failing to make it at pro ranks and thats without, what, 3 year break due to illness? So he has a break from racing, comes back, is ok and then *bang* right back on it.

Sorry if you buy it, but I dont.

But thats Sky I suppose, they seem to be able to pick riders that have this secret "potential" and make them the world beaters that the were destined to be!

Either way it doesn't look good for sky, they either A) Doped him or B) Were very very careless which completely goes against the teams 'highly scientific, no stone unturned' principles.

 

[Graham_S]

Either way it doesn't look good for sky, they either A) Doped him or B) Were very very careless which completely goes against the teams 'highly scientific, no stone unturned' principles.

Or C) there was no evidence against him to be found.

Performances are not evidence. They just aren't. Yes they can be suspicous but that is pretty much it.

 

[SundayRider]

Or C) there was no evidence against him to be found.

Performances are not evidence. They just aren't. Yes they can be suspicous but that is pretty much it.

Performances aren't evidence, however when they are put into context with past performances they become very strong indicators.

 

[gillan1969]

Or C) there was no evidence against him to be found.

Performances are not evidence. They just aren't. Yes they can be suspicous but that is pretty much it.

well...when you have preparatores who can cheat tests and when the governing body is corrupt in any event...the fan has nothing left to use but performance....hence we can roll around laughing at Wiggins, Froome and JTL....and we do

whilst others can match their performances...none have risen so quickly or fallen away so fast.....that, in Brailsford's own words, is the smoking gun...

 

[Benotti69]

Or C) there was no evidence against him to be found.

Performances are not evidence. They just aren't. Yes they can be suspicous but that is pretty much it.

Tell that to the Journalist who embedded with Sky last year who called out the top 3 at La Vuelta'12 as doped based on their performances.

Also Sky have previously stated that attacking up mountains is not possible in the clean era, so they have alluded to performances as a form of evidence of doping.

Performance cannot be used as evidence to ban a rider, but it sure can be used as evidence of PEDs.

 

[MartinGT]

Or C) there was no evidence against him to be found.

Performances are not evidence. They just aren't. Yes they can be suspicous but that is pretty much it.

Errrr......WTF.........

 

[Graham_S]

So... if performance indicates PED's should the first x number of riders accross the line in any race be automatically disqualified?

What is the point of actually watching a cycle race or any sport if you can't take joy in an exceptional performance? If the current crop of cyclists do prove to be as dirty as the last crop I'll stop watching.

 

[SundayRider]

So... if performance indicates PED's should the first x number of riders accross the line in any race be automatically disqualified?

What is the point of actually watching a cycle race or any sport if you can't take joy in an exceptional performance? If the current crop of cyclists do prove to be as dirty as the last crop I'll stop watching.

You watch it for what it is...virtually no era has ever been clean, hence suspicion by performance, athletics is very similar in this respect.

 

[Netserk]

So... if performance indicates PED's should the first x number of riders accross the line in any race be automatically disqualified?

What is the point of actually watching a cycle race or any sport if you can't take joy in an exceptional performance? If the current crop of cyclists do prove to be as dirty as the last crop I'll stop watching.

Why shouldn't I be able to enjoy doped performances?

 

[The Hitch]

Why shouldn't I be able to enjoy doped performances?

Cos Mullah Graham and the cycling Taliban say so.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Bringing this conversation out of the Movistar thread

He's definitely not going to Alonso's team then?

He has said no*.



*This of course is an athletes "no" which carries zero weight.



If he wants another couple of years serious hard work and some results on the road Alonso would be possible. If he wants Gold on the track in Rio, and looking to the road more like he did pre-2008, Sky is an obvious fit.

Whilst money is obviously important, this contract really is about where he really wants his goals to be. I'm not sure even he knows for sure right now.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The no reminded me of his time at Garmin, but I didn't check the exact wording used back then, so it's just a feeling...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I've got to say it's this kind of stuff that I find a bit silly on this forum. Why would any team who profess to be ZTP (or any team for that matter) hire a guy who goes positive? I think the most likely answer is because they didn't know he was going to go positive? (Unless you're seriously going to suggest that any team would hire someone knowing that they were guaranteed to go positive the following season, with the associated bad publicity and guilt by association that would bring the team.)

So I guess the important questions are whether the team was involved in the positive (either by encouraging doping, offering doping, or just turning a blind eye to 'freelance' activities). From the rumours we've heard about this case it looks like the anomolous was from 2012, so there isn't strong evidence to suggest Sky were involved in doping JTL in 2013, so then the next question is whether they should have taken the risk on that particular rider in the first place? Because, let's face it, hiring any rider brings with it a risk that they have doped in the past, are doping now, or might dope in the future.

So, if Sky weren't involved in actually doping JTL they are guilty of a bad risk assessment in signing him. Why did they make that mistake? I don't know, but the perceived self-righteousness of the team doesn't really come into it, accept in the distribution of schadenfreude after the fact does it?

All I did was ask a question - and I actually appreciate your answer, a pretty good assessment of it all.

The highlighted is my own view - I was checking to see if the other poster would address it (like you have) or spin it in to irrelevance. They spun hard.

 

[red_flanders]

Or C) there was no evidence against him to be found.

Performances are not evidence. They just aren't. Yes they can be suspicous but that is pretty much it.

Actually, they are. Not even in question.

ev·i·dence

noun
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Performances are however not proof. People do seem to get those words confused pretty often. The powers that be have decided that performances are not enough evidence to sanction anyone, and that's the correct decision. But evidence they are, and in some cases the evidence is overwhelming.

 

[bobbins]

Evidently Garmin were looking at signing LTL so Dave B decided to sign him despite being advised against it by others in the team. Another of his ego signings that didn't work out.

 

[red_flanders]

Either way it doesn't look good for sky, they either A) Doped him or B) Were very very careless which completely goes against the teams 'highly scientific, no stone unturned' principles.

Or C) Saw what he was doing, realized (as anyone would) that there was a decent chance he was doping to get those results and weren't bothered by it.

 

[the sceptic]

Actually, they are. Not even in question.

ev·i·dence

noun
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Performances are however not proof. People do seem to get those words confused pretty often. The powers that be have decided that performances are not enough evidence to sanction anyone, and that's the correct decision. But evidence they are, and in some cases the evidence is overwhelming.

Good post.

Of course the evidence the bots are looking for is a positive test, so this is just another way of saying "never tested positive"