Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Justinr]

The miracle is not in the cure of bilharzia, as much as it is in Froome NOT being cured from bilharzia in the normal timeframe.

Which normally should be treated with stuff like Praziquantel, for which miraculously, side effects are treated with, of all things, corticosteroids.
That leaves a lot of speculation, and of course, tinfoil hats to be adjusted, but you can at least say that its very funny. Christopher Froome; at least hes got better humour than Armstrong.

If he was taking corticosteroids he'd need a TUE - and that would be easy to find out.

 

[thehog]

Of course you don't have a problem with the data being released, but what is the motivation for the riders or teams? When has releasing blood adat cleared anything up? Wiggins in 2009? Or Hesjedal in 2012? Did that conclusively prove anything either way? Or Horner last year? Nothing was accomplished, no whispers silenced, in fact in all three cases only made the clamour get louder. I see so many times posters here demanding teams release data to prove they are clean, yet I haven't actually seen it work that way.

The bit is missed is if it's ALL made publicly available you have this nice collection of data that tells the story month on month, year on year for everyone.

You can see a passport for a Froome/Contador compared to a guy coming 123rd etc.

If riders withdraw en-masse later you can see if there was anything untoward.

You get the point? It stops the background work going on, the unknown. It's actually doping prevention through the fact the blood values are public.

Means the UCI or anyone else cannot manipulate the result like with Armstrong's passport.

A good and effective governing body needs to be accountable.

I think a lot of riders would appreciate it. Would stop donkey/racehorse conclusions been drawn.

 

[Catwhoorg]

All rider data for all teams released would be awesome. Illegal under EU privacy laws probably, but awesome

One rider or even a whole team is transparent for sure, but would raise more questions than it answers. Its a risky move. Any and every slight deviation can be questioned, even those easily explained.

Besides Horner there are only a couple of 'full career' data sets out there, all the ones I know from people sanctioned for doping.

There really isn't a good baseline for Joe Public, (in terms of what a clean cyclist actually looks like over several years) no matter how good at analysis, to make useful conclusions except in the most blatant of EPO and blood doping cases.

 

[Catwhoorg]

If I win a billion dollars with a perfect March Madness bracket and fund my own cycling team, I'll have a condition of contract that all biopassport information is released on ongoing basis (probably the whole year at a time).

Or should that go in the manifesto thread.

(It will have to be 2015 or later, as I already had my bracket busted this year)

 

[The Hitch]

Because as shown when blood values are released it accomplishes nothing, or did you miss me making that point already?

Do you want everybodys blood values, or just Wiggins'?

I didn't ask for anyone's blood values. I just found it hillarious that you come in here spend 2 years ridiculing the clinic about how unimportant it is and then the second it suits your argument you do a Walsh "speeds don't matter anymore" and start acting like Sky should base their pr on what the clinic wants.

 

[Benotti69]

So all you're going on is that you think its impossible to turn from a one day rider to a grand tour rider then ...

As I said - no smoking guns: dodgy steroid readings, soigneurs, hospital confessions, etc, etc

You forgot, Doping Doctor, check, ex dopers (Barry, Rogers, De Jongh, Yates) check, saying they were going to be fully transparent and not being transparent (ie Lying) check.

Can you point to any clean GT winners who came from the grupetto late and middle of their careers to win the biggest and hardest GT event, TdF?

Because this is what Wiggins and Froome have done against any ones expectations even Sky's.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I didn't ask for anyone's blood values. I just found it hillarious that you come in here spend 2 years ridiculing the clinic about how unimportant it is and then the second it suits your argument you do a Walsh "speeds don't matter anymore" and start acting like Sky should base their pr on what the clinic wants.

Hitch you make no sense, as usual. I'm still saying releasing blood values accomplishes nothing. I thought I just made that point, at least twice. Where am I saying Sky should base their PR on what the clinic wants? Where did I use those words exactly? Seriously is this a poor attempt at a strawman because you have lost me

 

[thehog]

All rider data for all teams released would be awesome. Illegal under EU privacy laws probably, but awesome

One rider or even a whole team is transparent for sure, but would raise more questions than it answers. Its a risky move. Any and every slight deviation can be questioned, even those easily explained.

Besides Horner there are only a couple of 'full career' data sets out there, all the ones I know from people sanctioned for doping.

There really isn't a good baseline for Joe Public, (in terms of what a clean cyclist actually looks like over several years) no matter how good at analysis, to make useful conclusions except in the most blatant of EPO and blood doping cases.

Truth be told it's not the riders holding back the data but the teams. It's for the UCI to take leadership in this space. It can done. Should be done.

The UCIs reaction when Horner released his was disappointing and that was under Cookson's leadership. The door was shut from that occurring again.

 

[The Hitch]

Because, whether they are doping or not, there is absolutely nothing to be gained by doing so.

Any noble action requires sacrifice. Being anti doping, as sky claim they are, requires some sacrifice. If sky want to be legitimately anti doping then releasing blood values even if 1 or 2 people they claim not to care about anyway, read something into them, then releasing blood values is exactly the type of exercise they should do. Its a hell of a lot less than Bassons did.

Of course the other "anti doping" path is to feed the media crap like "we prove cycling is clean by winning" and then spend the rest of the year patting themselves on the back for being anti doping and then express shock when people with an iq above 50 don't buy it, and cry "what more can we do"

 

[TailWindHome]

Because this is what Wiggins and Froome have done against any ones expectations even Sky's.

I would have thought that Sky's expectations regarding Wiggins future GT performance when they signed him would have been reasonably high - no?



Froome...er.....um...not so much

 

[Benotti69]

The JTL case is prior to his involvement with Sky, so while you can accuse them of naivety you can also point to the fact he was clearly riding clean while at Sky, and that is the reason he got pinged. Haneo is suspended by the team not by the authorities, so again while you can accuse them of negligence you can at least say their intentions are right.

I understand why people want to criticise a team whose mantra is attention to detail when clearly they, like other teams and you and me make mistakes, but none of this to me adds up to the team being complicit in their rider's doping. The opposite in fact.

Ah come on Jimmy. JTL spent most of that year with Sky in Tenerife and on other training camps. While still 'officially' an Endura rider he was mostly 'unofficially' with Sky. Let's call a spade a spade here!

As for negligence, that old tired excuse. We were fed the 'marginal gains' where the team leaves no stone unturned in their attention to details to extract the best performances possible out of their riders by the clean methods, warm downs, warm ups, etc etc but they claim negligence on Henao. They cannot have it both ways! They are either the team that does the attention to details on everything, hence garnering 'marginal gains' or they are just another run of the mill pro cycling team using the run of the mill performance enhancement methods.

 

[JimmyFingers]

The bit is missed is if it's ALL made publicly available you have this nice collection of data that tells the story month on month, year on year for everyone.

You can see a passport for a Froome/Contador compared to a guy coming 123rd etc.

If riders withdraw en-masse later you can see if there was anything untoward.

You get the point? It stops the background work going on, the unknown. It's actually doping prevention through the fact the blood values are public.

Means the UCI or anyone else cannot manipulate the result like with Armstrong's passport.

A good and effective governing body needs to be accountable.

I think a lot of riders would appreciate it. Would stop donkey/racehorse conclusions been drawn.

Ok well if it all was in the public domain then yes that would have an effect, in an ideal world. The drawback is presumably you would need thorough medical records as well? That would mean riders having to waive all rights to any anonymity.

I think that is slightly utopian take on it, and while I don't disagree with it, it also seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

I also wonder whether critics would ever be satisfied even with that. You don't trust the riders or teams, you don't trust the authorities or WADA tests to catch people, so instead you want oodles of data to satisfy you? How much until you are satisfied? I just wonder if some of you would ever be convinced.

 

[SundayRider]

Ah come on Jimmy. JTL spent most of that year with Sky in Tenerife and on other training camps. While still 'officially' an Endura rider he was mostly 'unofficially' with Sky. Let's call a spade a spade here!

As for negligence, that old tired excuse. We were fed the 'marginal gains' where the team leaves no stone unturned in their attention to details to extract the best performances possible out of their riders by the clean methods, warm downs, warm ups, etc etc but they claim negligence on Henao. They cannot have it both ways! They are either the team that does the attention to details on everything, hence garnering 'marginal gains' or they are just another run of the mill pro cycling team using the run of the mill performance enhancement methods.

Great post Benotti.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Truth be told it's not the riders holding back the data but the teams. It's for the UCI to take leadership in this space. It can done. Should be done.

The UCIs reaction when Horner released his was disappointing and that was under Cookson's leadership. The door was shut from that occurring again.

I really don't know that the UCI can force the issue.

As a governing body I think they have much more constraints in terms of demanding personal data be made public, than a team can.

A team absolutely can make it part of an employment contract, as a cyclist can choose to ride for another team.

A cyclist cannot ride professionally outside of the UCI.

Would take well versed lawyer, who understands EU law, to explain it better I think.

It would be interesting if say the MPCC pushed for this to occur.

 

[Benotti69]

I would have thought that Sky's expectations regarding Wiggins future GT performance when they signed him would have been reasonably high - no?

Froome...er.....um...not so much

Brailsford knew exactly what Wiggins was capable off, was Wiggins not on TeamGB under Brailfords eye for years. I dont remember Brailsford (or anyone else) declaring Wiggins as a future TdF winner! Got a link.

Froome's rise screams doping to all but those blinded by nationalism.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Ah come on Jimmy. JTL spent most of that year with Sky in Tenerife and on other training camps. While still 'officially' an Endura rider he was mostly 'unofficially' with Sky. Let's call a spade a spade here!

As for negligence, that old tired excuse. We were fed the 'marginal gains' where the team leaves no stone unturned in their attention to details to extract the best performances possible out of their riders by the clean methods, warm downs, warm ups, etc etc but they claim negligence on Henao. They cannot have it both ways! They are either the team that does the attention to details on everything, hence garnering 'marginal gains' or they are just another run of the mill pro cycling team using the run of the mill performance enhancement methods.

Ah come on Bennotti, that is a highly subjective interpretation and also exaggerated. And of course it begs the question that if you think Sky were doping him when he was at Endura, why would they stop when he was at Sky?

And Sky makes mistakes, it doesn't equate to sophisticated team-wide doping regime as you would have us believe.

I feel myself being dragged into the vortex again, the arguments go around and around again.

 

[Benotti69]

Ok well if it all was in the public domain then yes that would have an effect, in an ideal world. The drawback is presumably you would need thorough medical records as well? That would mean riders having to waive all rights to any anonymity.

I think that is slightly utopian take on it, and while I don't disagree with it, it also seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

I also wonder whether critics would ever be satisfied even with that. You don't trust the riders or teams, you don't trust the authorities or WADA tests to catch people, so instead you want oodles of data to satisfy you? How much until you are satisfied? I just wonder if some of you would ever be convinced.

"a sledgehammer to crack a nut", you know, why not? The sport has had countless opportunities to say enough is enough. The fans deserve a clean sport. So crack it.

As for medical records, why? If these riders are doing nothing more than standard diets and healthy clean living where do the medical records come into it?

Bassons declared he never needed the team doctor. These teams have up to 4 doctors nowadays. That is a lot of saddle sores.

 

[thehog]

Ok well if it all was in the public domain then yes that would have an effect, in an ideal world. The drawback is presumably you would need thorough medical records as well? That would mean riders having to waive all rights to any anonymity.

I think that is slightly utopian take on it, and while I don't disagree with it, it also seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

I also wonder whether critics would ever be satisfied even with that. You don't trust the riders or teams, you don't trust the authorities or WADA tests to catch people, so instead you want oodles of data to satisfy you? How much until you are satisfied? I just wonder if some of you would ever be convinced.

Public companies are expected to release all of their financial data publicly each quarter. Anyone who has the neurones to view it, can.

Why not similar here? Yes RBS/Enron styled situations could occur but here we deal with one entity, the UCI, not several.

Additionally seeing the number or tests per rider, where and when is crucial information.

An alternative is to keep ride name concealed and release data by race only, or variants or this approach.

 

[JimmyFingers]

"a sledgehammer to crack a nut", you know, why not? The sport has had countless opportunities to say enough is enough. The fans deserve a clean sport. So crack it.

As for medical records, why? If these riders are doing nothing more than standard diets and healthy clean living where do the medical records come into it?

Bassons declared he never needed the team doctor. These teams have up to 4 doctors nowadays. That is a lot of saddle sores.

Yes we do deserve a clean sport, so perversely why we disagree on a lot of things we are on the same side, believe me. And I also understand the constant frustrations from the various false dawns over the years. I'm just not sure how the sport could ever convince some fans that it is clean.

Medical records would need to be part of it because medical conditions affect things like blood data and power output. You would have to qualify the numbers somehow.

 

[Race Radio]

The JTL case is prior to his involvement with Sky, so while you can accuse them of naivety you can also point to the fact he was clearly riding clean while at Sky, and that is the reason he got pinged. Haneo is suspended by the team not by the authorities, so again while you can accuse them of negligence you can at least say their intentions are right.

I understand why people want to criticise a team whose mantra is attention to detail when clearly they, like other teams and you and me make mistakes, but none of this to me adds up to the team being complicit in their rider's doping. The opposite in fact.

I have not said it does.

My point is clear, despite their claims Sky's background checks on riders and staff are weak at best and their lack of due diligence continues to result in embarrassment for the team and questions of their cleanliness

 

[JimmyFingers]

Public companies are expected to release all of their financial data publicly each quarter. Anyone who has the neurones to view it, can.

Why not similar here? Yes RBS/Enron styled situations could occur but here we deal with one entity, the UCI, not several.

Additionally seeing the number or tests per rider, where and when is crucial information.

An alternative is to keep ride name concealed and release data by race only, or variants or this approach.

I do honestly see your point, and it has validity, I'm just not sure how practical it is, or how much it would accomplish. But it certainly has merit.

 

[Digger]

I'm back!

RE: VO2 they are hiding something. Anyone with a brain would see this.

Brailsford though...the very second he was asked for it last july he started stuttering and stammering and getting defensive.

And it's not just aggressive twitter users like me, as fran millar tried to make out, it;'s guys like grappe, vayer and that journalist.

 

[Benotti69]

Ah come on Bennotti, that is a highly subjective interpretation and also exaggerated. And of course it begs the question that if you think Sky were doping him when he was at Endura, why would they stop when he was at Sky?

Who said he stopped doping while at Sky? Methods changed and JTL was a non responder, like EBH.

I believe JTLs outing was a little dig from McQuaid.

And Sky makes mistakes, it doesn't equate to sophisticated team-wide doping regime as you would have us believe.

Sure they do. But hiring Leinders was no mistake. Hiring Yates, De Jongh, Barry, Rogers, Jullich, boy that's a lot of mistakes and add JTL and Henao, one can only draw a conclusion that this is the most negligent team out there run by Homer Simpson or they are doping. I go for doping.

I feel myself being dragged into the vortex again, the arguments go around and around again.

Dr Mas and his vortex are gone so dont try that lame excuse. The arguments are not going round and around again, they were never answered satisfactorily first time and every time Sky address them it is PR BS with no substance or transparency to back up their answers to these questions.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I have not said it does.

My point is clear, despite their claims Sky's background checks on riders and staff are weak at best.

Fair enough, that is a valid criticism, and the same goes for any team who's rider gets pinged after the fact. So it is the fact that's Sky's PR is exposed as being hot air that is the problem here, not the team doping?

Sky have made a rod for their own back with their marginal gains guff. It sounds great on the back pages of the broadsheets and satisfies Mr and Mrs Bloggs sipping on their tea and eating a crumpet, but clearly the team is far from infallible. But people lining up to beat Sky with that rod for being careless doesn't make them into US Postal.

And I'm that saying that as an answer to you, as I know that isn't the case you are making, but other people are, so it is more of a general statement to that.

 

[Benotti69]

Yes we do deserve a clean sport, so perversely why we disagree on a lot of things we are on the same side, believe me. And I also understand the constant frustrations from the various false dawns over the years. I'm just not sure how the sport could ever convince some fans that it is clean.

Medical records would need to be part of it because medical conditions affect things like blood data and power output. You would have to qualify the numbers somehow.

I can only see Medical records for Froome and his Bilharzia being required to demonstrate when he got it and how it was treated etc etc, but what is the problem with that. He wants people to believe he won the TdF clean, why not show everyone you whole history?

I remember David Walsh talking on competitor radio a few years ago calling for similar. He gave the analogy of police in England wanting to solve a murder crime and asked all men in area to come in a give a DNA sample so the police could exclude them from the investigation. 5000 thousand men came in to give DNA samples to prove they were innocent. He said it was the same for athletes. If they want to be believed in their performances they would have no issue with proving as much information as they possible could.

Not providing it only points to one thing and from what we saw Wiggins, Froome, Porte, Rogers have done at Sky means doping.