Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Catwhoorg]

No way is Houvenaghal loyal; theoretically screwed over twice - first for IP 08 (Romero brought in relatively late and fast tracked, even though WH was already there or there abouts, as proved by the silver), then of course TP 12. Not a chance.

Romero? meh, depends. If they WERE doping, she's probably exhibit a or b herself, so she might keep schtoom - would worth a question though - but gut says Houvenaghal is your girl.

Indeed. She was treated in a pretty bad manner especially in 2012.

Any journalist who wanted to probe the link would know where to go.

 

[peloton]

No, not really. If Froome was the one to have that all-time talent, then his circuitous route to the top and transition from also-ran to dominator is not the path people would expect from somebody having that talent naturally. Peter Sagan, for example, is a good example of a route to the top people might have expected from somebody with an all-time-great natural talent level. I don't know whether Sagan is doping or not, and I do have my suspicions of him, but he arrived on the World Tour aged 19, and in his very first stage race appeared in a queen stage breakaway with Evans, Valverde and LLS. Sure, it was only the Tour Down Under, but he immediately put down a marker that said "this guy is outrageously talented". Or, if you want to insist on GT contenders since that's the kind of rider Froome is, try Nairo Quintana. His rise has been very fast, but he was pegged as a potential world beater from the word go. Froome, to put it mildly, wasn't. So why would it be him that was the first to show that level clean and not, say, Alejandro Valverde, who destroyed every race he entered as a kid and went undefeated for three years from ages 11 to 14? I mean, Valverde's rise is the kind of thing we might expect, it's just that we know somewhere along the line - we don't know where - he started doping, so where his actual talent level is can be debated.

Even with Froome's unusual path into cycling, which grants him a great deal more leeway than others in terms of allowing for a slower and/or later progression, if he really was capable of putting out these performance levels we'd have had more to point to than lasting slightly longer than Johan van Summeren and finishing 9 minutes down in the TDF queen stage, and a top 20 in the TT a couple of days later, over three years before his transformation. If he is the guy who can best the péloton's best doped times clean, surely he should be beating guys like Haijun Ma, who is the same age, against the clock in the B Games? Surely he should have been able to out-TT guys like Velits and Daniel Spence in the mountain TT at the Giro del Capo, since he's got the natural talent as both a TT rider and a climber despite never going in a wind tunnel, to match people who spank those guys to all parts? Surely he shouldn't be losing 11km hillclimb races by 3 minutes, and being beaten by guys like Andrey Medyannikov? It speaks volumes that in 2009, when Team Sky were being first talked of in the press and the first media bluster was being presented, and they talked of a British Tour winner in 5 years, they were scoffed at. Who was going to be a British Tour winner, they said? Wiggins was, at that time, a one-hit wonder, and 2010 would have seemed to have indicated he may not be the guy going forward. Geraint Thomas was heavily hyped, Peter Kennaugh even more so, after his impressive Girobio, indicating a British rider who could legitimately climb. Froome was barely mentioned even as a footnote. And this was before his results turned south due to bilharzia, so that justification can't really be used here either.

Froome showed in his Konica Minolta and Barloworld days enough talent to say he was worth keeping an eye on. As I've said before, I thought he could develop into a pretty useful pro level mountain domestique or GC hand for a smaller race. I had a guy like Chris Anker Sørensen in mind as to the kind of level I expected of him. Some people may have expected more, but I simply do not believe anybody who claims they looked at Chris Froome in 2007-9 and said "that is the guy who will be the first to topple the best doped times of the EPO generation clean". They're liars, each and every one of them. Even those like blackcat who say they thought Froome could legitimately be a GT-winning talent acknowledge that he's probably doping, but take the stance that all of them at the business end are doping and Froome is talented enough to be there at the head of the field on merit.

Excellent post once again LS.

 

[Ripper]

Hence why I bang on and on about investigating the man who got him in, De Jongh - one man we know for certainty worked at Sky and Knew what Leinders was willing to do.

And of course is now working with a resurgent Bertie.

If there was enough hunger for it, one could certainly follow the support staff and the performances and with some really good investigative journalism (or other investigative prowess), really start digging down the rabbit hole.

Funny thing is - while such investigations are not rocket science, look at how much effort and time it took to make it really clear what Armstrong did!

 

[SundayRider]

A suspicion of what?

Leinders is not suspected of being Chicken's doctor. We know he was. There's hard evidence.

We're pretty sure he's doped riders at Rabo. He's been outed by riders in the know as Rabo had a 'cleanout'. That's not a suspicion, it's hard evidence.

We know he was employed by Sky, and that they 'relaxed' their ZTP non-traditional doctor rules to do it. that's not suspicion, he was listed on the team website, and Brailsford all but admitted they were relaxing the rule. that's not suspicion, that's hard evidence.

It's the jump to what he did at Sky that requires the 'suspicion'. And given his appalling background, it's an absolutely legitimate suspicion. It stinks. BUT, the dots to what he did there have not really been joined past that stage. We have a justifiable fog of doubt and mistrust, but no clear evidence.

Hence why I bang on and on about investigating the man who got him in, De Jongh - one man we know for certainty worked at Sky and Knew what Leinders was willing to do.

Leinders doped Levi Leiphimer too.

 

[the sceptic]

I agree with your assessment of Froome's early years and I scoffed at Skys claims that that they would have a British tour winner in five years. Interestingly one is Belgium by birth and the other Kenyan and I won't get into marginal gains.

What is Froome on that seems to be the exception to the rule? Why has no one else shown this spectacular rise?

Many riders have shown a spectacular rise like this. (although to be fair, not quite on the same level as Froome but still)

Some examples: Sir Bjarne Riis, Aitor Gonzalez, Santi Perez, Ricco, Cobo, Mosquera.. etc

Take a guess at what they had in common.

 

[BYOP88]

Many riders have shown a spectacular rise like this. (although to be fair, not quite on the same level as Froome but still)

Some examples: Sir Bjarne Riis, Aitor Gonzalez, Santi Perez, Ricco, Cobo, Mosquera.. etc

Take a guess at what they had in common.

I'm delighted that Bjarne finally got his 'Sir' award.

My guess is, they all rode bikes very fast and were great guys who donated blood for medical research.

 

[martinvickers]

And of course is now working with a resurgent Bertie.

You think you are alone thinking that?

I've been banging on about De Jongh for months. When people were asking why Brailsford picked Leinders in the first place, I mentioned De Jongh. I said, it's one thing Brailsford not knowing the full Rabobank drama (DB actually had a rep as pretty ignorant of road cycling), possibly - but de Jongh damn well knew. Why had he not warned Brailsford and co? Well, lo, it turned out he'd been the one recommended him!

Posters think I'm trying to hide wrongdoing - I've texted Walsh and Kimmage several times to chase down De jongh. Probably too late now, he's in the Tinkoff bus, he'll keep schtoom. But journos could at least try.


I've banged on about getting Houvenaghal, Jon Paul (young scot track sprinter controversially dumped by sutton from BC), and other cast-asides from the BC programme - Bellis, Mayho..riders with no real career to lose. Response? Nada.

If there was enough hunger for it, one could certainly follow the support staff and the performances and with some really good investigative journalism (or other investigative prowess), really start digging down the rabbit hole.

Funny thing is - while such investigations are not rocket science, look at how much effort and time it took to make it really clear what Armstrong did!

There's no substitute, in the end, for the hard yards.

Think Sky are crooked, want them taken down? Gonna take effort, and it's gonna take time.

But I'd argue, the appetite among the journo grupetto for allowing another Armstrong/Festina is as low as it's ever been.

Look at that vial on the road story. Years ago it would have been a rumour that might have got a mention in a book one day, or more likely hushed up entirely. Today? Within 24 hours its in the telegraph, within 24 hrs the pres of UCI himself is directing it towards 4 possible test routes, within 48 hrs it's been picked up for testing by UKAD in full glare of publicity. We'll see what happens, but that's all new, and FAR FAR quicker than of old.

JTL story was leaked within days of the Worlds; Henao story got out real quick.

Walsh spilled the beans on JTL. whatever you think of him, he's clearly got people inside UCI, by his own admission, and clearly someone inside Sky willing to talk to him. Give it time, and give him and his peers some rope.

If only as much effort was put in to investigating as pontificating....

 

[martinvickers]

Leinders doped Levi Leiphimer too.

I think the verdict is long in on what Leinders was willing to do. It's getting the evidence to pin new charges on him requires the effort.

 

[SundayRider]

I think the verdict is long in on what Leinders was willing to do. It's getting the evidence to pin new charges on him requires the effort.

True. He was one of the redacted names in LL affidavit I believe.

 

[Benotti69]

The sport may have got a new President, but it is business as usual.

 

[blackcat]

They're liars, each and every one of them. Even those like blackcat who say they thought Froome could legitimately be a GT-winning talent acknowledge that he's probably doping, but take the stance that all of them at the business end are doping and Froome is talented enough to be there at the head of the field on merit.

i said, Froome was definitely doping.

definitely.

but I was a supporter of his

was/am

 

[Justinr]

Wiggo, genuine question. If making the BP look clean is so easy, why did Sky not do that for Henao, a valuable Tour asset?

I agree - why would Sky not try to hide it? Why would Sky try to make any of their riders look dodgy - it makes no sense. I f they want to get rid then they have enough to pay them off - or you just give them a crap race calendar that wants them to request a move.

 

[The Hitch]

But I'd argue, the appetite among the journo grupetto for allowing another Armstrong/Festina is as low as it's ever been.

Look at that vial on the road story. Years ago it would have been a rumour that might have got a mention in a book one day, or more likely hushed up entirely. Today? Within 24 hours its in the telegraph, within 24 hrs the pres of UCI himself is directing it towards 4 possible test routes, within 48 hrs it's been picked up for testing by UKAD in full glare of publicity. We'll see what happens, but that's all new, and FAR FAR quicker than of old.

JTL story was leaked within days of the Worlds; Henao story got out real quick.

If only as much effort was put in to investigating as pontificating....

And here is the version that would have been posted 15 years ago

But I'd argue, the appetite among the journo grupetto for allowing another Festina is as low as it's ever been.

Look at Pantani. Years ago there was no blood test. Everyone was doping up to 60 even maybe 70% it was nuts. Now they are taking their blood, measuring it, as well as advances in the testing itself. Any doping riders do is massively limited and dopers are taking as significant risk by doing it. Even Pantani fell. We see a total revamp of the guys winning, now, they are younger, not part of that old doping mentality. Almost certainly cleaner, like Heras, Hamilton, Beloki, all of whom emerged recently, just as the UCI began enforcing the 50% limit? Is that a coincidence? not likely

Its worth more riding clean now than it is taking risks on small time doping, and never knowing when you might get caught.

Times are slower as well. The dopers had their window, the 5 or 6 years when anti doping got caught out a bit. Now there is a World Anti doping agency, the UCI is serious about doping, they are measuring blood, taking hundreds of tests each race, doping coaches like willy voet, have been kicked out of the sport.

They've got all the bases covered and they are telling the dopers - party's over boys, there's nothing you can do that we don't know about.

If only as much effort was put in to investigating as pontificating....

This is going to be a very clean decade. I feel it.

10 years ago

But I'd argue, the appetite among the journo grupetto for allowing doped riders like Pantani Riis to steal their show is as low as it's ever been.

Look at the number of people testing positive. Even big guys like, FVDB, Simoni and Garzelli are not immune. Every single drug these guys take is on the banned list. . Years ago it would have been a rumour that might have got a mention in a book one day, or more likely hushed up entirely. Today? Within 24 hours its in every newspaper and they are releasing statements, even for small stuff like cocaine.

Look at Gaumont. You think anyone would have listened to him a few years ago. Hell no - no one listened to Bassons. Today there just isn't that complacency. Everyone is on full alert, and when Gaumont speaks, the world listens, and people go down. The dopers are really on the back foot, and starting to realize its better to be clean. You have new guys like Cunego and Botero and Di Luca coming through. These are young guys, the young generation. Young which means they are clean. They are finally emerging and its because the testing has improved so much dopers just can't win anymore.


If only as much effort was put in to investigating as pontificating....[/

5 years ago

But I'd argue, the appetite among the journo grupetto for allowing another Landis, is as low as ever. They've had enough.

Look at Astarolza, Ricco, Di Luca, Piepoli. Last year everyone just started falling, and not small drugs actual EPO. Its clear the UCI has caught up with the dopers. You just can't use EPO, anymore in cycling. That era is over. Steven Roche was just on radio saying he believes this will be the cleanest Tour de France ever. You have young guys like Contador and Schleck and Nibali and Kreuziger, who did not grow up in that era, emerging its their turn now.

And valjavec shows the blood passport is tightly monitoring everyone. a few years ago there was no blood passport and guys like Ferrari could work their way around the tests. Now Ferrari and Fuentes and Lienders are out of a job. They just cant dope their riders anymore cos the blood passport will be onto them quicker than Vino rode that tt. There is just no more room for doping. Gone are the 23 minute ascents of Bonsacre or 57 minutes up Ventoux.

Look at Wiggins speaking out against Landis. THis is a guy who clearly would rather ride in the grupetto his whole career than dope and get top 10's at the Tour. He will never be anything but hostile to anyone who is doping, and that's the kind of people we see now in the grupetto. A few years ago they were scared to speak out, against the likes of Landis and Vinokourov. Now they realize its their race and anyone they even suspect is anything but clean, they will kick their ***.

Look at Rasmussen at the Tour. THe moment a rumour came that he had not been where he said he was- he was OUT. O-U-T. 10 years ago the press would have ignored it, but now they won't accept it for a second. Any suspicion of doping, goodbye.

And Puerto. Sank half the world. Dopers falling everywhere.

If only as much effort was put in to investigating as pontificating....

 

[The Hitch]

Walsh spilled the beans on JTL. whatever you think of him, he's clearly got people inside UCI, by his own admission, and clearly someone inside Sky willing to talk to him. Give it time, and give him and his peers some rope.

So does **** Pound and Michael Ashenden was actually inside himself. Both these people know more about doping and how it works than Walsh will ever know, and both have reached very different conclusions to what he has. They also managed to present these conclusions without A) directly contradicting loads of stuff they said before and b) falsely accusing anyone who disagrees as being an Armstrong fan.

 

[The Hitch]

I agree - why would Sky not try to hide it? Why would Sky try to make any of their riders look dodgy - it makes no sense. I f they want to get rid then they have enough to pay them off - or you just give them a crap race calendar that wants them to request a move.

lol, you really want to start playing the - "does it make sense" game? I think you'll find there be a hell of a lot more ammunition on one side than the other, if that's the route you want to go down.

 

[Benotti69]

And here is the version that would have been posted 15 years ago



10 years ago



5 years ago

Great work, plus ça change.

 

[the sceptic]

lol at Walsh spilling the beans on JTL. Walsh was just around when the phonecall came in, or they gave it to their pet journalist to soften the blow.

If Walsh hadnt "spilled the beans" the story would still come out.

But maybe I just have to read his articles to understand.

 

[The Hitch]

Great work, plus ça change.

One may also note that those 3 were fare better arguments for cycling changing than the fact that some journos have massively overblown a story about pills on the road.

I mean you have a race won by a team that has one of the dodgiest doctors in sport, podiumed by Cancellara and all the **** he has to his name, and the journos are focusing on sensationalism.

This is supposed to be an argument for cycling changing?

 

[Benotti69]

lol at Walsh spilling the beans on JTL. Walsh was just around when the phonecall came in, or they gave it to their pet journalist to soften the blow.

If Walsh hadnt "spilled the beans" the story would still come out.

But maybe I just have to read his articles to understand.

Walsh was used to distance JTL from Sky, IMO.

JTL didn't sell all his Sky stuff on ebay for any other reason then Sky gave him the bullet.

 

[Benotti69]

One may also note that those 3 were fare better arguments for cycling changing than the fact that some journos have massively overblown a story about pills on the road.

I mean you have a race won by a team that has one of the dodgiest doctors in sport, podiumed by Cancellara and all the **** he has to his name, and the journos are focusing on sensationalism.

This is supposed to be an argument for cycling changing?

I have yet to see anything, apart from the French criminalising doping*, that would have made the sport give up on doping.

*Not to many are based in France and those that are tend to be near borders with other countries.

 

[martinvickers]

lol, you really want to start playing the - "does it make sense" game? I think you'll find there be a hell of a lot more ammunition on one side than the other, if that's the route you want to go down.

how about you lose the smug and simply answer the mans question - not bring up stuff he didn't mention, just answer his question.

 

[Benotti69]

One law for one.....

how about you lose the smug and simply answer the mans question - not bring up stuff he didn't mention, just answer his question.

......? More to the point, what business is it of yours coming in 'third man'?

 

[The Hitch]

how about you lose the smug and simply answer the mans question - not bring up stuff he didn't mention, just answer his question.

Question has nothing to do with me.

Observe.

Making the BP look anomalous or clean is even easier.

Wiggo, genuine question. If making the BP look clean is so easy, why did Sky not do that for Henao, a valuable Tour asset?

I agree - why would Sky not try to hide it? Why would Sky try to make any of their riders look dodgy - it makes no sense. I f they want to get rid then they have enough to pay them off - or you just give them a crap race calendar that wants them to request a move.

DW said the thing about the BP. I didn't. I am not going to answer a question that was never directed at me regarding comments I never made.

 

[Ripper]

You think you are alone thinking that?

Nope ... that's why I worded it the way I did. I think a fair few folks should have that pretty straight.

... I've texted Walsh and Kimmage several times to chase down De jongh. Probably too late now, he's in the Tinkoff bus, he'll keep schtoom. But journos could at least try ... But I'd argue, the appetite among the journo grupetto for allowing another Armstrong/Festina is as low as it's ever been.

I find this observation interesting and insightful. There is a much quicker reaction and we do have more 'results' than we used to, and very quickly.
However, there still does seem to be a lot of will (or perhaps cash) to really dig. To put in the "hard yards" as you say.

Yup - SdJ and Dr. L might be one of the magic teams.

 

[sniper]

I've been banging on about De Jongh for months. When people were asking why Brailsford picked Leinders in the first place, I mentioned De Jongh. I said, it's one thing Brailsford not knowing the full Rabobank drama (DB actually had a rep as pretty ignorant of road cycling), possibly - but de Jongh damn well knew. Why had he not warned Brailsford and co? Well, lo, it turned out he'd been the one recommended him!

why not bang on about the guy running team sky?
there's enough dodginess surrounding brailsford even if we ignore de jongh.
no need to repeat all the contradictions, half-truths and doping-related events that brailsford has on his CV, but its plenty.
nobody in here can honestly pretend to think brailsford didn't know who leinders was.
the best part is that, in addition, sky want us to believe that brailsford didn't know about de jongh's past (or about the others who had to leave sky due to ztp).