Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Jspear]

There was a lot more substantial detail in the public domain to inform people about Armstrong's doping long before 10 years.

Of course there was, it just took over 10 years for the different governing bodies to do anything about it. I think that's what Afrank meant....he isn't going to wait for UKAD or WADA or however to "prove" it and take necessary action.

 

[gooner]

Of course there was, it just took over 10 years for the different governing bodies to do anything about it. I think that's what Afrank meant....he isn't going to wait for UKAD or WADA or however to "prove" it and take necessary action.

But it's in the context of what constitutes facts and evidence to help form us better opinions(see Afrank's first paragraph). That could be done a lot earlier in relation to Armstrong, long before his fall where I could say more definitively he was doping.

Just because UKAD or WADA don't have the ammunition on Froome as we currently speak, doesn't mean drawing conclusions now should be taken as the gospel truth either.

A positive isn't what people are necessarily asking for. Ballan and Santambrogio linked with Mantova and people could make up their minds better on them before they were taken down afterwards. Kreuziger is a past client of Ferrari and Nibali has his name associated with him. Rogers and the Freiburg story. We don't have a positive either with Menchov.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

You don't appear to understand what evidence is, and neither, apparently, what facts are. Not to worry, here are the basics. A fact (a true claim about the world) is evidence for the hypothesis that Froome is/has been dopingjust in case it is more likely given Froome is doping than it is given that he isn't doping.

One such fact is Froome's enormous improvement in a short time. More likely if he's doping than if he isn't, hence evidence he's doping.


No, those are true claims about the world, aka facts, that are more likely to be true if Froome dopes than if he doesn't dope. In science and statistics, we call that evidence.

The facts that you, Afrank and Hitch refer to are evidence, suggesting Froome doped. But they are not proof at least not necessarily.

For facts to prove something there has to be a standard as to the quality of the facts. That is why in legal systems you have to prove something (a) beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal case or (b) on a balance of probabilities in civil cases.

The legal standard in doping cases seems to be "to the comfortable satisfaction" of the arbitrators. This is sort of an in between standard from criminal cases and civil cases in the conventional legal system

Some facts carry more weight than other facts and in the end you have to weigh all the various facts and ascribe weight to them and then arrive at your "verdict" or opinion. Some people will put more weight on some facts than others, but that is okay because we are human beings and we bring our biases into this process.

In the real legal system this process if called "weighing the evidence" and it is what judges and juries do everyday, except that they are cautioned to be impartial and not bring their personal biases into the process. Therefore in the real legal system, at least theoretically, we can be more confident as to the opinions that are arrived at. But this process of "impartially" in weighing the evidence does not occur in the Clinic because we all bring our biases.

In the Clinic the standard varies from poster to poster, but whatever a person's individual standard may be as Afrank points out they are entitled to their opinions. But as Afrank has previously pointed out "...Is it speculation, sure. But speculation makes up 90% of the clinic and much of the rest of the forum."

All I am trying to do here is insert some context into this discussion to point out that opinions are just that - opinions.

 

[Netserk]

But it's in the context of what constitutes facts and evidence to help form us better opinions(see Afrank's first paragraph). That could be done a lot earlier in relation to Armstrong, long before his fall where I could say more definitively he was doping.

Just because UKAD or WADA don't have the ammunition on Froome as we currently speak, doesn't mean drawing conclusions now should be taken as the gospel truth either.

A positive isn't what people are necessarily asking for. Ballan and Santambrogio linked with Mantova and people could make up their minds better on them before they were taken down afterwards. Kreuziger is a past client of Ferrari and Nibali has his name associated with him. Rogers and the Freiburg story. We don't have a positive either with Menchov.

Link please.

 

[Justico]

Link please.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/pellizotti-and-nibali-deny-working-with-ferrari

 

[Justinr]

When I offered you facts after you made a factually incorrect comment on Bilharzia, you suddenly disapeared from the thread, and made sure not to come back until it was safely off the page.

So I don't think you are qualified to talk to anyone about facts.

You mean the post where you called me 'son' in a rather insincere way?

What i said was that bil can reoccur and also that treatment doesnt always zap it first time - both actually true.

And just fyi - when i dropped off it was because i was on holiday. I'm sorry i didnt let you know or spend my return reading through all your posts and replying to them.

 

[Justinr]

The facts that you, Afrank and Hitch refer to are evidence, suggesting Froome doped. But they are not proof at least not necessarily.

For facts to prove something there has to be a standard as to the quality of the facts. That is why in legal systems you have to prove something (a) beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal case or (b) on a balance of probabilities in civil cases.

The legal standard in doping cases seems to be "to the comfortable satisfaction" of the arbitrators. This is sort of an in between standard from criminal cases and civil cases in the conventional legal system

Some facts carry more weight than other facts and in the end you have to weigh all the various facts and ascribe weight to them and then arrive at your "verdict" or opinion. Some people will put more weight on some facts than others, but that is okay because we are human beings and we bring our biases into this process.

In the real legal system this process if called "weighing the evidence" and it is what judges and juries do everyday, except that they are cautioned to be impartial and not bring their personal biases into the process. Therefore in the real legal system, at least theoretically, we can be more confident as to the opinions that are arrived at. But this process of "impartially" in weighing the evidence does not occur in the Clinic because we all bring our biases.

In the Clinic the standard varies from poster to poster, but whatever a person's individual standard may be as Afrank points out they are entitled to their opinions. But as Afrank has previously pointed out "...Is it speculation, sure. But speculation makes up 90% of the clinic and much of the rest of the forum."

All I am trying to do here is insert some context into this discussion to point out that opinions are just that - opinions.

Agree, its peoples suspicions and opinions based on what they consider as evidence.

And i also agree there are no facts to prove they arent doping.

 

[Nathan12]

https://twitter.com/TeamSky/status/459083435995590657/photo/1

Why do they boast with pictures that will only invite more suspicion? The guy is using ssomething very different from the rest of the peloton- this is not the body type of Purito, Valverde or Contador.

 

[Benotti69]

Agree, its peoples suspicions and opinions based on what they consider as evidence.

And i also agree there are no facts to prove they arent doping.

If sky wanted to prove Froome was a natural, they would release his data. It is that simple. Then anyone beating Froome, Sky could ask them to release their data to prove they also were natural.

But they wont. Why? Becuase he numbers dont add up to his performances.

 

[Nathan12]

If sky wanted to prove Froome was a natural, they would release his data. It is that simple. Then anyone beating Froome, Sky could ask them to release their data to prove they also were natural.

But they wont. Why? Becuase he numbers dont add up to his performances.

Has anyone ever asked Brailsford why he was happy to release post Vuelta 2011 data to Grappe but nothing before that? Answer is screamingly obvious, can't believe no journo has asked it.

 

[Justinr]

If sky wanted to prove Froome was a natural, they would release his data. It is that simple. Then anyone beating Froome, Sky could ask them to release their data to prove they also were natural.

But they wont. Why? Becuase he numbers dont add up to his performances.

I agree they should - i'd like all teams info published.

An interesting point though - what would you expect that his numbers would show? Not a baiting question - just wondered what you expect given his performances.

 

[Nathan12]

I agree they should - i'd like all teams info published.

An interesting point though - what would you expect that his numbers would show? Not a baiting question - just wondered what you expect given his performances.

Not the numbers themselves- but the difference in the numbers pre and post Vuelta 2011. We know he's been incredibly consistent for the last 2 and a half years- but there must have been a massive change around August 2011. That's what releasing the data from that period would show. But they're not going to do that, because it would condemn the guy.

 

[TailWindHome]

I assume only a positive test or admittance would finally be enough for you to come to the conclusion he is doping..

Credible eye witness testimony would help

 

[TailWindHome]

Not the numbers themselves- but the difference in the numbers pre and post Vuelta 2011. We know he's been incredibly consistent for the last 2 and a half years- but there must have been a massive change around August 2011. That's what releasing the data from that period would show. But they're not going to do that, because it would condemn the guy.

What data would show 'talent' pre 2011 which hadn't been translated into performance?

 

[Justinr]

Has anyone ever asked Brailsford why he was happy to release post Vuelta 2011 data to Grappe but nothing before that? Answer is screamingly obvious, can't believe no journo has asked it.

That was asked before - either here or on Froome thread. What would expect them to show? Massive increases in power presumably - wouldnt be that unexpected really would it since it would back up the performances. Blood parameters would presumably be interesting as well - although not sure how well anyone on here would be able to interpret them. I assume anything too suspicious would have been picked up already by UCI or whoever (I know that is probably the subject of much debate as well that could quite easily derail the thread).

 

[Nathan12]

What data would show 'talent' pre 2011 which hadn't been translated into performance?

Power figures in training similar to those post Vuelta 2011: the figures Brailsford speaks about but can't back up, because they don't exist. If they did, why not release them? That would shut everybody up and get them believing in Froome. Problem solved.

 

[Benotti69]

Has anyone ever asked Brailsford why he was happy to release post Vuelta 2011 data to Grappe but nothing before that? Answer is screamingly obvious, can't believe no journo has asked it.

Big question is why they released it to L'equipe, who are owned by ASO who then gave it to Grappe?

Why didn't L'Equipe publish it in their magazine? Because that is how the sport works.

Brailsford never was going to be transparent. Like the time he lied when asked was he with David Millar when Millar got arrested by French police.

 

[red_flanders]

Has anyone ever asked Brailsford why he was happy to release post Vuelta 2011 data to Grappe but nothing before that? Answer is screamingly obvious, can't believe no journo has asked it.

I saw an interview somewhere where a reporter asked why only from Vuelta 2011 onward, and Brailsford responded with something to the effect of "...it's never enough no matter what we do..." to which the reporter said...

...nothing. And smiled.

No Dave, it's not about what's "enough" it's about what's meaningful. Everyone understands that his data from Vuelta 2011 is going to show that he's got blood values which align with his performances. What everyone OBVIOUSLY wants to see is the difference between anonymous Froome and superman Froome.

 

[Nathan12]

Big question is why they released it to L'equipe, who are owned by ASO who then gave it to Grappe?

Why didn't L'Equipe publish it in their magazine? Because that is how the sport works.

Brailsford never was going to be transparent. Like the time he lied when asked was he with David Millar when Millar got arrested by French police.

How long can he and Wiggins hold onto those Knighthoods? I give it five years...

 

[Nathan12]

I saw an interview somewhere where a reporter asked why only from Vuelta 2011 onward, and Brailsford responded with something to the effect of "...it's never enough no matter what we do..." to which the reporter said...

...nothing. And smiled.

No Dave, it's not about what's "enough" it's about what's meaningful. Everyone understands that his data from Vuelta 2011 is going to show that he's got blood values which align with his performances. What everyone OBVIOUSLY wants to see is the difference between anonymous Froome and superman Froome.

And the difference is....bilharzia. Only according to the Sky doc himself, that doesn't affect Froome's blood values. So wait, that can't be the reason. Honestly, I think the worst culprits in all of this are the British media.

 

[Justinr]

I saw an interview somewhere where a reporter asked why only from Vuelta 2011 onward, and Brailsford responded with something to the effect of "...it's never enough no matter what we do..." to which the reporter said...

...nothing. And smiled.

No Dave, it's not about what's "enough" it's about what's meaningful. Everyone understands that his data from Vuelta 2011 is going to show that he's got blood values which align with his performances. What everyone OBVIOUSLY wants to see is the difference between anonymous Froome and superman Froome.

What would give you more comfort or more doubt though. Numbers that hadnt changed or numbers that had changed? To be honest it would probably possible to spin the interpretation of the data (either way) to support or to try and debunk most peoples viewpoint on here.

 

[sniper]

How long can he and Wiggins hold onto those Knighthoods? I give it five years...

i'm less optimistic.
here's a bunch of frauds that are not going to trip the tripwire as easily as lance and bruyneel did.
we're probably gonna get a whole lot of additional indirect evidence in the coming years, perhaps one or the other positive test from a second-tier sky rider, but i don't see them getting stripped of any major titles.

 

[Justinr]

And the difference is....bilharzia. Only according to the Sky doc himself, that doesn't affect Froome's blood values. So wait, that can't be the reason. Honestly, I think the worst culprits in all of this are the British media.

Well we know bil is a parasite that gets in to the blood - but does it affect the values that everyone measures (hemaglobin, hematocrit, reyiculocytes, etc.). If someone has a link that they can point me to that would be good (if i dont complete my biomedical science degree soon Hitch will tell me off when i post about Bil).

 

[Nathan12]

What would give you more comfort or more doubt though. Numbers that hadnt changed or numbers that had changed? To be honest it would probably possible to spin the interpretation of the data (either way) to support or to try and debunk most peoples viewpoint on here.

Obviously, numbers that hadn't changed, or huge numbers followed by troughs that align with the periods when Froome says he was suffering with bilharzia. My suspicion, and that of many other people, is that his numbers must have changed massively between the Tour of Poland 2011 and the Vuelta 2011. And that's backed up by the fact that Sky will only release the data from when Froome starts performing like a champion. If, as Brailsford says, he produced huge numbers in training, then RELEASE THOSE NUMBERS! He could end the speculation like that. But he won't, because those training numbers don't fit his statements one iota.

 

[Nathan12]

Well we know bil is a parasite that gets in to the blood - but does it affect the values that everyone measures (hemaglobin, hematocrit, reyiculocytes, etc.). If someone has a link that they can point me to that would be good (if i dont complete my biomedical science degree soon Hitch will tell me off when i post about Bil).

Haemoglobin yes, retics and RBC count no, unless you have a massive infestation in which case you'd have assorted complications like fibrosis of the liver. Froome mentions that the parasites are in his lungs. If that's the case, then he'd have something much worse than a chest infection- he'd have blockages in his lungs eventually leading to an enlarged right side of the heart. His story doesn't make sense.