Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[red_flanders]

How on earth would HE know what it means? Is he WADA? Bizzare request.

He said he was "certain" that Sky are operating in a grey area. I would think yes, he would have some kind of way of describing what that means and why he is "certain" this is the case.

I think it's possible (I wouldn't call it a grey area, but I think it's possible they're using stuff others would consider "grey"), but I have seen nothing that would lead me to think it likely and certainly nothing that would make me "certain" of it. Partly because there is nothing to indicate it, and partly because the definition is malleable.

Is that confusing? It seems pretty straightforward to me.

Can we end the obfuscation and answer some simple questions now? I think I've asked and clarified 5 times now.

 

[red_flanders]

I cant wait for the next 10 pages of this riveting discussion.

Sorry, I thought it was a simple ****ing question. I didn't expect the vortex.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Pardon me then.

Ok. No problem.

Let me rephrase. I don't believe there is a grey area, just as the athlete in Martin's link offers. "I don't believe in grey areas". Never mind that I already stated several times that I understand what a grey area is, I just don't think it's relevant and I wanted to hear what YOU meant.

Now that we have that out of the way, maybe you could answer the questions.

Really feeling like obfuscation here guys. Really. Unless of course you can answer the questions.

Fine. For me there is (a grey area). I wouldn´t heave people that use painkillers and shady stuff on a podest with Bassons.

And I answer you again: My reason to think this was/is b/c of the transformation of Froome, and in general the improved performances by Sky (but don´t forget, it also has a lot to do with higher payroll and thus better riders)

 

[red_flanders]

Ok. No problem.



Fine. For me there is (a grey area). I wouldn´t heave people that use painkillers and shady stuff on a podest with Bassons.

And I answer you again: My reason to think this was/is b/c of the transformation of Froome, and in general the improved performances by Sky (but don´t forget, it also has a lot to do with higher payroll and thus better riders)

Thanks. So no evidence for a belief that they're in a grey area instead of clean or doping–you are just certain that's what is happening. Fine with me. Seems about par for the course.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Sorry, I thought it was a simple ****ing question. I didn't expect the vortex.

If you had understood my answer on post 27268, the Q/A game would have ended there. You should blame yourself. Agree?
OTOH, I forgive you. Sometimes you need to go into details, and I am happy to help out for making the picture as clear as possible.

 

[the sceptic]

Sorry, I thought it was a simple ****ing question. I didn't expect the vortex.

well, I dont know how you have the patience for this but carry on.

 

[Tournesol]

well, I dont know how you have the patience for this but carry on.

Was thinking exactly the same,the patience of a saint.

If this discussion was a boxing match,an experienced referee would have stepped in and stopped it a long time ago.

I would make a dignified retreat to tend my wounds instead of getting continually bludgeoned.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Thanks. So no evidence for a belief that they're in a grey area instead of clean or doping–you are just certain that's what is happening. Fine with me. Seems about par for the course.

No evidence for doping too though.
It could be one of the two (but not a must): Using methods in a "grey area" (see definitions) that are performance enhancing and/or prolonging (see post 27268) trou the use of painkillers, and/or methods I can´t give you the exact definition of (I am not working in the inner circle of Sky) which are not banned (yet). Or simply doping.
If this summary was is too difficult, just accept the short cut of "grey area". That´s why I used it until you wanted to go deeper.

 

[martinvickers]

He said he was "certain" that Sky are operating in a grey area. I would think yes, he would have some kind of way of describing what that means and why he is "certain" this is the case.

I think it's possible (I wouldn't call it a grey area, but I think it's possible they're using stuff others would consider "grey"), but I have seen nothing that would lead me to think it likely and certainly nothing that would make me "certain" of it. Partly because there is nothing to indicate it, and partly because the definition is malleable.

Is that confusing? It seems pretty straightforward to me.

Can we end the obfuscation and answer some simple questions now? I think I've asked and clarified 5 times now.

Michael Barry has just done an interview for the Times, where he makes it clear that Tramadol was in regular use with Sky, and everyday use with others. There's a further article by Simon Barnes (an excellent f***ing writer, by the way) decrying the legal but unethical use of painkillers.

Barry also claims that Sky are basically clean, but we can dismiss that as self-serving for the moment.

So we have eye witness evidence of the use of AT LEAST opiates during races. We can be pretty certain the opiates bit is true; unlike "basically clean", there is no great personal advantage to Barry in making the accusation unless it's true. Possibly 'sexing up' his upcoming book - but it's not terribly realistic (Cascarino example notwithstanding).

We 100% know they aren't illegal yet, but there have been wide calls for them to be made illegal by MPCC and others (see Barnes). This is verifiably the case.

The ethics of using race-legal opiates to dull pains of exertion as opposed to medical reasons is shaky at best.

We have Brailsfords asserting that his team go "right up to the line without crossing it" (i think that's a paraphrase). That could certainly describe legal but dubiously ethical.

So the use of substances they are not 'forbidden' from using, but which present real ethical problems. That aren't doping, yet, but probably should be, and for which several teams are actively pushing to be made illegal.

That's a pretty good working definition of 'grey area' to me.

And Barry has confirmed the use at Sky.

Hence Sky are using 'grey area' techniques.

They may be using other worse ones, too, but that's irrelevant to this point.

 

[red_flanders]

No evidence for doping too though.
It could be one of the two (but not a must): Using methods in a "grey area" (see definitions) that are performance enhancing and/or prolonging (see post 27268) trou the use of painkillers, and/or methods I can´t give you the exact definition of (I am not working in the inner circle of Sky) which are not banned (yet). Or simply doping.
If this summary was is too difficult, just accept the short cut of "grey area". That´s why I used it until you wanted to go deeper.

This is blatantly false and trolling. It's been covered over and over. Your refusal to accept the simple, factual definition of the word is absurd.

 

[red_flanders]

Michael Barry has just done an interview for the Times, where he makes it clear that Tramadol was in regular use with Sky, and everyday use with others. There's a further article by Simon Barnes (an excellent f***ing writer, by the way) decrying the legal but unethical use of painkillers.

Barry also claims that Sky are basically clean, but we can dismiss that as self-serving for the moment.

So we have eye witness evidence of the use of AT LEAST opiates during races. We can be pretty certain the opiates bit is true; unlike "basically clean", there is no great personal advantage to Barry in making the accusation unless it's true. Possibly 'sexing up' his upcoming book - but it's not terribly realistic (Cascarino example notwithstanding).

We 100% know they aren't illegal yet, but there have been wide calls for them to be made illegal by MPCC and others (see Barnes). This is verifiably the case.

The ethics of using race-legal opiates to dull pains of exertion as opposed to medical reasons is shaky at best.

We have Brailsfords asserting that his team go "right up to the line without crossing it" (i think that's a paraphrase). That could certainly describe legal but dubiously ethical.

So the use of substances they are not 'forbidden' from using, but which present real ethical problems. That aren't doping, yet, but probably should be, and for which several teams are actively pushing to be made illegal.

That's a pretty good working definition of 'grey area' to me.

And Barry has confirmed the use at Sky.

Hence Sky are using 'grey area' techniques.

They may be using other worse ones, too, but that's irrelevant to this point.

Thank you. That explains it.

Clearly one could take the view that nothing explicitly illegal is legal. And one could take the view that some substances move into "illegal methods" without being named on the banned list and this would constitute a grey area.

Not for a minute do I think use of Tramadol or any other pain-killing substance could explain performances like those of Froome or Wiggins, or the transformations they've had, but that won't surprise anyone. I don't think whatever weight-loss drug they appear to be using explains it either, but it certainly appears to be part of the program.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Thank you. That explains it.

Clearly one could take the view that nothing explicitly illegal is legal. And one could take the view that some substances move into "illegal methods" without being named on the banned list and this would constitute a grey area.

Not for a minute do I think use of Tramadol or any other pain-killing substance could explain performances like those of Froome or Wiggins, or the transformations they've had, but that won't surprise anyone. I don't think whatever weight-loss drug they appear to be using explains it either, but it certainly appears to be part of the program.

Yeah I am struggling with the concept that Tramadol et al - useable by anyone - is providing such a significant difference in 2012 / 2013 for team Sky vs everyone else in the peloton from February to August for those years.

 

[sniper]

Yeah I am struggling with the concept that Tramadol et al - useable by anyone - is providing such a significant difference in 2012 / 2013 for team Sky vs everyone else in the peloton from February to August for those years.

perhaps weightloss drugs in combination with a "don't you guys worry about the BP" freecard whilst other teams were struggling to get on a decent microdosing program.

btw. does the following strike anybody as truthful? It sounds as if some serious anti-doping testing has been conducted during the TdF 2013.

The CADF took 622 blood and urine samples during the 100th edition of the Tour (versus a total of 566 samples in 2012). Working closely with the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD), the CADF took 202 pre-competition samples and a further 419 samples during the race.
Reinforcing the strategy of targeted testing, 198 of the samples taken during the race were for the purposes of the biological passport (versus 149 samples in 2012).
“This target testing strategy has been hugely facilitated by the excellent on-site cooperation between CADF and AFLD during the race,” said Dr Rossi.
The samples were analysed by the WADA-accredited laboratories of Châtenay-Malabry (France), Lausanne (Switzerland) and Cologne (Germany). The UCI and AFLD have also agreed to keep the samples taken for possible retrospective testing in the future.

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENe...?MenuId=MTI2Mjc&LangId=1&7602120X12X45Page=12

 

[Dear Wiggo]

btw. does the following strike anybody as truthful?:

The CADF took 622 blood and urine samples during the 100th edition of the Tour (versus a total of 566 samples in 2012).

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENe...?MenuId=MTI2Mjc&LangId=1&7602120X12X45Page=12

Yeah I kinda wondered about that - that's 30 samples a day for 20 days. dafuq?

Considering in the 2012 Giro Ryder was in pink for 5 days, but only BP blood tested on 2 of those days in pink, plus one other day when not in pink, despite the number of tests at the Tour, they don't necessarily prove that the goal is to catch people with boosted blood parameters.

 

[sniper]

Yeah I kinda wondered about that - that's 30 samples a day for 20 days. dafuq?

if that statement is true (which i don't think it is), it would be one massive waste of resources.
600 samples tested in the most exquisite labs. zero positives.

 

[gooner]

Michael Barry says Tramadol used regularly at Sky.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BmQhwM1CMAIPlG3.jpg

Weren't the Times supposed to be compromised on their reporting on Sky?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

if that statement is true (which i don't think it is), it would be one massive waste of resources.
600 samples tested in the most exquisite labs. zero positives.

I just did a more thorough analysis of this figure in light of the total testing done for 2012:

There were 1951 blood samples taken for the year. 1370 of those are what is known as PREC: pre-competition.

So 2 days before the Giro starts, Ryder's blood is tested for the BP. That counts as an IC test.

ie of those 1951 "IC" blood samples taken for the BP, only 581 were actually taken whilst the race was underway.

If someone could give me a total of testable race (and rest) days for 2012, we could divide that into the total urine + blood sample tests done (7558) to come up with the average tests (samples) / day. Then multiply it by 22 to arrive at the expected Tour total, based on averages. Something tells me despite the seemingly high number, it's PR rather than unusual.

 

[MartinGT]

Thank you. That explains it.

Clearly one could take the view that nothing explicitly illegal is legal. And one could take the view that some substances move into "illegal methods" without being named on the banned list and this would constitute a grey area.

Not for a minute do I think use of Tramadol or any other pain-killing substance could explain performances like those of Froome or Wiggins, or the transformations they've had, but that won't surprise anyone. I don't think whatever weight-loss drug they appear to be using explains it either, but it certainly appears to be part of the program.

Fully agree with this.

Is this the beginning of the end of Sky?

 

[SundayRider]

Michael Barry has just done an interview for the Times, where he makes it clear that Tramadol was in regular use with Sky, and everyday use with others. There's a further article by Simon Barnes (an excellent f***ing writer, by the way) decrying the legal but unethical use of painkillers.

Barry also claims that Sky are basically clean, but we can dismiss that as self-serving for the moment.

So we have eye witness evidence of the use of AT LEAST opiates during races. We can be pretty certain the opiates bit is true; unlike "basically clean", there is no great personal advantage to Barry in making the accusation unless it's true. Possibly 'sexing up' his upcoming book - but it's not terribly realistic (Cascarino example notwithstanding).

We 100% know they aren't illegal yet, but there have been wide calls for them to be made illegal by MPCC and others (see Barnes). This is verifiably the case.

The ethics of using race-legal opiates to dull pains of exertion as opposed to medical reasons is shaky at best.

We have Brailsfords asserting that his team go "right up to the line without crossing it" (i think that's a paraphrase). That could certainly describe legal but dubiously ethical.

So the use of substances they are not 'forbidden' from using, but which present real ethical problems. That aren't doping, yet, but probably should be, and for which several teams are actively pushing to be made illegal.

That's a pretty good working definition of 'grey area' to me.

And Barry has confirmed the use at Sky.

Hence Sky are using 'grey area' techniques.

They may be using other worse ones, too, but that's irrelevant to this point.

Tramadol use is not against the rules but in my eyes its not in 'spirit of the rules'.

 

[Netserk]

I think we have found the answer. Froome can match Armstrong on climbs because of painkillers and corticosteroid use in training

 

[NaturalClen]

I think we have found the answer. Froome can match Armstrong on climbs because of painkillers and corticosteroid use in training

Lucky us you are just ironic otherwise we would have 50-100 Armstrongs ripping the climbs. Even some fatty lycra middle age riders could do it.

 

[gooner]

I think we have found the answer. Froome can match Armstrong on climbs because of painkillers and corticosteroid use in training

Who said that?

 

[martinvickers]

Thank you. That explains it.

Clearly one could take the view that nothing explicitly illegal is legal. And one could take the view that some substances move into "illegal methods" without being named on the banned list and this would constitute a grey area.

Ok, just have to pull you up a bit here - i don't know if this was a willful misreading, or inadvertant, but this is not what i wrote or meant.

If something is an "illegal method" it is not grey, it's black. Illegal methods are in the WADA documentation.

What are being discussed is not methods that are illegal by reason of meating a category description in the WADA code but not explicitly named. We are talking about things that ARE currently legal, but ETHICALLY dubious - i.e. INSIDE the LETTER of the rules, but arguably not inside the spirit. Legal painkillers being overused to dull exertion pain, rather than treat injury meets this description to a tee.

Perhaps it would be best to highlight "grey area" could have two meanings in this context.

1. Legally dubious or unclear.
2. Ethically dubious or unclear.

Tramadol seems to fit 2, unless someone can advise me otherwise.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Fully agree with this.

Is this the beginning of the end of Sky?

Mmmm, I'm afraid once again, the answer is no.
Possibly the end for Tramadol in the peloton, though.

A reminder from last month:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...sics-crashes-says-lotto-belisol-doctor-119652

 

[MartinGT]

Mmmm, I'm afraid once again, the answer is no.
Possibly the end for Tramadol in the peloton, though.

A reminder from last month:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...sics-crashes-says-lotto-belisol-doctor-119652

Sky arent a member of MPCC are they?

If they are willing to use this, what else are they willing to use?

Its interesting stuff really.