Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[martinvickers]

So Sky dope, albeit legally!

As Brailsford said before



So using copius amounts of Tramadol that Barry calls performance enhancing really does fly in the face of Sky's ZTP, IMO.

But no surprise really. Sky aren't half cheating..........

Sorry, Benotti, it really doesn't mean that.

From Merriam-Webster

doping noun : the illegal use of a drug (such as a steroid) to improve an athlete's performance; the use of a substance (as an anabolic steroid or erythropoietin) or technique (as blood doping) to illegally improve athletic performance

Legal doping is, basically, an oxymoron in the mdoern age. Meaningless. No matter how much you wish otherwise. Get it banned, then we can talk.

 

[martinvickers]

I'd be interested to know (as would, I am sure, many legal people) what the definition of "borderline legal" was. Something is either legal, or it isn't. There is a very thin, less than one nanometre line, which differentiates legal and illegal. Tramadol is not illegal, ergo it is legal.

Ethical? That's a different matter, and much more subjective. There are all sorts of pills and potions ingested by the peloton in the form of energy gels, drinks, electrolytes, and who knows what else. Taking a paracetamol if you have a headache? Fine. Taking paracetamol (or, indeed, Tramadol) to reduce the pains induced from cycling hard and fast? Ethically touch and go, but I'm sure many teams have been doing this. Ban Tramadol? How long before someone finds another strong painkiller not on the banned list?



The UCI does already have a no needles policy.

The answer to this, presumably, is simply to set out that if riders require painkillers of a certain type, and/or over a certain strength, they can't race. If they do take and race, it's treated as doping.

 

[doolols]

So using copius amounts of Tramadol that Barry calls performance enhancing really does fly in the face of Sky's ZTP, IMO.

"Copious amounts"? Did Barry say that? Or are you using that pejorative term to support your Sky = doping cause?

Barry describes it as being “as performance-enhancing as any banned drug I had taken”

So funny. That shows how much notice we should take of the revelations in his book.

 

[Benotti69]

Sorry, Benotti, it really doesn't mean that.

Go read the WADA code. Tramadol falls under doping in WADA code.

Legal doping is, basically, an oxymoron in the mdoern age. Meaningless. No matter how much you wish otherwise. Get it banned, then we can talk.

Legal doping is still doping, which Sky said they would not do. According to Brailsford that dont half cheat........

Keep apologising for Sky.

 

[sniper]

I fear you are trying to squeeze into a conversation you aren't really part of.

probably true.
but those issues i pointed out are issues a "sky are straddling the border of legality" scenario cannot account for.
you don't need leinders if you're only using tramadol.
you don't need a bilharzia story full of contradictions if you're only using tramadol.
plus dearwiggo's argument: if tramadol or other semi-legal stuff were at the heart of sky's success, then why the tremendous advantage in 2012 and 2013 over other GT riders.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So Sky dope, albeit legally!

dope: verb; administer drugs to (a racehorse, greyhound, or athlete) in order to inhibit or enhance sporting performance.

Looks like it.

 

[martinvickers]

I'd be interested to know (as would, I am sure, many legal people) what the definition of "borderline legal" was. Something is either legal, or it isn't. There is a very thin, less than one nanometre line, which differentiates legal and illegal. Tramadol is not illegal, ergo it is legal.

Ethical? That's a different matter, and much more subjective. There are all sorts of pills and potions ingested by the peloton in the form of energy gels, drinks, electrolytes, and who knows what else. Taking a paracetamol if you have a headache? Fine. Taking paracetamol (or, indeed, Tramadol) to reduce the pains induced from cycling hard and fast? Ethically touch and go, but I'm sure many teams have been doing this. Ban Tramadol? How long before someone finds another strong painkiller not on the banned list?



The UCI does already have a no needles policy.

There's sadly more subjectiveness in legal than you'd like to think; but your basic premise is true - the area of legal doubt is much thinner than the area of ethical doubt.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Go read the WADA code. Tramadol falls under doping in WADA code.




Legal doping is still doping, which Sky said they would not do. According to Brailsford that dont half cheat........

Keep apologising for Sky.

Is Tramadol currently banned under the WADA code?
If not, it ain't doping, however you try to spin it.

 

[doolols]

Go read the WADA code. Tramadol falls under doping in WADA code.

Does it? Please show where this is stated?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

probably true.
but those issues i pointed out are issues a "sky are straddling the border of legality" scenario cannot account for.
you don't need leinders if you're only using non-banned substances.
you don't need a bilharzia story full of contradictions if you're only using non-banned substances.
plus dearwiggo's argument: if tramadol or other semi-legal stuff were at the heart of sky's success, then why the tremendous advantage in 2012 and 2013 over other GT riders.

not true at all.

foxybrown et al are claiming Sky's "doping" is a grey area, but that's disproven by the evidence you provided that show there's far more going on than "grey area doping."

Then consider the fallacy that one team triumphs over all others, using drugs that are ubiquitous throughout the peloton. Barry says Sky use Tramadol, and also says others do as well. It's not an advantage solely available to Sky.

 

[martinvickers]

probably true.
but those issues i pointed out are issues a "sky are straddling the border of legality" scenario cannot account for.
you don't need leinders if you're only using tramadol.
you don't need a bilharzia story full of contradictions if you're only using tramadol.
plus dearwiggo's argument: if tramadol or other semi-legal stuff were at the heart of sky's success, then why the tremendous advantage in 2012 and 2013 over other GT riders.

That's basically an argument for the irrelevency of the Tramadol story. which is fine - but why get involved in someone else discussion of it then?

 

[Benotti69]

So funny. That shows how much notice we should take of the revelations in his book.

So dismiss Barry now he is raining on your parade......same as the Armstrong fans dismissed Landis.......

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Here's a hint: Leinders is not a "grey area".

 

[Benotti69]

That's basically an argument for the irrelevency of the Tramadol story. which is fine - but why get involved in someone else discussion of it then?

All discussions on the forum are open to all posters. Since when did you decide who can post a response?

 

[martinvickers]

All discussions on the forum are open to all posters. Since when did you decide who can post a response?

Sicne when did you decide what I can post? Are you a mod? I thnk not. so take yourself off.

 

[Benotti69]

Amazing how Sky never told Walsh about the Tramadol use........worse that Walsh never discovered its use.

Will Walsh bother talking to Barry now, doubt it.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So dismiss Barry now he is raining on your parade......same as the Armstrong fans dismissed Landis.......

Oh. Tired so completely missed this.

Here's your disgruntled ex-employee spilling (some of) the beans, UK Postal.

 

[sniper]

Then consider the fallacy that one team triumphs over all others, using drugs that are ubiquitous throughout the peloton. Barry says Sky use Tramadol, and also says others do as well. It's not an advantage solely available to Sky.

tramadol is probably a sine qua non for GT contenders, definitely not the actual champion maker.

 

[Benotti69]

Sicne when did you decide what I can post? Are you a mod? I thnk not. so take yourself off.

I didn't but you have on many occasions told posters they had no part in the discussions. THis aint your forum though you love to lord over the Sky thread

Do one.

 

[therhodeo]

Sicne when did you decide what I can post? Are you a mod? I thnk not. so take yourself off.

Its amazing they're starting to act like Armstrong fans. I swear the clinic is an amazing sociology experiment.

 

[doolols]

So dismiss Barry now he is raining on your parade......same as the Armstrong fans dismissed Landis.......

And yet should we dismiss the fact that Barry says that Sky are clean? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Benotti69]

Is Tramadol currently banned under the WADA code?
If not, it ain't doping, however you try to spin it.

I am sorry MV, you must have spent a fortune on Rapha gear

Sky were the so called masters of spin. They have failed.

ZTP doesn't work if you are taking pharmaceuticals.

Or are you ok with doping?

WADA code covers doping they dont know about yet.

 

[Benotti69]

And yet should we dismiss the fact that Barry says that Sky are clean? You can't have it both ways.

Actually one can have it as many ways as one opinion determines.

 

[doolols]

WADA code covers doping they dont know about yet.

So is this the premise for you saying that use of Tramadol is doping (still waiting for that link to the WADA code, BTW). WADA do have a 'catch-all' "thou shalt not use stuff for performance enhancing" provision, but it's vague at best. The fact that Tramadol is on a monitoring programme shows that they're aware of it, but because it's not banned, riders can't get popped for using it (at the moment). Ergo, use of Tramadol isn't doping, ergo Sky are clean.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I fear you are trying to squeeze into a conversation you aren't really part of. And you're thowing around the phrase "grey area" in a fairly meaningless way.

Look if you want to say "Hey, this Tramadol stuff isn't sexy enough. It ain't getting Froome banned. Enough already, I want to talk about REAL doping!!", that's fine, honestly. Don't shoehorn it into a conversation it's not really part of. It's rare enough this thread actually discusses something real in any detail.

That's basically an argument for the irrelevency of the Tramadol story. which is fine - but why get involved in someone else discussion of it then?

All discussions on the forum are open to all posters. Since when did you decide who can post a response?

Agreed.

Sicne when did you decide what I can post? Are you a mod? I thnk not. so take yourself off.

Ironic given what you'd just told Sniper to do, and when, and how.

Its amazing they're starting to act like Armstrong fans. I swear the clinic is an amazing sociology experiment.

Uh huh. Right. Gotcha.