Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Catwhoorg]

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

No it isn't

It is on the 2014 Monitoring list, along with OOC glucocorticosteroids.


Legally (per the WADA code) tramadol use is not doping.

That may well change in 2015, but it will not be back dated.


Ethically, I have a problem with it being used routinely.

 

[Benotti69]

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.

Sky are clean. Great. No need to be here to discuss them as they are clean. Seeya.

One born every minute.

 

[doolols]

The fact that Tramadol is on a monitoring programme

Caffeine is on the monitoring programme, too. Should every rider having a quick espresso before the off be accused of doping?

Here's a link, BTW

http://www.paralympic.org/news/wada-approves-2014-prohibited-list-substances

 

[doolols]

Sky are clean. Great. No need to be here to discuss them as they are clean. Seeya.

One born every minute.

There isn't an emoticon for 'tongue in cheek' or 'irony'.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

There isn't an emoticon for 'tongue in cheek' or 'irony'.

 

[Benotti69]

Caffeine is on the monitoring programme, too. Should every rider having a quick espresso before the off be accused of doping?

Here's a link, BTW

http://www.paralympic.org/news/wada-approves-2014-prohibited-list-substances

I think comparing caffeine with Tramadol a strong pain killer is grasping at straws.

 

[martinvickers]

Agreed.



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

Not ironic at all. Maybe you don't get Irony down there.

I'm not remotely questioning his RIGHT to post. I'm questioning the POINT of posting that particular post as a response to a subject it's not, frankly, a sensible response to. If he'd posted exactly the same material without the tangental link to the existing Tramadol conversation, I'd have had no issue. As was clear from my initial post.

Benotti, on the other hand, was basically trying to shut down my right to make that point. F*** him. He doesn't get to make that decision. Frankly, neither do you.

 

[martinvickers]

Frankly, that looks more like the warning signs for a stroke.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

More irony.

 

[Benotti69]

Benotti, on the other hand, was basically trying to shut down my right to make that point. F*** him. He doesn't get to make that decision. Frankly, neither do you.

Not trying to shut down anything. Merely pointing out that the discussions are open to all who post within the rules.

But you know this and are all about point scoring or trolling. Norn Iron gov must be on a slow day

 

[doolols]

I think comparing caffeine with Tramadol a strong pain killer is grasping at straws.

Makes me laugh, comments like this. No, I'm obviously not comparing Tramadol to caffeine. Did I say that? Did you follow the link? For the hard of understanding, I mentioned two things which were on the monitoring list, along with many other, non-illegal, stimulants.

Right, I'll just go and follow that link into the WADA code you provided which says use of Tramadol is doping ... oh. Maybe not. I'll just wait for the personal slur which I suspect is coming my way.

 

[martinvickers]

Not trying to shut down anything. Merely pointing out that the discussions are open to all who post within the rules.

But you know this and are all about point scoring or trolling. Norn Iron gov must be on a slow day

Now, see, Wiggo. that's irony. Or maybe displacement activity, who knows.

 

[stutue]

There is some evidence that certain members of TeamSky might be up to no good, but this particular argument is a dead end.

The mere fact that Team Sky are saying Tramadol should be banned should be enough for people to realise that it isn't yet banned.

If it isn't yet banned there is no issue with Sky's use of Tramadol.

 

[RownhamHill]

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.

With regards to Tramadol specifically I find myself in complete agreement (for once) with dearwiggo - clearly since the whole peloton is apparently soaked in the stuff, and it's legal in any case, you can't explain a competitive advantage through the use of Tramadol alone. Indeed, I don't think I've actually seen anyone suggest that in any case, so I think we can all probably agree the bolded statement above?

The difficulty though is that, if you believe lots of the posters on here, the whole peloton is also widely using epo/blood-doping. So surely exactly the same logic applies? For Sky/Froome to get a massive performance advantage over others, they'd need to be doing something that no one else was doing? Wouldn't they? (Or I suppose, just be better than everyone else!)

So there's two basic options from what I can see. One, as per the DirtyWorks idea, Sky have paid off the UCI and have carte blanche to dope with impunity, and no one else does. Or two, they're doing something different to the standard doping programmes we - and the rest of the peloton - all know and love.

Generally I'm minded to believe that there must be something that Sky is doing differently to get the results they did in 2012/2013 rather than just UCI corruption (maybe I'm just a sucker. . .), but if so, what would they be doing? It could be some secret doping sauce (a la 'the clear' or whatever), but equally it could be some legal/semi-legal 'sports science grey area'.

Of course, given that I don't know what it might be, it's hard to make any judgement about the likelihood of the legality of it. It's also worth noting that whatever the 'big secret' is, knowledge of it seems to be spreading through the peloton (as you'd expect with any new approach) - Contador (working with ex-Sky Rogers and De Jongh), and Valverde (with ex-Sky Dowsett in the team), both appear to be more competitive and skinnier this year than last.

And also I'm aware none of the above are mutually exclusive - they could be onto some completely legal weight-loss/power increase training regime, and augment that with bags full of blood and cash along the way.

 

[doolols]

Generally I'm minded to believe that there must be something that Sky is doing differently to get the results they did in 2012/2013 rather than just UCI corruption

I'm with you. Although it's fun to wind up the SKY ARE OBVIOUSLY DOPING trolls, with their lack of evidence and fact, it is more than likely that they were doing something which got them the performance enhancement - something which is probably very new, not specifically banned and which circumvents the catch-all "don't do anything which might be considered doping" rule.

We'll probably find out what it is in due course, and Sky will say "we broke no rules", which will be true. I suspect they have a zero tolerance on anything that can come and bite them in the bum at a later date.

I suppose all this begs the question: Is it doping if it's not banned by the UCI / WADA? Sky will say no.

 

[stutue]

It took 3 or 4 years before ex-USPS started telling tales out of school.

Team Sky is at that same point and surely there have been so many of them pushed out via the phony ZTP that there must be some disgruntled people ready to talk???

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'm with you. Although it's fun to wind up the SKY ARE OBVIOUSLY DOPING trolls, with their lack of evidence and fact, it is more than likely that they were doing something which got them the performance enhancement - something which is probably very new, not specifically banned and which circumvents the catch-all "don't do anything which might be considered doping" rule.

Ah the old "evidence is not proof" chest nut. Again. If only people knew the difference between evidence and proof. But I guess ESL makes it difficult.

We'll probably find out what it is in due course, and Sky will say "we broke no rules", which will be true. I suspect they have a zero tolerance on anything that can come and bite them in the bum at a later date.

Except Leinders. And JTL. And half the back office staff that were dopers.

 

[Digger]

Sky doctor said they use it 'minimally'
Barry said riders used it every race they entered.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It took 3 or 4 years before ex-USPS started telling tales out of school.

Team Sky is at that same point and surely there have been so many of them pushed out via the phony ZTP that there must be some disgruntled people ready to talk???

Lance paid noone. Unpaid people became disgruntled. If you were smart you'd learn from Lance's mistakes and pay people out as they left.

In 2012, Team Sky spent 981,000 GBP on "PR and marketing".

Keep in mind they are a sponsored team pretty much given or paid to use nearly every piece of equipment they use.

If I was DB I'd be paying the dearly departing handsomely to keep 'em quiet, and you can bet your Grandman it'd be filed under, "PR and marketing".

el oh el.

 

[stutue]

Hmmm.....

Leinders? Yes, definitely
JTL? Jury is out on that one.

ZTP and ex-doping team staff? Irrelevant.

We know the ZTP is PR bull****. I think we also know that getting experienced staff at the moment means employing people who have had contact with doping. Doesn't mean the current riders are doping. If it did then you would be faced with the question of most other teams whose experienced staff are also ex-dopers and have to ask yourself why those teams aren't as successful as Sky.

 

[Mellow Velo]

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.

Ball not man Benotti.
I have a Zero Rapha Kit policy.

WADA's monitoring program is utilised to test for specific substance which aren't on the Prohibited List but which WADA wishes to keep tabs on in order to detect patterns of misuse. WADA has confirmed that a ‘significant’ number of tests have shown traces of the drug.

So where are the significant number of WADA bans?

I'm all in favour of retrospective dope testing, just not retrospective dope test positives due to potential list changes.
That's just plain dumb.

 

[stutue]

Lance paid noone. Unpaid people became disgruntled. If you were smart you'd learn from Lance's mistakes and pay people out as they left.

In 2012, Team Sky spent 981,000 GBP on "PR and marketing".

Keep in mind they are a sponsored team pretty much given or paid to use nearly every piece of equipment they use.

If I was DB I'd be paying the dearly departing handsomely to keep 'em quiet, and you can bet your Grandman it'd be filed under, "PR and marketing".

el oh el.

Yes, that is a fair point.

But...what would stop a paid off team member blabbing? An NDA wouldn't do it, would it? Would it hold up against illegal activity?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Yes, that is a fair point.

But...what would stop a paid off team member blabbing? An NDA wouldn't do it, would it? Would it hold up against illegal activity?

There are two components to post-team life:
1. what do you do for a living

If you spit in the soup, you won't get to work in the industry. Lance's mechanic had to leave the country it was that bad, and has ended up in NZ. DB / BC / Team Sky are easily as influential in the UK as Lance was in the US. I'd say even more so. People at that level working for the team pretty much have nothing else to go in to.

2. do we comfort you sufficiently to leave no ill-will

981,000 GBP of "PR and marketing"
0 transparencty as to what that was spent on.


ETA:
If you knew doping was going on, and said nothing until you left... looks kinda dodgy, innit?
If you didn't know about or see any doping, coz you were not in the inner circle... you have nothing to say.

 

[doolols]

Ah the old "evidence is not proof" chest nut. Again. If only people knew the difference between evidence and proof. But I guess ESL makes it difficult.

Evidence of enhanced performance is not proof of doping.

That do you?

 

[therhodeo]

Yes, that is a fair point.

But...what would stop a paid off team member blabbing? An NDA wouldn't do it, would it? Would it hold up against illegal activity?

If that team member has any wins within the SOL it could keep them from talking. Basically anyone who talks better be prepared for going down with the ship.