Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[vedrafjord]

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.

Good post and possibly the first relevant one in this thread in many, many pages. Of course, there is also the possibility that different Skybots are using different approaches, and that there are/were different cliques/cabals within the team meaning these approaches are not teamwide.

Mick Rogers, for example, in his 2012 drilling up the first half of a climb heyday, looked like classic blood doping, Froome looks like AICAR or else some other metabolic modulator that's technically legal or not yet detectable (he seemed to sag slightly in week 3 of the Tour vs Quintana and Purito, which made me think he wasn't blood doping, or at least not blood doping as much as them). Wiggo seems like a bit of both, I can definitely see him picking up old school blood doping knowledge from Shane Sutton, plus some unknown weight loss drug. Porte is an odd one - he's best mates with Froome but doesn't seem to be on the same skin and bones sauce.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Evidence of enhanced performance is not proof of doping.

That do you?

Evidence of enhanced performance (and Leinders, etc, etc) is insufficient proof of doping for some posters, and sufficient proof of doping for others.

True story.

You're welcome.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Mick Rogers, for example, in his 2012 drilling up the first half of a climb heyday, looked like classic blood doping, Froome looks like AICAR or else some other metabolic modulator that's technically legal or not yet detectable (he seemed to sag slightly in week 3 of the Tour vs Quintana and Purito, which made me think he wasn't blood doping, or at least not blood doping as much as them). Wiggo seems like a bit of both, I can definitely see him picking up old school blood doping knowledge from Shane Sutton, plus some unknown weight loss drug. Porte is an odd one - he's best mates with Froome but doesn't seem to be on the same skin and bones sauce.

Mick Rogers, in a local Aussie TV interview, also mentioned being the lightest he's been since he was 16.

Just so you can get the full extent of the AICAR possibilities.

 

[stutue]

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.

I can see that being exactly right if the sport is still as dirty as ever. You'd be spot on.

But there are people who've blabbed recently in the USADA case still in employment.

But yes, your point is a strong possibility.

 

[stutue]

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.

SOL=Statute of Limitations?

In which case, why would US law apply to Team Sky? I don't know if there is such a thing in UK law.

Besides, I was thinking primarily of non-riding staff.

(But I see your point)

 

[vedrafjord]

SOL=Statute of Limitations?

In which case, why would US law apply to Team Sky? I don't know if there is such a thing in UK law.

I believe they mean the WADA 8 year statute of limitations.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Is Horner also grey are in your opinion?

You know the answer, are you just trying to kill time?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I can see that being exactly right if the sport is still as dirty as ever. You'd be spot on.

But there are people who've blabbed recently in the USADA case still in employment.

But yes, your point is a strong possibility.

What's the reward for blabbing?

 

[therhodeo]

I believe they mean the WADA 8 year statute of limitations.

Yep. Basically I mean that no ones going to ruin their career without immunity to some of the backlash.

 

[Catwhoorg]

SOL=Statute of Limitations?

In which case, why would US law apply to Team Sky? I don't know if there is such a thing in UK law.

Besides, I was thinking primarily of non-riding staff.

(But I see your point)

SOL applies to the WADA code. (8 years currently, 10 years under the 2015 code)

 

[maxmartin]

SOL=Statute of Limitations?

In which case, why would US law apply to Team Sky? I don't know if there is such a thing in UK law.

Besides, I was thinking primarily of non-riding staff.

(But I see your point)

UK law is the mother of US law, lol btw I am pretty sure every common law jurisdiction has SOL

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

you still gotta explain to me: if Sky were using legal (viz. non-banned) products only, why does Froome need a BS badzilla excuse, why did Sky need Leinders, why are they having issues such as the JTL/Henao cases, why aren't they publishing Froome's pre-2011 data. Etc.

I don't see much of a grey area there.

That´s a mystery for me too. I explained that. Especially the bazilla issue.
Leinders: Well, I guess you won´t find teams w/o doping docs, unless they got rid of them lately.
JTL/Henao: JTL was pre-Sky, if Henao is blood doping, he did start b4 Sky. His results pre-Sky show that.
Publishing pre-Vuelta data is a lose-lose situation for Sky. The discussion was long and tiring. I think all is said and done about it some weeks ago.

 

[stutue]

I believe they mean the WADA 8 year statute of limitations.

Cool. Thanks

 

[doolols]

Evidence of enhanced performance (and Leinders, etc, etc) is insufficient proof of doping for some posters, and sufficient proof of doping for others.

True story.

You're welcome.

Obviously some weird, inverted, antipodean logic going on there. Ah well, the sun's shining on this side of the planet. Time for a ride.

 

[stutue]

What's the reward for blabbing?

Well for Floyd Landis, potentially quite a few million.

For Tylar Hamilton, an award-winning best selling book.

Plus revenge.

 

[The Hitch]

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!)

They could just be better than everyone else.

Even so their performance is still better explained through the use of some performance drugs than no performance drugs.

You are suggesting that if those who say sky are full doping are wrong then the next logical answer must be that they are clean. It isnt. The next logical answer is that they are using slightly less doping. Then slightly less doping. And it continues that way along the probability line until you get to the end. Only then so you reach clean. The least probable explanation.

 

[stutue]

That's a fair summary of my thought process too.

There is no way Sky are the only non-dopers in the peloton.

Thing is, we don't yet know what everyone else is doing.

 

[The Hitch]

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.

No you would not.

If sky are only doping as much as those teams and the rest is talent, they are still doping

 

[the sceptic]

gray area is the new cleans.

 

[The Hitch]

Publishing pre-Vuelta data is a lose-lose situation for Sky. The discussion was long and tiring. I think all is said and done about it some weeks ago.

it's lose lose if they are doping. If they were clean they would absolutely be better off publishing his pre vuelta data.

 

[RownhamHill]

They could just be better than everyone else.

Even so their performance is still better explained through the use of some performance drugs than no performance drugs.

You are suggesting that if those who say sky are full doping are wrong then the next logical answer must be that they are clean. It isnt. The next logical answer is that they are using slightly less doping. Then slightly less doping. And it continues that way along the probability line until you get to the end. Only then so you reach clean. The least probable explanation.

Honestly, I don't understand a word of this reply Hitch, sorry. They're either doping or they're not - there is no probability line between lots of doping and less doping (or at least none that is material to this conversation, since even a 'little bit' of doping is, erm, doping).

 

[red_flanders]

gray area is the new cleans.

Perfect.

 

[The Hitch]

Honestly, I don't understand a word of this reply Hitch, sorry. They're either doping or they're not - there is no probability line between lots of doping and less doping (or at least none that is material to this conversation, since even a 'little bit' of doping is, erm, doping).

That is right they are either doping or they aren't. Which is what I said. And it goes against what you said. You said they must be doing something no one else is.

I'm telling you that's not the case. Even if they are only doing as much as everyone else or less than everyone else that is still doping.

 

[RownhamHill]

That is right they are either doping or they aren't. Which is what I said. And it goes against what you said. You said they must be doing something no one else is.

I'm telling you that's not the case. Even if they are only doing as much as everyone else or less than everyone else that is still doping.

Errmmm, I think I see where you're trying to go now, but still a bit confused. Stating that they are either doping or they're not doesn't go against what I said. In any sense.

I did say I thought they must be doing something no one else is. That something could be doping - but just different doping to the standard epo/blood doping that we're used to. Of course it could.

Or that something could be completely innocent, in and of itself, which when combined with a traditional doping programme works wonders. Of course. (Indeed, you might want to read and digest the last paragraph of my last post)

Or it could be something completely innocent, and so effective in and of itself, that it removes the need for the doping programme.

These are all possibilities, based on my own hunch about how a team might achieve a significant competitive advantage in a generally optimised environment (which is what Sky appear to have had for the last couple of years).

However, thanks for pointing out that if what they're doing differently is doping then they're, ermm doping, and it's not the case that they're clean.

 

[the sceptic]

Perfect.

"We have zero tolerance towards doping, except if its not on the banned list yet"

I think even most skyfans would have to admit that skys ZTP isnt actually a real thing. Not to go into an ethical debate here, but if sky have no problems with using "legal doping", then what is going to stop them from using real doping?