Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1160 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
stutue said:
How could we tell if anything has changed?
Numbers. Clean hard facts. At sportsscientists they showed improvement since the introduction of the BP. But if that´s true for the last couple of years is another question...
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
stutue said:
The system is bloody sophisticated. Impressively so.

But yes, you are quite right to suggests a more thorough roll-out is needed.
What has impressed you about BP?

It didn't catch Armstrong in '09 or '10.

It has not caught any of Bruyneel's riders and we know he has run team doping programs.

It did not catch a 42 year old winning a GT last year!

What is so impressive about BP?
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Benotti69 said:
What has impressed you about BP?

It didn't catch Armstrong in '09 or '10.

It has not caught any of Bruyneel's riders and we know he has run team doping programs.

It did not catch a 42 year old winning a GT last year!

What is so impressive about BP?
At least the riders stayed within limits until around september of last year. Since then, it seems, even to stay within limits doesn´t matter, since the governing body shys away from opening any more cases. I guess too expensive and risky.
Thus I expect major performances in 2014. P-R, ACs renaissance of dominance, and Wallone were just a foretaste of things to come.

That all makes it harder for Froome to dominate again. Thus being the reason I am sure he won´t repeat as TdF champ.
 

stutue

BANNED
Apr 22, 2014
875
0
0
Benotti69 said:
What has impressed you about BP?

It didn't catch Armstrong in '09 or '10.

It has not caught any of Bruyneel's riders and we know he has run team doping programs.

It did not catch a 42 year old winning a GT last year!

What is so impressive about BP?
I'm not convinced Armstrong was doping in 2010. I'm bloody certain he was in 09. But, and feel free to correct me if I've got this wrong, my understanding is that hecwas excused some if the testing needed to provide a baseline in order to guarantee a place for him (and keep the money rolling in!)

Am I right in thinking that his 09 levels have been exposed as dodgy? This means the tests per se and the system work....but the results weren't acted upon.

As for Bruyneel, I'm not aware of team doping programmes since the implementation of the BP.

Horner? Again, his BP has been exposed as questionable, but not acted upon.

Its a bloody good system. Just needs to be ruthlessly applied.
 
Benotti69 said:
What has impressed you about BP?

It didn't catch Armstrong in '09 or '10.

It has not caught any of Bruyneel's riders and we know he has run team doping programs.

It did not catch a 42 year old winning a GT last year!

What is so impressive about BP?
If anything, the BP actually facilitates doping since it indicates exactly what kind of fluctuations are regarded as suspicious and which aren't. Well, that is what Kohl said anyway.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
nslckevin said:
Yes. :)

I'm all for having an opinion on the subject. I am just against this certainty that I see so much of. And that goes both ways. I think it is just as dumb to be certain that Sky is clean as it is to be certain that Sky is doping. I think it's fine to say "I think that Sky is dirty because..." or "I think that Sky is clean because...". I am just turned off by the certainty of so many people.

I don't believe that doping has been eradicated from cycling by any means. But I also don't believe that it's impossible to win big races clean. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm right. For the sake of the sport I hope I'm right, but I don't KNOW. And that's my main point, I don't think that anybody here really does KNOW.
I think we do know. Why? Because the culture of doping would need something monumental to destroy that culture and we have not see anything monumental.
 
nslckevin said:
Yes. :)

I'm all for having an opinion on the subject. I am just against this certainty that I see so much of. And that goes both ways. I think it is just as dumb to be certain that Sky is clean as it is to be certain that Sky is doping. I think it's fine to say "I think that Sky is dirty because..." or "I think that Sky is clean because...". I am just turned off by the certainty of so many people.
I think what really is "dumb" is that you hold such a extremely high opinion of yourself that you believe everyone else MUST reach the same conclusion you have.

I have my own standards thank you very much, no, I'm not going to use yours. I think when a team scores off the charts on every suspicion metric there is and creates some new ones which it also scores off the charts on, then gets caught lying and being dishonest at every turn and is contradicting themselves from year to year, all while offering performances and transformations that require mental summersaults to even be considered clean, then it is simply not possible for that team to be clean.

I'm not going to pretend I don't know because someone like you thinks everyone should play by your rules and reach your conclusion.

I am certain. And so are most people, one way or the other. Thankfully most its the one way.

I don't believe that doping has been eradicated from cycling by any means. But I also don't believe that it's impossible to win big races clean.
Nor do I.
So?

That has nothing to do with Sky. They didn't with a bit of luck win 1 big race. They destroyed the entire TDF warmup programme 2 years in a row, following it up both times by making every non sky rider in the world look like first year pros at the biggest race in the world.

Please don't use "i think its possible to win a race clean", in an argument for sky. That's dishonest. If you think Sky could be clean then what you actually believe is that its possible for clean riders to dominate the sport and ride faster than 99% of dopers ever did, for longer than 99% of dopers ever did. Not the same as winning a big race cos you peaked for it and everything went well.

And considering in the same sentence you say you think doping hasn't been erradicated, what you essentially believe is that doping has 0 impact on performance, since the guys who are doping are several levels bellow the guys who are doing it clean .

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm right. For the sake of the sport I hope I'm right, but I don't KNOW. And that's my main point, I don't think that anybody here really does KNOW.
Good for you. And me, I do KNOW.
Pleased to meet you
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
stutue said:
I'm not convinced Armstrong was doping in 2010. I'm bloody certain he was in 09. But, and feel free to correct me if I've got this wrong, my understanding is that hecwas excused some if the testing needed to provide a baseline in order to guarantee a place for him (and keep the money rolling in!)

Am I right in thinking that his 09 levels have been exposed as dodgy? This means the tests per se and the system work....but the results weren't acted upon.

As for Bruyneel, I'm not aware of team doping programmes since the implementation of the BP.

Horner? Again, his BP has been exposed as questionable, but not acted upon.

Its a bloody good system. Just needs to be ruthlessly applied.
It is a bloody good system? Yep it allows teams to monitor their team programs in order to avoid testing positive or showing an anomoly. Bloody great system for doping.

BP introduced in 2008, Contador won '09 and TdF with Bruyneel as DS.

Are you aware that Colombians dont get tested for BP when they return to Colombia to train. Are you aware that UKAD did no BP testing in 2012.

Blood great system that is hardly applied and is a smokescreen.
 
stutue said:
The system is bloody sophisticated. Impressively so.

But yes, you are quite right to suggests a more thorough roll-out is needed.
#1 the system, as designed, gives dopers everything they need to dope and never test positive. WADA operates with a great deal of transparency and as such when new tests are proposed and adopted, it's documented with great detail and published for all to read.

#2 It is neither expensive nor complicated to dope really effectively.

#3 The reality is the system effectively manages doping controversy for the IOC and manages the risk of killing athletes while they dope. I'd argue it's quite sophisticated, but not like I read your use of the word.

Bottom line, really, is the number of doping sanctions has not gone up. Probably because the system has been shown to be used to "never test positive." (ex. Jamaica, probably Russian system) The sports federations can choose to open cases as they like. So, some athletes like Armstrong never test positive. It has ended up being a great tool to manage so many unruly actors in any given IOC sport.

If you want to examine the two extremes of anti-doping, compare JTL's events to FuYu Li.
 

stutue

BANNED
Apr 22, 2014
875
0
0
For Benotti69

I think I might not have phrased my point very well, because actually I agree with you:)

The science is clever. The implementation is not. Perhaps wilfully, perhaps through lack of funding ( if I'm feeling generous).

The thing about dope-testing is that for the really crucial tests the results do not come out in a binary yes/no. They are interpreted. Or at least have to be put in front of the people with the requisite knowledge to interpret them

Certainly with Pat/Hein in the driving seat they were doing all they could to push uncomfortable results under the carpet and then fight like crazy to prevent action if they were exposed.

You are right. More money needed for more tests and a truly independent body to oversee it.

Old Brian is at least making the right noises but its too early for meaningful, culturally-deep change to have been brought about by him.

I understand your cyniscism, I really do, and you've clearly given it some thought.
 
Benotti69 said:
Are you aware that Colombians dont get tested for BP when they return to Colombia to train. Are you aware that UKAD did no BP testing in 2012.
Oh Benotti, you know as well as I do that the UCI did all the testing for Elite cycling. All those tests means those riders are cleans.:D

That we'll never know how many were non-suspicious, suspicious, or sanctionable and that means there's no proof of doping and therefore 2014 is the cleanest peloton ever.
 
stutue said:
You are right. More money needed for more tests and a truly independent body to oversee it.
No more money is needed. Just let WADA open cases. Be charitable and give 6 months warning before WADA is permitted to open cases with no backdated testing. The smartest dopers will dial it down, the idiots will get sanctions.


It should be obvious by now that the IOC doesn't particularly desire clean sports.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
The Hitch said:
I think what really is "dumb" is that you hold such a extremely high opinion of yourself that you believe everyone else MUST reach the same conclusion you have.
My god, my irony meter just exploded. The most arrogant poster here telling someone that they have a high opinion of themselves. And follows that up by explaining yet again how your logic is inescapable, and how he should hold the same opinion as yourself. Brilliant, Hitch you out did yourself this time.
 
stutue said:
That scenario and the implications are entirely possible, but of course it would have to be two riders who previously didn't dope as their actual performances have improved, and not just in relation to other riders.

If that is the case you'd have a dirty peloton becoming clean (small pockets remember!) And the previously clean Wiggins and Froome going dirty against the face of more sophisticated testing (yes, it might still be beatable but the bp is more sophisticated than a mere epo test)

Possible? Yes
Likely? Who knows.
Likely? Yes.
Certainly? Who knows.
 

stutue

BANNED
Apr 22, 2014
875
0
0
Presumably then, the reason for the likelihood can only be because they've won a lot.

That's not an unreasonable conclusion to come to if you adhere to this line of thought.

Next question is why is nobody else doing it? The small pockets can't just be W and F, and pre-existing talent in the refined ranks of the pro cyclist is neither here nor there if you buy into the argument that different people respond differently to doping methods
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
At least the riders stayed within limits until around september of last year. Since then, it seems, even to stay within limits doesn´t matter, since the governing body shys away from opening any more cases. I guess too expensive and risky.
Thus I expect major performances in 2014. P-R, ACs renaissance of dominance, and Wallone were just a foretaste of things to come.

That all makes it harder for Froome to dominate again. Thus being the reason I am sure he won´t repeat as TdF champ.
Besides accusing Horner (who is ALSO obviously doping), what makes you say "until around September of last year"? What evidence is there that there is some change in the BP that restricted riders before that?

I mean that sounds like the most base, ridiculous speculation on a topic you couldn't possibly know any details about.
 

stutue

BANNED
Apr 22, 2014
875
0
0
JimmyFingers said:
My god, my irony meter just exploded. The most arrogant poster....
Sorry, and I'm not aiming this at just you, and I know I'm not an old timer here, but.....

......can we take the handbags elsewhere?

Please?
 
JimmyFingers said:
My god, my irony meter just exploded. The most arrogant poster here telling someone that they have a high opinion of themselves. And follows that up by explaining yet again how your logic is inescapable, and how he should hold the same opinion as yourself. Brilliant, Hitch you out did yourself this time.
Last time you tried to summarize my post we went back to the actual post and found out you had made it up and I had not actually said what you accused me of.

Did you apologize? I forget.

Edit: oh and is there any on topic point to your post?
 
The Hitch said:
No one besides benotti on here says everyone dopes. That's just a cheap generalization to try and discredit opinions because you don't like that your favourite riders are being accused.

But if you are talking about people saying there is still a doping culture in cycling, then there are plenty of people who very much are behind the scenes who say it does still exist, and you know that. if you don't trust the former dopers who say it (I'm guessing that means you don't trust millar or jv either) then Michael Ashenden and **** Pound for.one have more honour than anyone you can find saying things cleaned up overnight. And they are very much in the know.

But hey, don't let facts ruin your agenda. It's only internet warriors:rolleyes:
What favourite riders would they be then?

If you don't feel everyone in the sport dopes, then don't take my comment personally. As I said, the posters who are more than keyboard warriors, with actual insight into the sport, are much more even handed than the armchair experts.

Quite why you would have a problem with that statement, I have no idea.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
red_flanders said:
Besides accusing Horner (who is ALSO obviously doping), what makes you say "until around September of last year"? What evidence is there that there is some change in the BP that restricted riders before that?

I mean that sounds like the most base, ridiculous speculation on a topic you couldn't possibly know any details about.
For anybody else I would sift trou the work done by some great guys, and then link it here.
But not for you. Sorry... your last sentence yet again shows your agenda. I know 100% you would like to engage in another hair splitting contest.
You know what? Look for someone else to play your dumb games...

P.S.: How can I accuse Horner, if he "is ALSO obviously doping". Your reasoning is beyond me. Yet another time.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
1
0
red_flanders said:
So you have no reason for that rather dramatic statement that the BP stopped working just in time for the Vuelta.

Par for the course.
The BP stopped working exactly at the moment when Horner started sprinting up mountains in the vuelta.

It worked perfectly fine when Chris Badzilla was doing hte same for 2 years. He was just in a gray area of the passport.

Makes perfect sense of course.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
red_flanders said:
So you have no reason for that rather dramatic statement that the BP stopped working just in time for the Vuelta.

Par for the course.
When did I say I have no reason for that?
Please answer me one final question: Are you that dumb, or just pretend to be? I didn´t want to go another round with you. But honeestly I couldn´t resist: I just wanted to have the last shot. :p
 
DirtyWorks said:
No more money is needed. Just let WADA open cases. Be charitable and give 6 months warning before WADA is permitted to open cases with no backdated testing. The smartest dopers will dial it down, the idiots will get sanctions.


It should be obvious by now that the IOC doesn't particularly desire clean sports.

It seems to me that WADA was established as the organization whose responsibility is to establish and set the Anti Doping Rules. I am going to suggest it is better they stick to that rather than initiate violation investigations in addition to the UCI or a national ADA.

This would stretch their budget enormously because we are talking more than just cycling when it comes to WADA jurisdiction. It also leaves them open to bias if they are both setting the rules and prosecuting the offences and thus affecting their credibility.

I am going to suggest it is better to leave WADA the right to take a UCI or NADA case to the CAS, if they feel the UCI or a NADA screwed up during the first go around as they did with Contador.

I recognize your ongoing frustration with the lack of pro-activity with the UCI and the NADAs in opening files on doping cases. Keep in mind they may be opening a lot of cases we don't hear about due to the privacy rules they must follow until they actually charge someone.

Keep hammering away however. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS