Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1251 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dec 11, 2013
1,138
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
I believe what Bobbins shared is plausible.
So do I as it goes.

But I'm dropping it now as it's going no where.

Shame. Evidence of a backdated TUE would go a long way convince me Sky cheated.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
samhocking said:
Claims made for or against Sky in the Clinic all end up hot air anyway. The discussions are like a bunch of blind soldiers with scatter-guns firing at each other for years already decided what their opinion is and never winning.
No it isnt and claiming this is stupid.

Plenty post in the clinic that have good contacts inside the sport.

If it was all hot air it would have dissipated long ago. It hasnt.

Most in the clinic are not blind to the sports culture of doping. That has not changed no matter how much JV and Brailsfod love to claim it has. Those posters who claim things have changed cannot point to anything that would've changed this culture. Ferrari and Astana's recent outing proves the sport has not changed. That JV and Brailsford claim it shows they are hiding the obvious truth.
 
sniper said:
As DW says, nobody has claimed Garmin are proactively doping their riders.

We all know Garmin have an internal testing program which is sold as an antidoping program.
We also know from Prentice's leaked email a few years ago that even to the riders and staff members it is sold as an antidoping program.
So no surprise the guys you spoke to say that.

You really think Ryder won that Giro clean and Wiggo got that 4th place clean?
Or could it be that your insider contacts don't know the full story?
But Bobbins does? How do you know it is not some guy just winding Bobbins up to see what he will post for a laugh.

I like this claim of 'we know'. We know jack, you can say you believe but you definitely do not 'know'. Nobody on an internet forum 'knows' unless they are directly involved.

This is also laughable saying nobody ever claimed that Garmin have a proactive doping policy.

How many times has it been claimed on here that Girona is a doping hub, thus the reason so many Garmin riders are based there so easier to run a team programme? How many times have you mentioned Girona alone? To now turn around and claim otherwise is just BS.

My insiders have the same view on Ryder winning the Giro as a lot of people, including myself. It is on the very limits of what they believe is possible for a clean rider but wouldn't be surprised if he were doping either.

Lets put it like this, in a race with all the top dogs on top form, Ryder would be somewhere between 10-20 on GC imo. Considering Moncoutie finished 12th at the Tour in 2002 and has a clean rep, then yes its plausible. There are other factors than doping at play also.
 
Benotti69 said:
Why feed any of them, del, Parky, Spud............
Actually - why not start a sticky with evidence (or whatever you want to call it) against Sky. Would that work? After all this thread is far too long to find anything meaningful in - and it might go someway to alleviating tensions between long term members and others.
 
Benotti69 said:
No it isnt and claiming this is stupid.

Plenty post in the clinic that have good contacts inside the sport.

If it was all hot air it would have dissipated long ago. It hasnt.

Most in the clinic are not blind to the sports culture of doping. That has not changed no matter how much JV and Brailsfod love to claim it has. Those posters who claim things have changed cannot point to anything that would've changed this culture. Ferrari and Astana's recent outing proves the sport has not changed. That JV and Brailsford claim it shows they are hiding the obvious truth.
Well, I don't see 30,000 long posts about any other team or DS at all on the first or even second page of the Clinic, so clearly these 'good contacts inside the sport' only have contacts as far as Sky. Seems rather one-dimensional type of relationship with cycling, hence I suspect they blow hot air!
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
make believe

sniper said:
yes, you may dismiss it as hearsay.
just stop telling me and others to dismiss it as well.
please don't make stuff up.............stating that something may be dismissed

is not telling you to do so

Mark L
 
Dear Wiggo said:
I'll accept the team are not doping their riders - but I was under the impression even the most jaded disbeliever held a similar opinion.

What I can't accept is that JV knows for eg Von Hoff is clean, when he saw him 3 times in 2 years. Extrapolate that out to every rider. Mirror confidence in ABP to the internal testing.

I do not accept Ryder won the Giro clean.
At the risk of taking this off-topic to Garmin. JV is the GM, all the people who do the internal testing, work with the riders on a regular basis etc report to JV so I am sure he has faith in what they report to him. I am sure it is not based purely on internal testing either. Read any number of the doping confessions and behavioural patterns are a clear indicator as well.

Maybe they all lie to him or maybe you feel there is a huge conspiracy within his team that he does not know about. I highly doubt that, as JV picks the people he wants and trusts.

Perhaps Ryder is doping and internal testing at the team is not picking it up. But to do that he would need to keeping an eye on things by himself when he is in Girona, where so many other riders and staff live. That is where the behavioural patterns would come in.

Likewise, if he were doping, how would he do it during a 3 week race without arousing suspicion from his team. Do you think someone starting a GT with Ht 46 could compete in third week without taking something along the way. To me either JV knows and is lying or his entire team are pulling the wool over his eyes.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
pmcg76 said:
But Bobbins does? How do you know it is not some guy just winding Bobbins up to see what he will post for a laugh.

I like this claim of 'we know'. We know jack, you can say you believe but you definitely do not 'know'. Nobody on an internet forum 'knows' unless they are directly involved.

This is also laughable saying nobody ever claimed that Garmin have a proactive doping policy.

How many times has it been claimed on here that Girona is a doping hub, thus the reason so many Garmin riders are based there so easier to run a team programme? How many times have you mentioned Girona alone? To now turn around and claim otherwise is just BS.

My insiders have the same view on Ryder winning the Giro as a lot of people, including myself. It is on the very limits of what they believe is possible for a clean rider but wouldn't be surprised if he were doping either.

Lets put it like this, in a race with all the top dogs on top form, Ryder would be somewhere between 10-20 on GC imo. Considering Moncoutie finished 12th at the Tour in 2002 and has a clean rep, then yes its plausible. There are other factors than doping at play also.
can we just get some things straight?

1. so you admit your sources cannot know if garmin riders are doping? (my answer: no they can't)
2. Sky's backdated TUE strikes you as plausible? (my answer: yes it does)
 
sniper said:
can we just get some things straight?

1. so you admit your sources cannot know if garmin riders are doping? (my answer: no they can't)
2. Sky's backdated TUE strikes you as plausible? (my answer: yes it does)
Lets see, one source says SKY had a backdated TUE/another sources says there is no doping at Garmin. They are both equally plausible. They are both relying on second hand information that might or might not be true. There is no difference.

Has Bobbins seen a backdated TUE for SKY?

Plus you really need to learn what a strawman is.
 
pmcg76 said:
Lets see, one source says SKY had a backdated TUE/another sources says there is no doping at Garmin. They are both equally plausible. They are both relying on second hand information that might or might not be true. There is no difference.

Has Bobbins seen a backdated TUE for SKY?

Plus you really need to learn what a strawman is.
To be fair, UKAD allow "retroactive" TUEs to be applied. So it's entirely likely that it occurred. Depends what the substances were and the motivation behind the action.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
pmcg76 said:
Lets see, one source says SKY had a backdated TUE/another sources says there is no doping at Garmin. They are both equally plausible. They are both relying on second hand information that might or might not be true. There is no difference.

Has Bobbins seen a backdated TUE for SKY?

Plus you really need to learn what a strawman is.
thanks, now that's clearly stating your opinion, although it strikes me as a particulrly ill informed opinion, which is odd for someone so knowledgeable on the history of cycling like you.
 
thehog said:
To be fair, UKAD allow "retroactive" TUEs to be applied. So it's entirely likely that it occurred. Depends what the substances were and the motivation behind the action.
The UCI allow retroactive TUEs as well (section 4.3 of the TUE guidelines) and so do every other sports governing body.
That's why unless bobbins reveals a little more of the circumstances it's not really incriminating. The phrase 'backdated TUE' with no context is designed to invite parallels to Armstrong.
 
thehog said:
To be fair, UKAD allow "retroactive" TUEs to be applied. So it's entirely likely that it occurred. Depends what the substances were and the motivation behind the action.
Damn. I said I wouldn't do this but here I am. I'll post the whole section for clarity, from the WADA guidelines. Yes, I'm aware it's the most recent version but I'm pretty sure it has been fairly standard since well before Sky were a team:

7.0 Retroactive TUEs
There are situations for which TUEs may be granted retroactively.
The evaluation process is identical to the standard TUE application procedure: The relevant TUEC studies the application and issues its decision.
Per ISTUE Article 4.3, the following situations may result in a retroactive TUE:
a. Emergency treatment or treatment of an acute medical condition was necessary; or
b. Due to other exceptional circumstances, there was insufficient time or opportunity for the Athlete to submit, or the TUEC to consider, an application for the TUE prior to Sample collection; or
c. Applicable rules required the Athlete or permitted the Athlete to apply for a retroactive TUE. This is applicable to Persons who are not International-Level or National-Level Athletes (Code Article 4.4.5) and (where the relevant NADO so chooses) to National-Level Athletes in sports specified by the relevant NADO (ISTUE Article 5.1 Comment); or
[Comment: Such Athletes are strongly advised to have a medical file prepared and ready to demonstrate their satisfaction of the TUE conditions set out at ISTUE Article 4.1, should an application for a retroactive TUE be necessary following Sample collection.]
d. It is agreed, by WADA and by the ADO to whom the application for a retroactive TUE is or would be made, that fairness requires the grant of a retroactive TUE.
7.1 Further Clarification on Retroactive TUEs
a. A medical emergency or acute medical situation occurs when the Athlete's medical condition justifies immediate Administration of a Prohibited Substance or Method and failure to treat immediately could significantly put the Athlete’s health at risk.
 It is always preferable to address a TUE application prospectively rather than retrospectively. ADOs granting TUEs should have internal procedures to expedite the evaluation and granting of TUE for emergency situations, whenever possible, and without putting the athlete’s health at risk.
b. Exceptional circumstances occur when a TUE cannot be granted in time through No Fault of the Athlete. The following examples could be considered “exceptional circumstances”:
 A healthy Athlete is suddenly affected by a medical condition days prior to an Event, and is unable to request and be granted a TUE by a TUEC in the time allotted.
 A young Athlete with a medical condition whose prior Competition level did not require an advance TUE, and whose anti-doping education is limited, is suddenly named to a national team.



Without supplying any more information than he current has, all Bobbins has basically done has said Sky might or might not have broken the rules.
 
thehog said:
To be fair, UKAD allow "retroactive" TUEs to be applied. So it's entirely likely that it occurred. Depends what the substances were and the motivation behind the action.
True
However (using the 2015 rules)



No Sky level rider would be under this limited scope. All would be in the international testing pool. Certain BC cyclists are international pool, most would be national testing pool, and some younger/lower level BC cyclist may fall into the limited area that UKAD would cover.

Literally if I was visiting my parents and hobby jogged the Great North run, and somehow got randomly pulled for a test. I would have 10 days to apply for a retrospective TUE for any substance.
If I am competing at a national/international level all but true emergency TUEs need to be approved in advance.

Here are examples UKAD gives

TUEs for National level athletes should be submitted to UK Anti-Doping for review. Only in emergency situations (e.g. allergic reaction, exacerbation of asthma, onset of bell's palsy) should treatment begin without TUE approval


If someone need their epi-pen, they can stab it in their thigh to reduce the risk of dying, and deal with the paperwork afterwards

There is, I am sure, a process from retroactive TUE's under UCI regulations as well. (There simply has to be for true emergency cases).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts