Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[King Boonen]

Re:

access to co-operation with universities, medical schools etc. in a way which (maybe except Astana) no road cycling trade team can even dream about...

...

This would also explain why it is mostly British riders who do advance to "alien"-level in Team Sky. As it is national institution, the best of "knowledge" is not to be given for your competitors...

I also think that cutting-edge sports medicinal research is more likely to happen in UK, than in Kazakhstan.

..

any available PEDs/methods as long as they avoid being caught. However, the rest of the teams are restricted to "known methods" of blood transfusion / micro-dosing etc. while I'm pretty convinced Team Sky has some completely unknown, off-the-market, unpublicised stuff which they can utilise freely without ANY danger of detection (at this moment). Quite BALCOish,but likely with public sources / funding instead of private lab.


- making the world of cycling even MORE unfair for riders. If the best stuff is (at least for a moment) available only for riders of certain nationality, why should others bother?


9) But in a world where one group of riders (apparently not even close to a full team) have stuff which no one else knows about...

With a load of insanity mixed in for good measure.

If you get a chance, quoting the specific paragraphs or complete sentences that are insane would help me understand your somewhat hyperbolic post.

Thanks.

These bits, the worst of which I've highlighted. Drop all that, or just the bits hinting at new products and I don't have a problem. I've specified exactly what parts I have an issue with and how I have interpreted them. Maybe you can point out the hyperbole and I'll revise it?

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

HLN, biggest paper in belgium called out sky (thomas). Mentioned the marginal gains and even leinders, didn't see that one coming then again it's popular right now to do it.

Interesting. You have a link/ summary?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

These bits, the worst of which I've highlighted. Drop all that, or just the bits hinting at new products and I don't have a problem. I've specified exactly what parts I have an issue with and how I have interpreted them. Maybe you can point out the hyperbole and I'll revise it?

insanity - that's hyperbole. I am truly sorry I have to point that out to you.

Your quote was pretty ordinary, cutting a paragraph out of context, I will go read it in full.

You can interpret it as him meaning people are developing drugs for sports, or you can interpret it to mean the unis are developing drugs and are chummy with people at NCC.

I chose the latter.

You leapt to a pretty fanciful interpretation of the former.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

FYI, the cost to bring a new drug to market varies but is between $1-6 billion. That should really be the only argument needed.

If the NCC post had even suggested that that is what is going on - drugs designed for sports - I would agree with you. But it isn't. Not by even the most warped interpretation I can conjure, at any rate.

As for your call to arms for the ethics of universities. Well.

My understanding of the banking system in the UK makes them sound like a bunch of butchers, ripping the financial resources out of the country on the way to a golden parachute. And that's a regulated industry, where ethics are not even allowed to be leaned on, and they still get away with it.

Unis in this day and age are sorely needing funding and your belief that UK unis are all ok is cute.

See the bolded part in my last post. It doesn't matter if it's specifically for sport or not, no one is going to risk that kind of investment and future investment to help a bunch or athletes.

I'm not claiming any kind of ethical superiority in the UK, I'm pointing out that the kind of research being suggested is extremely closely monitored and that while people are unethical they are unlikely to be so for such little to no reward.

I don't see how the banking system is relevant, especially as most of the banks are international as are the regulations.

And please drop the condescending tone or I'm done discussing anything.

 

[The Hitch]

Btw kb, iirc farah became great just before he joined Salazar. he won the European double in 2010.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

These bits, the worst of which I've highlighted. Drop all that, or just the bits hinting at new products and I don't have a problem. I've specified exactly what parts I have an issue with and how I have interpreted them. Maybe you can point out the hyperbole and I'll revise it?

insanity - that's hyperbole. I am truly sorry I have to point that out to you.

Your quote was pretty ordinary, cutting a paragraph out of context, I will go read it in full.

You can interpret it as him meaning people are developing drugs for sports, or you can interpret it to mean the unis are developing drugs and are chummy with people at NCC.

I chose the latter.

You leapt to a pretty fanciful interpretation of the former.

So, none of that long response was hyperbole then? Just one word that would commonly be used to describe conspiracy theories that have nothing to back them up?

And your interpretation is almost as insane.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Btw kb, iirc farah became great just before he joined Salazar. he won the European double in 2010.

I think so, which doesn't really tie in to some great British conspiracy, unless he was sent away to America to train to put distance between him and the UK doping program. But then what about all the non-British athletes at the Oregon Project?


As I've said. Public funds being used to refine and test doping? Yep, no problem with that. Has happened before and is no doubt happening now.

Newly developed biologics from University medical research being funnelled into British sports before licensing and release? Nope. Crazy conspiracy theory with nothing to back it up.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Btw kb, iirc farah became great just before he joined Salazar. he won the European double in 2010.

I think so, which doesn't really tie in to some great British conspiracy, unless he was sent away to America to train to put distance between him and the UK doping program. But then what about all the non-British athletes at the Oregon Project?


As I've said. Public funds being used to refine and test doping? Yep, no problem with that. Has happened before and is no doubt happening now.

Newly developed biologics from University medical research being funnelled into British sports before licensing and release? Nope. Crazy conspiracy theory with nothing to back it up.

I'm not arguing the conspiracy here, the farah comment was just a sidepoint.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

This is all well and good, but your case still boils down to 'They are too good to be clean', how do we know they are too good? 'Because I know they are too good', You need to provide some evidence either of drug taking or that these performances genuinely are physiologically impossible without cheating in order to legitimately make those assertions with that level of confidence.

Given the advances in training, nutrition, bike/clothing technology to claim that the only way that froome could complete with the performances of the EPO era is drugs seems to ignore all these other possibilities. Yes he could be doping, yes sky and british cycling could be doping, but there are also many other equally if not more probable explanations, esp given the amount of drug testing that occurs and the absence of any direct accusations of drug taking.

These points have been answered many times before but in short:

No, there is no need to provide such evidence as it already exists when compared to known dopers. You've also fallen into the logical fallacy that because something might be within the realms of physiological possibility then the riders are likely not doping. This is constantly proven to be wrong as mid to low level riders regularly fail doping tests.

The advances are small at best considering the massive boost doping gives, literally turning nags into races horses.

there are not many more explanations. There is one. Sky have hit the jackpot with a couple of genetic outliers of extreme proportion. If you think there are more please list them.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Btw kb, iirc farah became great just before he joined Salazar. he won the European double in 2010.

I think so, which doesn't really tie in to some great British conspiracy, unless he was sent away to America to train to put distance between him and the UK doping program. But then what about all the non-British athletes at the Oregon Project?


As I've said. Public funds being used to refine and test doping? Yep, no problem with that. Has happened before and is no doubt happening now.

Newly developed biologics from University medical research being funnelled into British sports before licensing and release? Nope. Crazy conspiracy theory with nothing to back it up.

I'm not arguing the conspiracy here, the farah comment was just a sidepoint.

I know, I was just tying it into the discussion and how it doesn't chime with what I'm disagreeing with. Sorry about that, shouldn't have dragged someone else in.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

These bits, the worst of which I've highlighted. Drop all that, or just the bits hinting at new products and I don't have a problem. I've specified exactly what parts I have an issue with and how I have interpreted them. Maybe you can point out the hyperbole and I'll revise it?

insanity - that's hyperbole. I am truly sorry I have to point that out to you.

Your quote was pretty ordinary, cutting a paragraph out of context, I will go read it in full.

You can interpret it as him meaning people are developing drugs for sports, or you can interpret it to mean the unis are developing drugs and are chummy with people at NCC.

I chose the latter.

You leapt to a pretty fanciful interpretation of the former.

So, none of that long response was hyperbole then? Just one word that would commonly be used to describe conspiracy theories that have nothing to back them up?

And your interpretation is almost as insane.

So you think all their doping products are known?
That there's nothing new?

Despite Froome's obvious confidence he's not going to be caught?

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

These bits, the worst of which I've highlighted. Drop all that, or just the bits hinting at new products and I don't have a problem. I've specified exactly what parts I have an issue with and how I have interpreted them. Maybe you can point out the hyperbole and I'll revise it?

insanity - that's hyperbole. I am truly sorry I have to point that out to you.

Your quote was pretty ordinary, cutting a paragraph out of context, I will go read it in full.

You can interpret it as him meaning people are developing drugs for sports, or you can interpret it to mean the unis are developing drugs and are chummy with people at NCC.

I chose the latter.

You leapt to a pretty fanciful interpretation of the former.

So, none of that long response was hyperbole then? Just one word that would commonly be used to describe conspiracy theories that have nothing to back them up?

And your interpretation is almost as insane.

So you think all their doping products are known?
That there's nothing new?

Despite Froome's obvious confidence he's not going to be caught?

Known to who? Medicine or sports teams? That's the bit I have a problem with:

I think that it's perfectly possible Sky have a team of people who have investigated what can and can't be got away with and what will and won't trip the tests.

I think it's perfectly possible they also have worked out exactly what works for who in certain situations to a better degree than other teams as this would require a very large investment and something like the NCC that not all teams have access to.

I also think it's perfectly possible they have people going through the literature and looking for things that might give them the edge, either within or outwith the rules.

I think it's less likely but also possible they are clued in to doping controls and that helps them plan programs.



I don't see anything from Sky that we haven't seen in the past, both recent and longer ago, Gweiss, USPS, Banesto, Astana, Tinkov, Quick Step, Mapei, La Vie Claire, Molteni, Faema etc. I can't explain why we seem to see such dominant performances from one team in events, but I think that's a multi-factorial response so would be incredibly hard to pin down and it's something we've seen even before blood doping so I don't think it's strange enough to suggest that Sky have something no-one else does.

Froome confident? So was Lance. So Is Contador. So Is Nibali. So is Wiggins. None of them think they're going to get caught now or in the future. Maybe it's due to their misunderstanding of how retroactive testing could work (which would certainly make me worry if I were a doper and it ever happened). Maybe there is someone on their team who they see as an expert reassuring them. I don't know.


I'm not claiming any kind of moral superiority in the UK, I'm purely saying there is absolutely no evidence for some kind of enormous conspiracy involving publicly funded medical research and UK sport. I would say the same for any country.


Lets not forget, BALCO didn't even really invent anything. They made designer drugs (maybe only one? THG), modifications of available products. It was extremely impressive work, but it wasn't something that required the kind of input being indicated in this discussion.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Sorry I didn't quite catch that. Do you think they are using known drugs or something new?
Known to WADA - ie on the lists. Drugs that have tests or don't?

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

So you think all their doping products are known?
That there's nothing new?

Despite Froome's obvious confidence he's not going to be caught?

Assurances can also come from a few bribes to the right people. We know Armstrong's tests were covered up thanks to a few "secret gifts".

 

[seldon71]

Few comments to King Boonen :

1) The cost of bringing a new medicine to the market has nothing to do with bringing a new PED to a limited number of sportsmen. You don't have to do the field testing, you don't have to prove the PED safe or free of serious side-symptoms, you don't have to do the marketing. With the regular medicine, the cost starts to pile up AFTER you've made the original "innovation". Here, the selected group of athletes would actually be you very 1st small-sample test group - totally health-unconscious due their unusually high ambition & competitiveness level.

2) That research would of course not necessarily go ONLY for endurance sports. What if it's something with much wider field of application, but it is still WAY short of necessary testing from being "published". Either academically or commercially. Totally possible that it is something not yet listed as a doping product (due being unknown) - thus it would be neither traceable nor on the list of illegal substances.

3) You may call TGH only "a designer drug" and being nothing "fundamentally new". Well, it took a leak to become detectable. That alone would already be a solid head-start. Doesn't need to be MORE ground-breaking...

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Sorry I didn't quite catch that. Do you think they are using known drugs or something new?
Known to WADA - ie on the lists. Drugs that have tests or don't?

I'm pretty sure you understand the leading nature of this question. Just because something isn't on a WADA list doesn't mean it isn't a known drug and that is the point I am making. The WADA list is not just a list of banned drugs, it has many clauses to cover analogs of drugs, methods etc. Many things on the WADA list or covered by it do not have effective tests or even tests at all, that is not how the list is constructed.

So yes, I think that if they are doping their riders they are using things either on the list or covered by it. I also think they could be using things that are not covered by the list (which technically isn't doping).

 

[arthurvandelay]

Re: Re:

If Ashenden had not lost his job after he arrived overseas, I am pretty sure he was going to be returning to Australia with new doping products "for dope detection purposes", yes. Funded by AIS and thus public money, yes. Which is why (I believe) the government at the time shut it down, effectively firing him and leaving him stranded in a foreign country.

It's probably worthwhile defining new doping products at this point. I'm taking it to mean things not currently available, either specifically designed for doping of syphoned off to doping at an early stage in development (pre-FDA/MHRA approval). Is that fair?

In this case EPO wasn't a new doing product. AICAR isn't etc. and that's what I'm driving at. The idea something is being created specifically for doping and being given out without any approval is crazy. Testing things as performance enhancers after discovery? Quite possible, though highly unlikely to involve UK universities in any nefarious way.

I didn't read this NCC post as implying the compounds were being created by the research institutions for the riders per se, more that they had access to anything new going on. Keeping in mind these drugs tend to be created for health purposes and they have advanced research methods and facilities. All of which could be of assistance to athletes.

This is still very, very unlikely. The UK has some of the most stringent ethics processes in the world (I know as I've been involved with lots of ethics applications). The idea that leading medical researchers would happily pass things on to a load of sports teams is misdirected at best and if they were going to do it cycling would be right at the bottom of the list. This kind of thing would literally destroy a university, no doubt several universities and associated NHS trusts, charities, private companies etc. involved in the research for literally no gain. The Pharmaceutical industry is enormous, the idea of risking any potential new drug to help out a few athletes no-one cares about is insane.

It would be interesting to look into why Ketones were a focus for study and subsequent isolation / creation. They were a Brit invention and first isolated in the UK. It's not much of a stretch to put them into the hands of UK sporting power house.

This isn't really correct or relevant. Ketones covers a huge range of compounds, not just the few being touted as miracle fuels and ketosis is a part of basic metabolism that has been known about for a very long time. They weren't invented by anyone.

It's not relevant because it isn't doping, using it to enforce an idea that doping is endemic in UK sport is a strawman. You might as well say that Cavendish discovered the structure of water, so the use of water in sports nutrition ties the UK to doping (massive artistic licence I know, but easier than picking glycolysis, which ties Germans and Russians to doping via the Embden–Meyerhof–Parnas pathway ).

Good post. For me personally I don't think that the academic researchers would be the ones "leaking" novel compounds to a team or a rider: I am more inclined to think that it would be the pharmaceutical companies themselves. My wife has worked in clinical research for years and has seen some dodgy behavior coming from the pharmaceutical side in terms of repressing unfavorable outcomes, dangerous side effects , etc. I always wondered if Lance and US Postal had this kind of relationship with Amgen and other Big Pharma companies. If a rider or team had access to compounds that were still in the development stage such drugs would be zealously kept under the radar and not be known to WADA for testing reasons. From a laboratory researchers point of view they usually have very stringent inventory controls for any novel compounds they might be testing if such compounds came from Big Pharma to their labs. I don't think that an academic PhD tasked with researching a compound for a big company would ever divert such material for reasons discussed above. Just my two cents FWIW.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Few comments to King Boonen :

1) The cost of bringing a new medicine to the market has nothing to do with bringing a new PED to a limited number of sportsmen. You don't have to do the field testing, you don't have to prove the PED safe or free of serious side-symptoms, you don't have to do the marketing. With the regular medicine, the cost starts to pile up AFTER you've made the original "innovation". Here, the selected group of athletes would actually be you very 1st small-sample test group - totally health-unconscious due their unusually high ambition & competitiveness level.

Actually it has a huge amount to do with it. The only way you know a drug is going to be effective is by putting it though a large number of very expensive screens and clinical trials. Current methods screen thousands of compound libraries at a time and cost a huge amount of money. Even after that animal and human trials are required to find out if it will actually be effective. Are you are suggesting Sky are going through the literature and have managed to randomly select a few compounds that happen to work brilliantly? Or that they are bypassing any type of testing and just injecting stuff into riders based on the biochemistry? Because that really is insane. Even if they were doing that the likelihood of them hitting on things that every other biochemist, biologist, chemist etc. has discarded, with 100% success rate, is so small as to be laughable. Many compounds are discarded for either being extremely harmful or impossible to deliver. Either they have several novel laureates in waiting in their employ or they are using compounds that have been tested, proven to be effective and that means huge costs have been incurred. In that case the point that it would be crazy to risk any new drug just to dope athletes stands. It wouldn't just ruin that drug, it would destroy mutli-billion dollar companies, Universities, possibly even hospitals that were involved.

2) That research would of course not necessarily go ONLY for endurance sports. What if it's something with much wider field of application, but it is still WAY short of necessary testing from being "published". Either academically or commercially. Totally possible that it is something not yet listed as a doping product (due being unknown) - thus it would be neither traceable nor on the list of illegal substances.

I've not said only endurance sports, you have and I've answered. I assumed that we were talking in general terms but limiting our discussion to that area as that's what is mostly relevant. Of course things like EPO can help in many other sports. I never have and never would dispute that. Either way, you are showing a huge lack of knowledge in this area. Thousands of things get published that never make it past a simple assay. Please refer to my previous answer, the idea that Sky or any other sports teams/coach would randomly inject compounds into people that weren't even good enough to be published is even more insane!

You also don't seem to understand the WADA code. It is NOT just a list of banned substances. There are many clauses included to cover things that are not yet currently known but the most pertinent part of the code is that ANY drug that has not been approved for human use is banned.

3) You may call TGH only "a designer drug" and being nothing "fundamentally new". Well, it took a leak to become detectable. That alone would already be a solid head-start. Doesn't need to be MORE ground-breaking...[/quote]

No, it doesn't, but those kinds of things could easily be produced without involving public institutions which would be much more sensible and likely. In fact, private entities like BALCO have shown that. I also can't think of any blood doping product that is so simply produced. That's the issue with drugs, some are pretty easy to do that with but some really aren't.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Can someone explain to me why Brailsford was awarded a PhD by his original uni?
ie do the uni really generate that much cache from having his name associated with it?
Or does the uni get something else out of it as well?

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Can someone explain to me why Brailsford was awarded a PhD by his original uni?
ie do the uni really generate that much cache from having his name associated with it?
Or does the uni get something else out of it as well?

I didn't know he had one. Was in Honorary?


Edit: Did the 10 seconds research myself. It's honorary and it's fairly traditional for people to be awarded honorary degrees either by their original university or one that is either closely associated with what they do, where they are from etc.

Jeremy Clarkson has an honorary degree from Oxford Brookes, Oxford Brookes are the only university who offer degrees in Formula 1 engineering as far as I'm aware. The Beegees have degrees from Manchester, where they grew up, Jonathan Agnew from Loughborough etc. It's marketing, pure and simple.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re:

Can someone explain to me why Brailsford was awarded a PhD by his original uni?
ie do the uni really generate that much cache from having his name associated with it?
Or does the uni get something else out of it as well?

Its an honorary doctorate only.
I always wonder why universities give them out, but its frequently to famous alums, or people they want to be associated with.

 

[bigcog]

Apparently a spectator punched Ritchie Porte in the last 3km in todays stage according to the Telegraph.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

Apparently a spectator punched Ritchie Porte in the last 3km in todays stage according to the Telegraph.

Did he stop and have a chat?

Froome has been getting booed at the start of the last few stages.

 

[bigcog]

Just listened to podcast and it was on stage 12 I think. Punched in the torso. If true, this sh*t is getting out of hand.

 

[autologous]

Re:

Apparently a spectator punched Ritchie Porte in the last 3km in todays stage according to the Telegraph.

pretty hilarious since just recently Porte was actively calling out a spectator as a coward and accusing him of soiling their pants in his presence.

If I went around calling people cowards and telling the world they were little pussies with bladder control issues, I'd expect a punch in the face too.

couldn't happen to a nicer guy.