Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[thehog]

Re:

Oh, forgot something, re

It's unfortunate but there's nothing that really can be done. Time penalties, points subtractions make little difference.

Again here from memory, so someone with a rulebook can correct me, but (IIRC) there should be a points deduction, can't recall whether the rule requires it or just allows it. Check the scores Saturday and Sunday, see if it was applied.

Yes it was applied, -25 point for all 90 which clearly is devastating for all involved

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

The only conspiracy I see is Astana riding for Sky. If that didn't happen, Quintana & Comtador would be 1-2, 7 minutes ahead of 3rd.

I would love to believe Sky have a petty cash box or a slush fund for bribes, sorry, buying help, but after the reaction to the Worlds thing with Wegelius that's surely a hypocrisy too far, even for Brailsford? (I could imagine him 'not knowing' were a rider to do the deal though, if it suited.)

Serious question though: could such deals fall under the UK's (strong but poorly enfiorced) anti-bribery laws?

My understanding is they use prize money as the method. There is a series of IOU and after the race everyone gets squared up.

I would agree, sporting fraud and anti-bribery does come to mind but very hard to enforce as it would be treated as a "gift" for the efforts to help.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Yes it was applied, -25 point for all 90 which clearly is devastating for all involved

Thanx for confirming. Was too lazy to look.

 

[pastronef]

Re:

ASO have not got the balls to DQ team sky. No surprise there.

Aso wont DQ 90 riders and get to Madrid with just 70 riders.

not only Sky stayed in the race

Drucker and Frank (OTL) won stages the next days

have you complained about that too?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

ASO have not got the balls to DQ team sky. No surprise there.

Aso wont DQ 90 riders and get to Madrid with just 70 riders.

not only Sky stayed in the race

Drucker and Frank (OTL) won stages the next days

have you complained about that too?

The entire top 13(that is stage winner to 13th place) on stage 16 should have been eliminated the previous day.

That is a lot of threads.

I have personally written to the heads of their respective countries complaining.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

ASO have not got the balls to DQ team sky. No surprise there.

Aso wont DQ 90 riders and get to Madrid with just 70 riders.

not only Sky stayed in the race

Drucker and Frank (OTL) won stages the next days

have you complained about that too?

The entire top 13(that is stage winner to 13th place) on stage 16 should have been eliminated the previous day.

That is a lot of threads.

I have personally written to the heads of their respective countries complaining.

bravo Beno, that´s the right way to do it.

just please dont write to the Bahrain King next year if something similar happens. you´d be in danger

 

[The Hegelian]

What does Mr Fancy Bears tell us about Sky: in the form of tangible evidence?

That Wiggins' 2012 TDF was predicated on him maintaining power at a body weight that could only be maintained with corticosteroids. Officially legit because of the TUE, but this is in no way consistent with their marginal gains narrative. It is explicitly using drugs and the system of rules to maximize power-weight ratio, which they fully understand to be a necessary condition for winning the tour.

By inference, it follows that the template laid down in 2012 was likely followed in subsequent tours.

That is, independent of speculation about using illegal methods - which we can simply bracket here - we have tangible positive evidence that they are willing to utilise chemical methods to maximise power-weight ratios, and that this is a substantive and manifest gain which is unequivocally about chemical methods.

Conclusion: all of this is bleeding obvious to any one who looks, but those who parrot the marginal gains bullocks must contend with this evidence to the contrary.

 

[TheSpud]

Re:

What does Mr Fancy Bears tell us about Sky: in the form of tangible evidence?

That Wiggins' 2012 TDF was predicated on him maintaining power at a body weight that could only be maintained with corticosteroids. Officially legit because of the TUE, but this is in no way consistent with their marginal gains narrative. It is explicitly using drugs and the system of rules to maximize power-weight ratio, which they fully understand to be a necessary condition for winning the tour.

By inference, it follows that the template laid down in 2012 was likely followed in subsequent tours.

That is, independent of speculation about using illegal methods - which we can simply bracket here - we have tangible positive evidence that they are willing to utilise chemical methods to maximise power-weight ratios, and that this is a substantive and manifest gain which is unequivocally about chemical methods.

Conclusion: all of this is bleeding obvious to any one who looks, but those who parrot the marginal gains bullocks must contend with this evidence to the contrary.

So my hunch that Leinders was hired as the 'grey areas' doc may not be that far off the mark, and if true Sky can still claim to be 'clean' within the current rules.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

What does Mr Fancy Bears tell us about Sky: in the form of tangible evidence?

That Wiggins' 2012 TDF was predicated on him maintaining power at a body weight that could only be maintained with corticosteroids. Officially legit because of the TUE, but this is in no way consistent with their marginal gains narrative. It is explicitly using drugs and the system of rules to maximize power-weight ratio, which they fully understand to be a necessary condition for winning the tour.

By inference, it follows that the template laid down in 2012 was likely followed in subsequent tours.

That is, independent of speculation about using illegal methods - which we can simply bracket here - we have tangible positive evidence that they are willing to utilise chemical methods to maximise power-weight ratios, and that this is a substantive and manifest gain which is unequivocally about chemical methods.

Conclusion: all of this is bleeding obvious to any one who looks, but those who parrot the marginal gains bullocks must contend with this evidence to the contrary.

So my hunch that Leinders was hired as the 'grey areas' doc may not be that far off the mark, and if true Sky can still claim to be 'clean' within the current rules.

Agree about Leinders. It's suspicious, but is not in itself indicative of any official rule breaking. If a team genuinely wanted to win clean(ish) against other doped riders, then it would almost be essential to have a doctor who knew exactly the strengths and limitations of doping in the peloton.

The reason why Leinders and Ferrari were so sought after in cycling wasn't because they could prescribe EPO - loads of doctors would be willing to do that. It's because they had a very high level understanding of how those drugs interacted with the body in relation to cycling performance. That kind of information and expertise is invaluable to any team, whether or not they are doping. And would also be pretty integral to finding clean replacements for officially banned drugs.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

What does Mr Fancy Bears tell us about Sky: in the form of tangible evidence?

That Wiggins' 2012 TDF was predicated on him maintaining power at a body weight that could only be maintained with corticosteroids. Officially legit because of the TUE, but this is in no way consistent with their marginal gains narrative. It is explicitly using drugs and the system of rules to maximize power-weight ratio, which they fully understand to be a necessary condition for winning the tour.

By inference, it follows that the template laid down in 2012 was likely followed in subsequent tours.

That is, independent of speculation about using illegal methods - which we can simply bracket here - we have tangible positive evidence that they are willing to utilise chemical methods to maximise power-weight ratios, and that this is a substantive and manifest gain which is unequivocally about chemical methods.

Conclusion: all of this is bleeding obvious to any one who looks, but those who parrot the marginal gains bullocks must contend with this evidence to the contrary.

So my hunch that Leinders was hired as the 'grey areas' doc may not be that far off the mark, and if true Sky can still claim to be 'clean' within the current rules.

Absolutely no one who said Sky were doping 1 week ago, is now going to believe, after wiggins was just caught lying through his teeth, that actually he must have been clean all along

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

What does Mr Fancy Bears tell us about Sky: in the form of tangible evidence?

That Wiggins' 2012 TDF was predicated on him maintaining power at a body weight that could only be maintained with corticosteroids. Officially legit because of the TUE, but this is in no way consistent with their marginal gains narrative. It is explicitly using drugs and the system of rules to maximize power-weight ratio, which they fully understand to be a necessary condition for winning the tour.

By inference, it follows that the template laid down in 2012 was likely followed in subsequent tours.

That is, independent of speculation about using illegal methods - which we can simply bracket here - we have tangible positive evidence that they are willing to utilise chemical methods to maximise power-weight ratios, and that this is a substantive and manifest gain which is unequivocally about chemical methods.

Conclusion: all of this is bleeding obvious to any one who looks, but those who parrot the marginal gains bullocks must contend with this evidence to the contrary.

So my hunch that Leinders was hired as the 'grey areas' doc may not be that far off the mark, and if true Sky can still claim to be 'clean' within the current rules.

Agree about Leinders. It's suspicious, but is not in itself indicative of any official rule breaking. If a team genuinely wanted to win clean(ish) against other doped riders, then it would almost be essential to have a doctor who knew exactly the strengths and limitations of doping in the peloton.

The reason why Leinders and Ferrari were so sought after in cycling wasn't because they could prescribe EPO - loads of doctors would be willing to do that. It's because they had a very high level understanding of how those drugs interacted with the body in relation to cycling performance. That kind of information and expertise is invaluable to any team, whether or not they are doping. And would also be pretty integral to finding clean replacements for officially banned drugs.

By that logic Leinders should not have been fired.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

What does Mr Fancy Bears tell us about Sky: in the form of tangible evidence?

That Wiggins' 2012 TDF was predicated on him maintaining power at a body weight that could only be maintained with corticosteroids. Officially legit because of the TUE, but this is in no way consistent with their marginal gains narrative. It is explicitly using drugs and the system of rules to maximize power-weight ratio, which they fully understand to be a necessary condition for winning the tour.

By inference, it follows that the template laid down in 2012 was likely followed in subsequent tours.

That is, independent of speculation about using illegal methods - which we can simply bracket here - we have tangible positive evidence that they are willing to utilise chemical methods to maximise power-weight ratios, and that this is a substantive and manifest gain which is unequivocally about chemical methods.

Conclusion: all of this is bleeding obvious to any one who looks, but those who parrot the marginal gains bullocks must contend with this evidence to the contrary.

So my hunch that Leinders was hired as the 'grey areas' doc may not be that far off the mark, and if true Sky can still claim to be 'clean' within the current rules.

Agree about Leinders. It's suspicious, but is not in itself indicative of any official rule breaking. If a team genuinely wanted to win clean(ish) against other doped riders, then it would almost be essential to have a doctor who knew exactly the strengths and limitations of doping in the peloton.

The reason why Leinders and Ferrari were so sought after in cycling wasn't because they could prescribe EPO - loads of doctors would be willing to do that. It's because they had a very high level understanding of how those drugs interacted with the body in relation to cycling performance. That kind of information and expertise is invaluable to any team, whether or not they are doping. And would also be pretty integral to finding clean replacements for officially banned drugs.

By that logic Leinders should not have been fired.

Leinders was fired because it came out that he had a doping past - therefore against ZTP. There has been a long discussion / thread on whether Sky knew (or ought to have known) that he had a doping past so I'll leave it there and not rehash anything.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

What does Mr Fancy Bears tell us about Sky: in the form of tangible evidence?

That Wiggins' 2012 TDF was predicated on him maintaining power at a body weight that could only be maintained with corticosteroids. Officially legit because of the TUE, but this is in no way consistent with their marginal gains narrative. It is explicitly using drugs and the system of rules to maximize power-weight ratio, which they fully understand to be a necessary condition for winning the tour.

By inference, it follows that the template laid down in 2012 was likely followed in subsequent tours.

That is, independent of speculation about using illegal methods - which we can simply bracket here - we have tangible positive evidence that they are willing to utilise chemical methods to maximise power-weight ratios, and that this is a substantive and manifest gain which is unequivocally about chemical methods.

Conclusion: all of this is bleeding obvious to any one who looks, but those who parrot the marginal gains bullocks must contend with this evidence to the contrary.

So my hunch that Leinders was hired as the 'grey areas' doc may not be that far off the mark, and if true Sky can still claim to be 'clean' within the current rules.

Absolutely no one who said Sky were doping 1 week ago, is now going to believe, after wiggins was just caught lying through his teeth, that actually he must have been clean all along

Indeed not, but these TUEs do show that they were using murky / grey areas in my view and as DFA said Leinders knowledge of what was possible 'within the rules' (TUEs etc) would have been invaluable. It would be interesting to know what else was being combined with the cortico - Xenon and Meldonium perhaps.

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

Leinders was fired because it came out that he had a doping past - therefore against ZTP. There has been a long discussion / thread on whether Sky knew (or ought to have known) that he had a doping past so I'll leave it there and not rehash anything.

Spud I know but I was responding to the claim that Leinders was employed because as a doping doctor he had inside knowledge on how to beat the dopers clean.

The only part of Brailsford I believe is that Leinders was engaged because of the death of Txema Gonzalez. What do we know about this?

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

What does Mr Fancy Bears tell us about Sky: in the form of tangible evidence?

That Wiggins' 2012 TDF was predicated on him maintaining power at a body weight that could only be maintained with corticosteroids. Officially legit because of the TUE, but this is in no way consistent with their marginal gains narrative. It is explicitly using drugs and the system of rules to maximize power-weight ratio, which they fully understand to be a necessary condition for winning the tour.

By inference, it follows that the template laid down in 2012 was likely followed in subsequent tours.

That is, independent of speculation about using illegal methods - which we can simply bracket here - we have tangible positive evidence that they are willing to utilise chemical methods to maximise power-weight ratios, and that this is a substantive and manifest gain which is unequivocally about chemical methods.

Conclusion: all of this is bleeding obvious to any one who looks, but those who parrot the marginal gains bullocks must contend with this evidence to the contrary.

So my hunch that Leinders was hired as the 'grey areas' doc may not be that far off the mark, and if true Sky can still claim to be 'clean' within the current rules.

Absolutely no one who said Sky were doping 1 week ago, is now going to believe, after wiggins was just caught lying through his teeth, that actually he must have been clean all along

Indeed not, but these TUEs do show that they were using murky / grey areas in my view and as DFA said Leinders knowledge of what was possible 'within the rules' (TUEs etc) would have been invaluable. It would be interesting to know what else was being combined with the cortico - Xenon and Meldonium perhaps.

If you take 2008 wiggins and 2010 Froome and give them the aid of a couple of "murky" "grey area" drugs, they might finish top 100 and top 50 in a gt respectively.

You need a lot more powerful *** to have them dominate the TDF

 

[thehog]

Re: Sky

I'm impressed that the British media is starting to ask the right type of questions, they are starting to get it. Wiggins and Sky certainly have got themselves into a bind. I guess their best move is silence and hope this goes away, perhaps Walsh will write a puff piece on Sunday to calm the waters.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Leinders was fired because it came out that he had a doping past - therefore against ZTP. There has been a long discussion / thread on whether Sky knew (or ought to have known) that he had a doping past so I'll leave it there and not rehash anything.

Spud I know but I was responding to the claim that Leinders was employed because as a doping doctor he had inside knowledge on how to beat the dopers clean.

The only part of Brailsford I believe is that Leinders was engaged because of the death of Txema Gonzalez. What do we know about this?

I absolutely didn't say that he knew how to beat dopers clean (which I happen to think is impossible). Rather, that if a team wanted to ride clean, then hiring an expert doping doctor is not so outrageous. Precisely because those doctors are experts at doping due to their very high level understanding of physiology in cyclists. The chemical interactions & hormones needed for best recovery, peaking etc.. Their undestanding of the other side of the game only increases their undestanding of a cyclist's physiology - well over and above that of a normal doctor.

Whether or not someone like Leinders would be able to find a loophole in the WADA rules, allowing use of some kind of blood boosting / fat loss stimulant which would fall within the rules is questionable. But I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility.

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

Leinders was fired because it came out that he had a doping past - therefore against ZTP. There has been a long discussion / thread on whether Sky knew (or ought to have known) that he had a doping past so I'll leave it there and not rehash anything.

Spud I know but I was responding to the claim that Leinders was employed because as a doping doctor he had inside knowledge on how to beat the dopers clean.

The only part of Brailsford I believe is that Leinders was engaged because of the death of Txema Gonzalez. What do we know about this?

I absolutely didn't say that he knew how to beat dopers clean (which I happen to think is impossible). Rather, that if a team wanted to ride clean, then hiring an expert doping doctor is not so outrageous. Precisely because those doctors are experts at doping due to their very high level understanding of physiology in cyclists. The chemical interactions & hormones needed for best recovery, peaking etc.. Their undestanding of the other side of the game only increases their undestanding of a cyclist's physiology - well over and above that of a normal doctor.

Whether or not someone like Leinders would be able to find a loophole in the WADA rules, allowing use of some kind of blood boosting / fat loss stimulant which would fall within the rules is questionable. But I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility.

And the charge levelled at the tin foil hat brigade is that they are conspiracy theorists?

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Leinders was fired because it came out that he had a doping past - therefore against ZTP. There has been a long discussion / thread on whether Sky knew (or ought to have known) that he had a doping past so I'll leave it there and not rehash anything.

Spud I know but I was responding to the claim that Leinders was employed because as a doping doctor he had inside knowledge on how to beat the dopers clean.

The only part of Brailsford I believe is that Leinders was engaged because of the death of Txema Gonzalez. What do we know about this?

I absolutely didn't say that he knew how to beat dopers clean (which I happen to think is impossible). Rather, that if a team wanted to ride clean, then hiring an expert doping doctor is not so outrageous. Precisely because those doctors are experts at doping due to their very high level understanding of physiology in cyclists. The chemical interactions & hormones needed for best recovery, peaking etc.. Their undestanding of the other side of the game only increases their undestanding of a cyclist's physiology - well over and above that of a normal doctor.

Whether or not someone like Leinders would be able to find a loophole in the WADA rules, allowing use of some kind of blood boosting / fat loss stimulant which would fall within the rules is questionable. But I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility.

And the charge levelled at the tin foil hat brigade is that they are conspiracy theorists?

I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. It seems like you have spectacularly missed the point. All I'm stating is that a doping doctor like Leinders would also be one of the best doctors for a clean team - because of his knowledge of cycling and the physiological demands placed on cyclists. Leinders alone is not a smoking gun.

Parallel to this; is the debate as to whether Sky are doping without doping. Whether they have found some loophole to win by doping without breaking any rules. The use of TUEs could fall under this category, but from the leaks - they alone would be nowhere near enough to turn donkeys like Wiggins and Froome in to TdF winners. So is there something else they are using which doesn't even need a TUE to be legal (where Leinders might come into it) - or are they just on something more known- like AICAR and microdosing?

 

[sniper]

Re: Sky

I'm impressed that the British media is starting to ask the right type of questions, they are starting to get it. Wiggins and Sky certainly have got themselves into a bind. I guess their best move is silence and hope this goes away, perhaps Walsh will write a puff piece on Sunday to calm the waters.

yap.
There seems to be a growing realization that British sports press, personified by David Walsh, have become the laughing stock of social media. And luckily not every british journo will just sit back and watch it happen.
I'm not sure if too many british sports journos will still want to sit next to David.

 

[thehog]

Re: Sky

I'm impressed that the British media is starting to ask the right type of questions, they are starting to get it. Wiggins and Sky certainly have got themselves into a bind. I guess their best move is silence and hope this goes away, perhaps Walsh will write a puff piece on Sunday to calm the waters.

yap.
There seems to be a growing realization that British sports press, personified by David Walsh, have become the laughing stock of social media. And luckily not every british journo will just sit back and watch it happen.
I'm not sure if too many british sports journos will still want to sit next to David.

Depends if we get 'yellow butterfly cruise ship' Walsh or version 1.0 of Walsh who will tell it like it is... let's see on Sunday.

 

[jahn]

Sky is probably right about the special olive oil. Most stuff you find at the store is probably toxic gutter oil.

 

[BullsFan22]

Re: Sky

I'll share this BBC article in other appropriate threads as well:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/37371057

 

[Benotti69]

this is funny as Walsh and Sky claimed, like Armstrong before that the French are old school and lazy when it comes to cycling....

Antoine VAYER ‏@festinaboy Sep 15
TUE and CORTISONE was/is a typically French problem in cycling for so much long time.

....Wiggins, Brailsford and Sky, so French, so chique, such liars..... :lol:

 

[MmeDesgrange]

A genuine question - and do please direct me to where it has been answered if previously asked - but if Froome has used an inhaler since he was a teenager why does he not have pre-2009 TUEs for salbutamol?