Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1470 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 23, 2011
618
0
0
Re: Sky

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Cycle Chic said:
Brailsford has become a meglomaniac .. the article from Liberation newspaper during last years Tour slipped by us and it proves Brailsford has been slowly losing the plot.
The Libération article found and cited by CycleChic is about the possible use of transcranial stimulation in athletics. And although the piece is specifically about Brailsford and Team Sky, the article curiously appears in the 'Sciences' section of Libé, not in their 'Sports' section.

I also had no idea about this, until now.

David Brailsford, qui avait découvert la technologie en février 2015 lors d’une visite dans plusieurs entreprises high-tech à San Francisco, a lui-même essayé ce principe avec des électrodes pendant une partie de fléchettes.

"David Brailsford discovered this technology in February 2015, following a visit to several high-tech companies in San Francisco - and experimented with this principle himself, by wearing electrodes [on his skull] during a game of darts."

I see... well, I won't go into my own opinions about the neurology of motor-coordination in this context ..
It seems that Dave has "discovered" the transcranial method, in much the same way as Al Gore "invented the Internet".

So yes, this shows a willingness to try every kind of exotic, unfair-but-currently-legal, scheme for the pursuit of marginal gains. Far out...

Luigi
This jogged my brain, not sure if this link will work but in a nutshell. There was a documentary on UK tv this year outlining various performance enhancing techniques which were legal if a bit immoral and brain stimulation was one of them. Ignoring the review of the program itself two twins, one a fit keen cyclist one not did a stationary bike race with the non cyclist receiving brain stimulation. In short he wiped the floor with his keen cyclist twin. Anecdotal I know but at the time I watched it Team Sky came to mind.

Interested in your post as it seems Dave "clean" Brailsford was willing to give it a go.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/jul/20/horizon-sports-doping-review-like-cbbc-version-grown-up-documentary%3f0p19G=e?client=safari

I don't know if some further googling might turn up the documentary on catch up
 
Re: Re:

JRanton said:
Triamcinolone isn't even banned outside of competition so please spare us the idea that this was a significant performance enhancer.
Proof was requested of PEDs. Triamcinolone is performance-enhancing, and Triamcinolone is a drug. At no point was it specified that they had to be PEDs that significantly affect performance.
 
Re: Re:

MatParker117 said:
Dalakhani said:
MatParker117 said:
until then Sky are entitled to a presumption of innocence from my viewpoint. This is still an allegation not proof of wrongdoing
Imagine you were a member of a jury, and the accused's alibi was proven to be a lie - that he was 600 miles away from where he claimed to be - wouldn't you think that's suspicious?

What we have here is Sky, rather than telling the truth, making a false accusation against another rider. And we know it's false because there's cast iron evidence Pooley was 600 miles away in another country.

So the question is why did they lie? And the answer is clearly because they don't want us to know the truth. Why not? Because the truth would be damning.
I do but I don't make judgements without all of the information (would be interested to know if cope did meet Pooley that month for example), I didn't make a judgement about Armstrong until I read the USADA report and I will not make judgements here until people with access to more of the complete picture have evaluated that information and come to a decision.
1. You are making a judgement. It already includes a lot of unsupported assumptions. Most critically: that a new clean era was ushered in post-Armstrong. Why do you not seek supporting evidence for that? The overwhelming proof - empirical and legal (including, but not limited to the report you mention) - is that doping was virtually universal in pro-cycling. What good and sufficient evidence do you have that the scale and nature of doping in pro-cycling suddenly changed once Armstrong got busted?

2. To suspend judgement about Armstrong during his reign - on the basis that there was no positive proof of doping - was to be extraordinarily naive and to demonstrate an obvious lack of knowledge about the role epo had been playing in the sport. We knew about epo! We knew it was been used universally. We knew it could transform sprinters into climbers (Jalabert) and one day riders into GT winners (Armstrong). It wasn't speculative, it was knowledge. You're claiming your lack of knowledge as a virtue.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
sniper said:
more or less significant than clenbuterol?
More.
I thought so too.

In addition, as @oufeh and some others have nicely documented, triamcinolone dosages used by previous dopers (P. Gaumont, M. Rasmussen, J. Jaksche, Willy Voet for Festina) typically ranged between 10mg and 25mg, i.e. quite a bit lower than Wiggins' 40mg.
Iinm, only D. Millar is documented to have taken a 40mg shot once.
 
Re: Re:

JRanton said:
Libertine Seguros said:
Triamcinolone is a PED, which is why you need a TUE to use it. If you're talking about what was in the package, then at this point it's pure speculation, but the way that Brailsford and the others have behaved around it certainly hints that it's not fully sanguine. That most certainly is an allegation, but the TUEs - both Wiggins' and Froome's - are proof that Sky riders have been taking PEDs, just not an EPO-type positive smoking gun because, obviously, with the appropriate exemption those are not breaking the rules. We don't know if they have been breaking the rules, but we do know they've been using PEDs.

What we do know, however, is that all of those things we suspected were lies or at least times where the team used selective interpretation or economies with the truth in order to present themselves how they wished in the press are starting to bite them, as is the complex and sometimes muddled relationship between Team Sky and British Cycling. A lot of their PR has been shown to be nothing more than exactly that; the Zero Tolerance policy as we all know was as impermeable as a sieve (de Jongh, Leinders, Knaven, Rogers, Barry, Tiernan-Locke all getting past that, some even after the white sheet declaration of innocence document). The claims that they would withdraw riders who needed TUEs from races were shown to be clearly false after Froome was spotted supping from an inhaler in a race he subsequently won (thanks to an emergency TUE because he apparently would have been too ill to race otherwise, so clearly a powerful TUE that spells the difference between failure to even compete and dominant victory) and what we now know about Wiggins - again, so sick he needed a TUE for a very powerful substance, with which he was able to complete the most dominant Tour de France victory since 2004. The claims they would hold a fan Q&A session at the velodrome where people could ask the questions they had, and never took place in a format even remotely akin to what was suggested.

We've been asked to believe some quite unbelievable things by the Sky/BC team over the last few years. And in this I'm just talking about their PR and public statements, not their performances on the bikes - while some of those have been difficult to swallow, you can't lie about the actual on the day performance. And a lot of those things should now be brought back into the public eye and placed under scrutiny now that we have had it proven to us, quite unequivocally, that at least somebody in the team here is prepared, under investigation, to make easily disprovable lies under pressure. And the team's figurehead, Dave Brailsford, is either so naïve he doesn't question any story given to him, no matter how preposterous or demonstrably false, and goes public with it, or he's willing to do the heavy work of the lying too. Being asked to believe that Wiggins never made it back to the bus to receive the package from Cope when there's clear video evidence of Wiggins at the bus after the stage in question. Being asked to believe that Cope took a day trip through Switzerland and eastern France to meet Emma Pooley, who it can be easily shown was racing in a high profile event in a completely different country. It brings other statements into focus. Such as the reasons for hiring Geert Leinders or his role of weighing people, for example.

The Sky isn't falling at the time of writing, however. What we have discovered, however, is that Team Sky is just another team. Little of what they do is particularly revolutionary; they just know better than others where and how they can push it. They may be better in the sports science area than a lot of other teams, but with Froome not going in a wind tunnel for years and so on they're hardly the space-age science fiction supertech team they wanted to present. The tech is almost certainly a part of the team's success, but it's only a part. Race tactics have been predicated on a simple bludgeoning tactic, based on having the strongest rider in the race. It's why they've managed to nail stage racing, but the biggest one day races continue to mainly elude them (indeed can be limited to København 2011 and Liège-Bastogne-Liège 2016 in terms of the truly biggest, though Stannard and Thomas have won plenty of races like Omloop and E3).

What has happened, however, is that the tide has turned. The team has been caught on the back foot with these allegations and has, as has been the case in the past, struggled to get a coherent justification for it together that both fits with the facts and their stated aims. The difference here is that the spin was too blatant, too obvious, and too hastily put out there, and it's had the effect of exposing the team as lying, either among themselves, to the public, or both. Trust is eroded, especially from those who had been riding the gravy train and are now having to revise their positions and ask the difficult questions they were keen to avoid while the going was good. It seems quite a few people who had criticized those who doubted the transparent clothes as naysayers who didn't understand the science are beginning to come to the conclusion that the Emperor is, in fact, naked.
Triamcinolone isn't even banned outside of competition so please spare us the idea that this was a significant performance enhancer.
It was significant enough for Wiggins to take it before all three of his grand tours with Sky. That's damning for both the rider and the team. There is no knowledge of Wiggins having taking a TUE before the '09 Tour when with Garmin for example.

What I don't understand with Wiggins, is that if you are going to take this drug, during these eye brow raising timelines, why wouldn't you make a small mention that you suffer from hayfever or asthma in one of your autobiographies? You know, just in case the TUE's did one day come to light. It's mind boggling to me. Just one paragraph like this:

When I was a teenager I used to suffer from allergies during the summer months. Obviously this wasn't a concern on the track, however it was an issue that never truly went away during my time as a professional road cyclist, and I dealt with it as best I could under every circumstance.

It's really that simple.

Anyway, great post LS.
 
Re: Re:

The Hegelian said:
MatParker117 said:
Dalakhani said:
MatParker117 said:
until then Sky are entitled to a presumption of innocence from my viewpoint. This is still an allegation not proof of wrongdoing
Imagine you were a member of a jury, and the accused's alibi was proven to be a lie - that he was 600 miles away from where he claimed to be - wouldn't you think that's suspicious?

What we have here is Sky, rather than telling the truth, making a false accusation against another rider. And we know it's false because there's cast iron evidence Pooley was 600 miles away in another country.

So the question is why did they lie? And the answer is clearly because they don't want us to know the truth. Why not? Because the truth would be damning.
I do but I don't make judgements without all of the information (would be interested to know if cope did meet Pooley that month for example), I didn't make a judgement about Armstrong until I read the USADA report and I will not make judgements here until people with access to more of the complete picture have evaluated that information and come to a decision.
1. You are making a judgement. It already includes a lot of unsupported assumptions. Most critically: that a new clean era was ushered in post-Armstrong. Why do you not seek supporting evidence for that? The overwhelming proof - empirical and legal (including, but not limited to the report you mention) - is that doping was virtually universal in pro-cycling. What good and sufficient evidence do you have that the scale and nature of doping in pro-cycling suddenly changed once Armstrong got busted?

2. To suspend judgement about Armstrong during his reign - on the basis that there was no positive proof of doping - was to be extraordinarily naive and to demonstrate an obvious lack of knowledge about the role epo had been playing in the sport. We knew about epo! We knew it was been used universally. We knew it could transform sprinters into climbers (Jalabert) and one day riders into GT winners (Armstrong). It wasn't speculative, it was knowledge. You're claiming your lack of knowledge as a virtue.
Good points. In the 80's the best climbers ascended Da Alp in a little under fifty minutes (I think, could be wrong); by the mid '90's it was being ascended in under forty minutes. Therefore performances that approached these supersonic times (and those record times on other climbs) from the known EPO error would naturally be viewed with suspicion, even in the post bio passport (and second Armstrong comeback) error.

There was a brief moment when it appeared that we may have been seeing the light. When the GC riders climbed PDB a few minutes slower than the previous fastest times in 2011. And even in the best stage of that race, it was great tactics that gained Andy Schleck significant time on stage 19, and even the way with which he cracked during the final few kms up the Galibier seemed almost believable. But then came 2012 and the Sky train, although good time traillists doing good time trials wasn't that extraordinary, and Nibali hadn't worn his superman cape yet, and Contador wasn't even there, and Cadel was well....Cadel was kinda finished.

But 2013 AX3 Domaines....wow. It was wow to the naked eye, and the clock didn't lie either; one of the fastest ascents ever up that climb. Up there amongst Ullrich and Armstrong.

It's not like they soft-pedalled the penultimate climb either, with Quintana causing a solid pace by attacking early. And some wonder why Quintana doesn't do this more often :rolleyes:

The quote is much derided, but I think that most of us do want to believe in miracles. Maybe if it was all just a little more realistic....
 
Re: Re:

JRanton said:
Triamcinolone isn't even banned outside of competition so please spare us the idea that this was a significant performance enhancer.
Which is totally contrary to the views of former dopers who have witnessed at first hand its effects:

David Millar
“As I said in my book, I took EPO and testosterone patches, and they obviously produce huge differences… Kenacort [triamcinolone], though, was the only one you took and three days later you looked different,” Millar told The Telegraph last week.

“You would do all the training but my weight would stick. But if I took Kenacort, 1.5-2kgs would drop off in like a week. And not only would the weight drop off, I would feel stronger.”

“No, that’s cheating?” Dumoulin said when asked if he would consider applying for such a TUE.


Joerg Jaksche

TUE or not, he is clear that there is a big boost from injections of Triamcinolone acetonide.

“I would say it is a very big performance improver. It reduces weight, it increases your recovery and it is a very strong painkiller. From my experience, I would say that it is probably a three to five percent performance improvement.

“It is not marginal,” Jaksche adds, with a laugh.
 
Sep 15, 2014
107
0
0
I wish we had the computer power to run two simulations of the Tour 2012, one with a Bradley Wiggins on Triamcinolone, and one with a Bradley Wiggins pan e aqua. I personally think we'd see a difference, maybe esp in 3rd week?

Oh, hang on, let me dig out Cycling Manager

;)
 
Re: Re:

The Hegelian said:
MatParker117 said:
Dalakhani said:
MatParker117 said:
until then Sky are entitled to a presumption of innocence from my viewpoint. This is still an allegation not proof of wrongdoing
Imagine you were a member of a jury, and the accused's alibi was proven to be a lie - that he was 600 miles away from where he claimed to be - wouldn't you think that's suspicious?

What we have here is Sky, rather than telling the truth, making a false accusation against another rider. And we know it's false because there's cast iron evidence Pooley was 600 miles away in another country.

So the question is why did they lie? And the answer is clearly because they don't want us to know the truth. Why not? Because the truth would be damning.
I do but I don't make judgements without all of the information (would be interested to know if cope did meet Pooley that month for example), I didn't make a judgement about Armstrong until I read the USADA report and I will not make judgements here until people with access to more of the complete picture have evaluated that information and come to a decision.
1. You are making a judgement. It already includes a lot of unsupported assumptions. Most critically: that a new clean era was ushered in post-Armstrong. Why do you not seek supporting evidence for that? The overwhelming proof - empirical and legal (including, but not limited to the report you mention) - is that doping was virtually universal in pro-cycling. What good and sufficient evidence do you have that the scale and nature of doping in pro-cycling suddenly changed once Armstrong got busted?

2. To suspend judgement about Armstrong during his reign - on the basis that there was no positive proof of doping - was to be extraordinarily naive and to demonstrate an obvious lack of knowledge about the role epo had been playing in the sport. We knew about epo! We knew it was been used universally. We knew it could transform sprinters into climbers (Jalabert) and one day riders into GT winners (Armstrong). It wasn't speculative, it was knowledge. You're claiming your lack of knowledge as a virtue.
But doping in cycling has been cleaned up. Just ask Cookson. He promised he would clean it up and he has. He stated just the other day that NO ACTION will be taken against Wiggins or Sky. He guarantees they are clean.
 
Feb 23, 2011
618
0
0
Re: Re:

Craigee said:
The Hegelian said:
MatParker117 said:
Dalakhani said:
MatParker117 said:
until then Sky are entitled to a presumption of innocence from my viewpoint. This is still an allegation not proof of wrongdoing
Imagine you were a member of a jury, and the accused's alibi was proven to be a lie - that he was 600 miles away from where he claimed to be - wouldn't you think that's suspicious?

What we have here is Sky, rather than telling the truth, making a false accusation against another rider. And we know it's false because there's cast iron evidence Pooley was 600 miles away in another country.

So the question is why did they lie? And the answer is clearly because they don't want us to know the truth. Why not? Because the truth would be damning.
I do but I don't make judgements without all of the information (would be interested to know if cope did meet Pooley that month for example), I didn't make a judgement about Armstrong until I read the USADA report and I will not make judgements here until people with access to more of the complete picture have evaluated that information and come to a decision.
1. You are making a judgement. It already includes a lot of unsupported assumptions. Most critically: that a new clean era was ushered in post-Armstrong. Why do you not seek supporting evidence for that? The overwhelming proof - empirical and legal (including, but not limited to the report you mention) - is that doping was virtually universal in pro-cycling. What good and sufficient evidence do you have that the scale and nature of doping in pro-cycling suddenly changed once Armstrong got busted?

2. To suspend judgement about Armstrong during his reign - on the basis that there was no positive proof of doping - was to be extraordinarily naive and to demonstrate an obvious lack of knowledge about the role epo had been playing in the sport. We knew about epo! We knew it was been used universally. We knew it could transform sprinters into climbers (Jalabert) and one day riders into GT winners (Armstrong). It wasn't speculative, it was knowledge. You're claiming your lack of knowledge as a virtue.
He guarantees they are clean.
Sky Clean = Working within the rules/Never tested positive
Lance Armstrong Clean = Never tested positive

Clean to most people is energy drinks and pasta and not:

everything undetectable
everything detectable but allowed in small quantities
everything not yet known about
everything illegal but which can be masked by regular checks of your riders blood
handing out of prescription painkillers like smarties
4 team doctors for 30 guys in the health/fitness prime of their lives

End the chemistry experiment that is "Clean" Pro-Cycling.
 
May 6, 2016
224
0
0
Re: Re:

ontheroad said:
JRanton said:
Triamcinolone isn't even banned outside of competition so please spare us the idea that this was a significant performance enhancer.
Which is totally contrary to the views of former dopers who have witnessed at first hand its effects:

David Millar
“As I said in my book, I took EPO and testosterone patches, and they obviously produce huge differences… Kenacort [triamcinolone], though, was the only one you took and three days later you looked different,” Millar told The Telegraph last week.

“You would do all the training but my weight would stick. But if I took Kenacort, 1.5-2kgs would drop off in like a week. And not only would the weight drop off, I would feel stronger.”

“No, that’s cheating?” Dumoulin said when asked if he would consider applying for such a TUE.


Joerg Jaksche

TUE or not, he is clear that there is a big boost from injections of Triamcinolone acetonide.

“I would say it is a very big performance improver. It reduces weight, it increases your recovery and it is a very strong painkiller. From my experience, I would say that it is probably a three to five percent performance improvement.

“It is not marginal,” Jaksche adds, with a laugh.
There is one major difference between Wiggins and these guys use of Triamcinolone. They abused it, Wiggins did not.
 
Re: Re:

Zypherov said:
ontheroad said:
JRanton said:
Triamcinolone isn't even banned outside of competition so please spare us the idea that this was a significant performance enhancer.
Which is totally contrary to the views of former dopers who have witnessed at first hand its effects:

David Millar
“As I said in my book, I took EPO and testosterone patches, and they obviously produce huge differences… Kenacort [triamcinolone], though, was the only one you took and three days later you looked different,” Millar told The Telegraph last week.

“You would do all the training but my weight would stick. But if I took Kenacort, 1.5-2kgs would drop off in like a week. And not only would the weight drop off, I would feel stronger.”

“No, that’s cheating?” Dumoulin said when asked if he would consider applying for such a TUE.


Joerg Jaksche

TUE or not, he is clear that there is a big boost from injections of Triamcinolone acetonide.

“I would say it is a very big performance improver. It reduces weight, it increases your recovery and it is a very strong painkiller. From my experience, I would say that it is probably a three to five percent performance improvement.

“It is not marginal,” Jaksche adds, with a laugh.
There is one major difference between Wiggins and these guys use of Triamcinolone. They abused it, Wiggins did not.
The dosage Brad was taking was larger than either, what would therefore constitute abuse?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

Zypherov said:
ontheroad said:
JRanton said:
Triamcinolone isn't even banned outside of competition so please spare us the idea that this was a significant performance enhancer.
Which is totally contrary to the views of former dopers who have witnessed at first hand its effects:

David Millar
“As I said in my book, I took EPO and testosterone patches, and they obviously produce huge differences… Kenacort [triamcinolone], though, was the only one you took and three days later you looked different,” Millar told The Telegraph last week.

“You would do all the training but my weight would stick. But if I took Kenacort, 1.5-2kgs would drop off in like a week. And not only would the weight drop off, I would feel stronger.”

“No, that’s cheating?” Dumoulin said when asked if he would consider applying for such a TUE.


Joerg Jaksche

TUE or not, he is clear that there is a big boost from injections of Triamcinolone acetonide.

“I would say it is a very big performance improver. It reduces weight, it increases your recovery and it is a very strong painkiller. From my experience, I would say that it is probably a three to five percent performance improvement.

“It is not marginal,” Jaksche adds, with a laugh.
There is one major difference between Wiggins and these guys use of Triamcinolone. They abused it, Wiggins did not.
Until Wiggins proves he has had lifelong pollen allergies and asthma, he has totally abused it.
 
May 6, 2016
224
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Zypherov said:
ontheroad said:
JRanton said:
Triamcinolone isn't even banned outside of competition so please spare us the idea that this was a significant performance enhancer.
Which is totally contrary to the views of former dopers who have witnessed at first hand its effects:

David Millar
“As I said in my book, I took EPO and testosterone patches, and they obviously produce huge differences… Kenacort [triamcinolone], though, was the only one you took and three days later you looked different,” Millar told The Telegraph last week.

“You would do all the training but my weight would stick. But if I took Kenacort, 1.5-2kgs would drop off in like a week. And not only would the weight drop off, I would feel stronger.”

“No, that’s cheating?” Dumoulin said when asked if he would consider applying for such a TUE.


Joerg Jaksche

TUE or not, he is clear that there is a big boost from injections of Triamcinolone acetonide.

“I would say it is a very big performance improver. It reduces weight, it increases your recovery and it is a very strong painkiller. From my experience, I would say that it is probably a three to five percent performance improvement.

“It is not marginal,” Jaksche adds, with a laugh.
There is one major difference between Wiggins and these guys use of Triamcinolone. They abused it, Wiggins did not.
Until Wiggins proves he has had lifelong pollen allergies and asthma, he has totally abused it.
You will definitely not get a TUE unless you truly have an ailment and need the appropriate medicine to treat it.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Re: Re:

Zypherov said:
Benotti69 said:
Zypherov said:
ontheroad said:
JRanton said:
Triamcinolone isn't even banned outside of competition so please spare us the idea that this was a significant performance enhancer.
Which is totally contrary to the views of former dopers who have witnessed at first hand its effects:

David Millar
“As I said in my book, I took EPO and testosterone patches, and they obviously produce huge differences… Kenacort [triamcinolone], though, was the only one you took and three days later you looked different,” Millar told The Telegraph last week.

“You would do all the training but my weight would stick. But if I took Kenacort, 1.5-2kgs would drop off in like a week. And not only would the weight drop off, I would feel stronger.”

“No, that’s cheating?” Dumoulin said when asked if he would consider applying for such a TUE.


Joerg Jaksche

TUE or not, he is clear that there is a big boost from injections of Triamcinolone acetonide.

“I would say it is a very big performance improver. It reduces weight, it increases your recovery and it is a very strong painkiller. From my experience, I would say that it is probably a three to five percent performance improvement.

“It is not marginal,” Jaksche adds, with a laugh.
There is one major difference between Wiggins and these guys use of Triamcinolone. They abused it, Wiggins did not.
Until Wiggins proves he has had lifelong pollen allergies and asthma, he has totally abused it.
You will definitely not get a TUE unless you truly have an ailment and need the appropriate medicine to treat it.
But Wiggins wasn't ill when he got the shot(s). He got them as a precaution.....
 
Re: Re:

Zypherov said:
You will definitely not get a TUE unless you truly have an ailment and need the appropriate medicine to treat it.
If you genuinely believe that he co-incidentally fell ill a few days before each of his 3 grand tours in consecutive years, took the correct dosage of Triamcolone to simply correct the ailment and yet has never needed it before or since, then you truly are living in cloud cuckoo land.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

BYOP88 said:
But Wiggins wasn't ill when he got the shot(s). He got them as a precaution.....
Since some people insist on being pedants, Wiggins called it 'preventative'. Not allowed under TUE rules.

TUEs need to signed for a 3 panel committee. Not 1 man, Zorzoli.
 
Statement issued by Team Sky board chairman, Graham McWilliam, a short while ago:

''Keep your feet firmly on the ground and stay focussed on what’s important. For Team Sky that’s racing and winning, the right way. That’s what we’ve done from the start and that’s what we’ll continue to do in future. I can assure you of Sky’s full and continued support. There is no equivocation on our part. We trust you, we believe in you and we remain as excited about this sport as ever.''


I find that statement another two fingers up at the intelligence of the general public. How many lies does Dave Pinocchio Brailsford have to tell before you become suspicious of his operation? It's a massive PR own goal by Sky because the pressure is only going to intensify from among the press to get the answers to the questions that Brailsford's recent utterings warrant. Brailsford made the mistake of going into hiding after the Wiggins TUE revelation, is he now going to do similar on the Cope/Wiggins/Pooley/package episode thus creating another vacuum whereby more bad press will result. Their PR team has had a stinker over the last few weeks.
 
What I said a year ago does not need to be edited at all :

"This will be slightly long-winded post, but here is my opinion/feeling about the Team Sky...

1) Team Sky is only a tip of the iceberg, but the roots are in British Cycling & National Cycling Centre/Manchester Velodrome.

2) National Cycling Centre (from here on NCC) was opened in 1994 to promote & develop British Track Cycling. It is state-funded, institutionalised centre with open (and likely hidden) 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...

3) NCC understandably started with an emphasis on track cycling as many track events are PURE performance sports with no tactics adaptation to daily conditions (elements of nature) etc. included. The results started to pile up :

1996 Olympics : no medals on track (Boardman & Sciandri took medals on road, but they had nothing to do with NCC, really)
2000 Olympics : Gold for Jason Queally in 1000 m TT, 3 other medals. No yet success in more tactical events like individual sprint, madison, keirin etc.
2004 Olympics : 2 Golds thru' Sir Brad & Chris Hoy
2008 Olympics : Total domination! 7 golds out of total of 10 available on track. Every "performance event" gold to UK! Only points races and men's madison slipped away...

4) 2009 : The birth of Team Sky in a very close co-operation of British Cycling...

I am bluntly accusing that NCC is a hotbed of very advanced doping research and the natural progression has been to start with the "easiest" pure performance sports and move towards most tactical, most pricey sport (= professional road cycling).

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. While they are teammates in Sky, they are "enemies" of British Cycling in WCs/Olympics etc. Sky has employed a lot of talented foreigners, but the only one who appears to have been given "full 5-course meal" is Richie Porte. Otoh, numerous foreign riders (EBH, Löfkvist, Gerrans, Uran, Henao, Deignan, Roche, König etc) have remained very mortal, stagnated or even plummeted off the cliff while in Sky. So it is not only a "peloton a deux vitesses", but also "team a deux vitesses".

And this separates Team Sky from almost ALL of its competition... Even the richest competitors are still private teams - only Astana has similar governmental backing. However, I also think that cutting-edge sports medicinal research is more likely to happen in UK, than in Kazakhstan.

And this leads to...

5) I don't think Team Sky are BIGGER cheats than most of their competition (although they are the most double-faced in their insistence of innocence). Frankly, yesterday Froome put a whipping for plenty of riders/teams, which have no moral qualms in using 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.

6) So, do I feel sorry for beaten "cheats" like Contador, Nibali, Piti etc. for them being caught way behind in "arms race". Not really. They would do the same without any remorse given a half-chance...

7) But at the same time - this is

- killing the suspense
- 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?

8) I am strong supporter of CLEAN sport. I also believe that to be unrealistic ideal. However, a world where the doping is limited to certain known methods/PEDs and doping controls can even hinder and put limitations to a use of those known "evils", the field is rather fair and even. The guys who want to ride clean will likely not win too often, but they are not in unconquerable disadvantage AND they pretty much know how much of headstart the dopers have...

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... That is no longer a sport. It is WORSE that Lance-years. At least Lance used same stuff as everybody else. He only could use it more efficiently as he had the "immunity" from getting caught and a "private line" to whistle-blow whomever had the audacity to raise their bar to match him (Hamilton, Mayo).
"
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
BYOP88 said:
But Wiggins wasn't ill when he got the shot(s). He got them as a precaution.....
Since some people insist on being pedants, Wiggins called it 'preventative'. Not allowed under TUE rules.

TUEs need to signed for a 3 panel committee. Not 1 man, Zorzoli.
Do we know that only Zorzoli signed this off, or are we taking the Froome Emergency TUE (which WADA actually upheld) and trying to reverse-shoehorn it to Wiggins?
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Zypherov said:
ontheroad said:
JRanton said:
Triamcinolone isn't even banned outside of competition so please spare us the idea that this was a significant performance enhancer.
Which is totally contrary to the views of former dopers who have witnessed at first hand its effects:

David Millar
“As I said in my book, I took EPO and testosterone patches, and they obviously produce huge differences… Kenacort [triamcinolone], though, was the only one you took and three days later you looked different,” Millar told The Telegraph last week.

“You would do all the training but my weight would stick. But if I took Kenacort, 1.5-2kgs would drop off in like a week. And not only would the weight drop off, I would feel stronger.”

“No, that’s cheating?” Dumoulin said when asked if he would consider applying for such a TUE.


Joerg Jaksche

TUE or not, he is clear that there is a big boost from injections of Triamcinolone acetonide.

“I would say it is a very big performance improver. It reduces weight, it increases your recovery and it is a very strong painkiller. From my experience, I would say that it is probably a three to five percent performance improvement.

“It is not marginal,” Jaksche adds, with a laugh.
There is one major difference between Wiggins and these guys use of Triamcinolone. They abused it, Wiggins did not.
Until Wiggins proves he has had lifelong pollen allergies and asthma, he has totally abused it.
It is perfectly possible to develop these later in life having not had them as a child, so not being able to show lifelong problems means very little.
 
Re:

seldon71 said:
What I said a year ago does not need to be edited at all :

"This will be slightly long-winded post, but here is my opinion/feeling about the Team Sky...

1) Team Sky is only a tip of the iceberg, but the roots are in British Cycling & National Cycling Centre/Manchester Velodrome.

2) National Cycling Centre (from here on NCC) was opened in 1994 to promote & develop British Track Cycling. It is state-funded, institutionalised centre with open (and likely hidden) 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...

3) NCC understandably started with an emphasis on track cycling as many track events are PURE performance sports with no tactics adaptation to daily conditions (elements of nature) etc. included. The results started to pile up :

1996 Olympics : no medals on track (Boardman & Sciandri took medals on road, but they had nothing to do with NCC, really)
2000 Olympics : Gold for Jason Queally in 1000 m TT, 3 other medals. No yet success in more tactical events like individual sprint, madison, keirin etc.
2004 Olympics : 2 Golds thru' Sir Brad & Chris Hoy
2008 Olympics : Total domination! 7 golds out of total of 10 available on track. Every "performance event" gold to UK! Only points races and men's madison slipped away...

4) 2009 : The birth of Team Sky in a very close co-operation of British Cycling...

I am bluntly accusing that NCC is a hotbed of very advanced doping research and the natural progression has been to start with the "easiest" pure performance sports and move towards most tactical, most pricey sport (= professional road cycling).

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. While they are teammates in Sky, they are "enemies" of British Cycling in WCs/Olympics etc. Sky has employed a lot of talented foreigners, but the only one who appears to have been given "full 5-course meal" is Richie Porte. Otoh, numerous foreign riders (EBH, Löfkvist, Gerrans, Uran, Henao, Deignan, Roche, König etc) have remained very mortal, stagnated or even plummeted off the cliff while in Sky. So it is not only a "peloton a deux vitesses", but also "team a deux vitesses".

And this separates Team Sky from almost ALL of its competition... Even the richest competitors are still private teams - only Astana has similar governmental backing. However, I also think that cutting-edge sports medicinal research is more likely to happen in UK, than in Kazakhstan.

And this leads to...

5) I don't think Team Sky are BIGGER cheats than most of their competition (although they are the most double-faced in their insistence of innocence). Frankly, yesterday Froome put a whipping for plenty of riders/teams, which have no moral qualms in using 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.

6) So, do I feel sorry for beaten "cheats" like Contador, Nibali, Piti etc. for them being caught way behind in "arms race". Not really. They would do the same without any remorse given a half-chance...

7) But at the same time - this is

- killing the suspense
- 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?

8) I am strong supporter of CLEAN sport. I also believe that to be unrealistic ideal. However, a world where the doping is limited to certain known methods/PEDs and doping controls can even hinder and put limitations to a use of those known "evils", the field is rather fair and even. The guys who want to ride clean will likely not win too often, but they are not in unconquerable disadvantage AND they pretty much know how much of headstart the dopers have...

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... That is no longer a sport. It is WORSE that Lance-years. At least Lance used same stuff as everybody else. He only could use it more efficiently as he had the "immunity" from getting caught and a "private line" to whistle-blow whomever had the audacity to raise their bar to match him (Hamilton, Mayo).
"
Very interesting post and events of recent weeks have only served to increase the chances that your summary could prove to be very prophetic. A state funded program would offer a level of protection not afforded to a distinctly private team.
 
Sep 10, 2016
158
0
0
Up until 2014, Zorzoli was in the habit of signing off TUEs for asthma and allergies and chest infections all on his ownsome when the UCI got caught out by the Froome fiasco so, yes, those Wiggins TUEs were - in all likelihood - signed off by Zorzoli and Zorzoli alone
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY