Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1471 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 15, 2016
230
0
0
Re: Re:

heart_attack_man said:
JRanton said:
Triamcinolone isn't even banned outside of competition so please spare us the idea that this was a significant performance enhancer.
Are you for real?

http://cyclingtips.com/2016/09/jaksche-on-skys-tue-controversy-we-used-the-same-excuse-in-my-era/

From someone who actually used it:
Asked what the benefits were, Jaksche said that there were clear boosts.

“The effect was extreme. Cortisone reduces inflammation in your body, number one. It is also a little bit pushy as it is a hormone. So it causes a certain hormone rush.

“On one hand you are at [race] weight and you are more willing to perform, and then on the other hand it is a strong pain killer and an inflammation killer. So your recovery is shorter and the pain you are going through is less.

“It makes you very skinny. It burns fat. If you do it at the beginning of the Tour, you are going to lose another one to two kilos in the first week. You are going to suffer less. You are going to be less tired as your recuperation is faster because of the anti-inflammatory effects. It is the old school of doping.”
The thing is, if we want to be honest, when we have the opinion of Jaksche, Millar or Chicken, we have to remember they where taking boatloads of other drugs... My point is they might have had a greater boost from triam because the catabolic effects where counterbalanced by their testo/hgh intake... The jury is still out for wiggins on the whole doping cocktail thing (disclaimer, for me it's clear since his 2009 tour that he has an extensive doping regimen, but he's still "never tested positive" as of now)

ontheroad wrote:

JRanton wrote:

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.



I'll take the view of WADA and their medical experts over the likes of Joerg Jaksche and David Millar if that's ok with you. I also like how David Millar, whose views and opinions are normally treated with utter contempt on here, suddenly becomes somebody worth listening to the second he says something that fits your argument.

You guys are too funny.
This, Millar isn't thrustworthy at all and it seems there's some bad blood between him and wiggins, wouldn't surprise me if he was embellishing the boost he got a bit just to spite wiggins :lol:

There is nothing to suggest this was an attempt to knowingly deceive the journalist in question. Can we agree that if it was, then it was probably one of the most stupid attempts at lying that you could possibly imagine?

People are pretending that the idea of Cope travelling to see Pooley is totally ludicrous. He was her coach for goodness sake!
Screams like panic mode to me, and that's never a good sign... I have to ask you, do you really think that there's nothing going on, not here specifically, but at sky in broad terms? apologies if someone as already asked you that, but i don't want to go trough entire post history :D
 
I just think at some point, the assumption that none of these deceptions or untruths are intentional gets to the point where you're considering Brailsford to be so incompetent he could only have got as far as he has by blind guesswork and pure fluke. Personally, although I don't think he's a very convincing liar, I'm also pretty certain that he isn't a stupid man. The Pooley explanation was not Brailsford thinking on the fly in conversation with LAwton, whereupon I could buy it as innocent. Confronted by a journalist with a question about something that happened five years ago and not recalling the details, whether you were trying to hide something or not you could readily think "hmmm, maybe he was seeing Emma, June would be before the Giro same as the Tour, she'd be training in the mountains" and put it forward as a potential reason, and then when it turns out not to be true, say, fair enough, must have been something else. But Brailsford went away and thought about it. He allegedly investigated what had happened before coming back to Lawton and implicating Pooley. So either a story has been cooked up without fact-checking (in which case it's a very foolish lie to make, because it's so easily disproven) or a panicked Cope has proffered an excuse, and rather than doing the investigation he said he'd do, Brailsford has taken it on face value and gone back to Lawton and repeated it, which makes him look incompetent when it comes to fact-checking and dealing with subordinates and gullible. He didn't say "Cope says he went to see Pooley, but that can't be it as she was elsewhere" either - which would indicate that that was the story he was being sold, he had looked into it but was yet to get to the bottom of it. Telling it this way would, however, throw Cope under the bus. But that doesn't explain the inconsistent and inaccurate stories about the bus and Wiggins' whereabouts, because nobody needed to have lied to Brailsford on that one. There are so many things he could have done to prevent him going back to Lawton and giving such an easily disprovable explanation - twice - in good faith. So many. So it's hard to believe that a guy who's got as far as he has done in the sport could be so incompetent as to go for the absolute worst option twice in a row. Especially bearing in mind it's a line of questioning that he's staked his reputation on.

I personally think that if you honestly think that in every situation where he has been caught out telling inconsistent versions of events or making justifications that are proven false, it's just been a case of misrepresentation and he's been foolish or not checked his facts, then actually you're crediting him with so little intelligence it's actually probably more insulting to him. Remember: we don't actually know what was in that package. We don't know that it was anything dubious at all. It's only the way that Brailsford and his team have reacted around the allegations that's turned it into something as big as it is. Because, if it wasn't something dubious, why would anybody have had anything to hide? Why would Cope have needed to give an excuse? Somebody at Team Sky or British Cycling is hiding something, even if it isn't Brailsford, don't you think? And if it isn't Brailsford, how can he have given all those press conferences and statements where he's defended the team's cleanliness if he's got so little control over what his doctors and riders do? Shouldn't he be mad that people telling lies to him are making him look like an idiot in the press? Shouldn't he be fact checking more vigorously to challenge those people before repeating their stories to journalists?
 
Re: Re:

JRanton said:
Jeroen Swart said:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=1982047#p1982047

This post I made in July will make more sense in light of recent events.

I got flamed for it by Benotti69.

Sometimes the benefit of hindsight makes things clearer. ;-)
Your comments surrounding these Wiggins TUE's does nothing to help the situation in cycling. Can I ask how you were able to conclude that they were unethical without actually seeing the individual's medical information? If anything was unethical it was you and others questioning the legitimacy of someone's medical treatment after an illegal hack of their data. It's absolutely appalling behaviour. I can understand a pretty simple man like Nico Roche making that mistake but you should have known much better.
Ethical/unethical is strongly connected to truth/untruth.

There are different arguments to be made, but my position is that the worst moral crime that Armstrong committed was the incessant and unremitting lying.

People have already established that Sky have lied - on numerous occasions - about these matters (for example, about not joining the MPCC). Can you please explain: what is unethical about holding people to account for their dishonesty?
 
Re: Re:

ColonelKidneyBeans said:
That does not really have a lot to do with it, i suspect that clenbuterol is banned in and out of competition because it's simply not approved as a human medicine in most countries.
It's a PED and a good one. It's got excellent recovery and weight loss features in a relatively safe drug as long as you don't take too much. Even then, the worst side effect seems to be jitters.

The Contador thread covers Clen in great detail.
 
Re: Re:

JRanton 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.
I'll take the view of WADA and their medical experts over the likes of Joerg Jaksche and David Millar if that's ok with you. I also like how David Millar, whose views and opinions are normally treated with utter contempt on here, suddenly becomes somebody worth listening to the second he says something that fits your argument.

You guys are too funny.
And why do you not countenance the views of the MPCC? They have medical experts, a deep knowledge of cycling -including knowledge of how WADA regulations have been intentionally exploited - and a explicit agenda to promote clean cycling.

I would like to hear why you exclude their statements on this matter.

And also: why you think Sky decided not to join them.
 
Re: Re:

JRanton said:
I'll take the view of WADA and their medical experts over the likes of Joerg Jaksche and David Millar if that's ok with you. I also like how David Millar, whose views and opinions are normally treated with utter contempt on here, suddenly becomes somebody worth listening to the second he says something that fits your argument.

You guys are too funny.
The same WADA that has been shown to repeatedly protect Russia from doping controversy? That one?

What about that UKAD who has no public reporting, at all? The same one that wouldn't pursue claims of a doping doctor in-country. The UKAD containing the Russian doping controversy. That one. Yeah, trustworthy!
 
Re: Re:

JRanton 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.
I'll take the view of WADA and their medical experts over the likes of Joerg Jaksche and David Millar if that's ok with you. I also like how David Millar, whose views and opinions are normally treated with utter contempt on here, suddenly becomes somebody worth listening to the second he says something that fits your argument.

You guys are too funny.
You really are cute. I'm glad that you hold WADA in such high regard with their Anti-doping efforts. That really tends to work out well. Next thing you'll be telling me that the IOC and FIFA are shining examples of sports ethics...
 
Re: Re:

Ironhead Slim said:
How long does that give protection from an AAF for? A day, a week, the whole race??

Seriously, has this been answered?
Based on fancy bears documents, it depends on the TUE request. I don't think we know what the athlete/doctor requests vs. what was approved. We do know some drugs are approved for long periods and others are not.

I'll take a look at the docs if I have some time.
 
Sep 15, 2016
230
0
0
Re: Re:

DirtyWorks said:
ColonelKidneyBeans said:
That does not really have a lot to do with it, i suspect that clenbuterol is banned in and out of competition because it's simply not approved as a human medicine in most countries.
It's a PED and a good one. It's got excellent recovery and weight loss features in a relatively safe drug as long as you don't take too much. Even then, the worst side effect seems to be jitters.

The Contador thread covers Clen in great detail.
I know, i was just giving my opinion on why it's completely banned, i think that the reasoning of WADA on this one didn't need to go much further than "It's not approved for medical use in most countries apart for veterinary medicine" By that i mean that if it was generally approved, it might be allowed in inhaler form for asthma, like salbutamol.
Cortico can be good PED too but they appear to be more "hit or miss", some people might end bloated, some people might have a huge boost from them.
 
Re: Re:

ColonelKidneyBeans said:
I know, i was just giving my opinion on why it's completely banned, i think that the reasoning of WADA on this one didn't need to go much further than "It's not approved for medical use in most countries apart for veterinary medicine" By that i mean that if it was generally approved, it might be allowed in inhaler form for asthma, like salbutamol.
Cortico can be good PED too but they appear to be more "hit or miss", some people might end bloated, some people might have a huge boost from them.
The closer one follows what WADA does/doesn't ban the more random it is. Clenbuterol is an easy one because it doesn't occur naturally in the body so it's easy to test and there are safer alternatives at least in the West.
 
Re: Re:

DirtyWorks said:
JRanton said:
I'll take the view of WADA and their medical experts over the likes of Joerg Jaksche and David Millar if that's ok with you. I also like how David Millar, whose views and opinions are normally treated with utter contempt on here, suddenly becomes somebody worth listening to the second he says something that fits your argument.

You guys are too funny.
The same WADA that has been shown to repeatedly protect Russia from doping controversy? That one?

What about that UKAD who has no public reporting, at all? The same one that wouldn't pursue claims of a doping doctor in-country. The UKAD containing the Russian doping controversy. That one. Yeah, trustworthy!

Really? They were calling for sanctions and eventual ban on all Russian athletes to Rio 2016 and beyond, at the behest of the Americans. That move was purely political. It fell in line with what's happened between Russia and America, politically and economically over the past 3 years or so. I am not defending Russians who dope, but reports and requests calling for an entire nation to be banned have massive political overtones in them.
 
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cope-i-dont-know-what-was-in-the-package-for-team-sky/
"Cope suggested that the facts had been 'misconstrued' and added that he had been at other races that year, such as Liège-Bastogne-Liège, where he had watched the men's and women's* races and met with Nicole Cooke."

"*There was no women's race at Liège in 2011. Cyclingnews is attempting to clarify with Cope about which race he might have attended."

Diggin' himself in deeper in his own hole. :sad:

""It was nothing to do with Brad," he said. "I gave it to Richard Freeman. This parcel was asked for, for Richard Freeman. It could have been nasal strips or bandaids, I really don't know.""
Bandaids? He would fly and drive across Europe with bandaids? Don't they have bandaids in France? :rolleyes:
 
Re: Re:

JRanton said:
ColonelKidneyBeans said:
JRanton 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.
Again, the fact that it could be proven so quickly that Pooley was 600 miles away in another country strongly suggests that explanation wasn't intended to be a lie and was merely a misunderstanding/incompetence. The conspiracy theorist needs it to be a lie but the far more logical explanation is that it wasn't.
It's interesting to be able to spin a blatant lie as a good sign... "The fact that they could not put up a good lie is proof that they didn't really intend to lie"
There is nothing to suggest this was an attempt to knowingly deceive the journalist in question. Can we agree that if it was, then it was probably one of the most stupid attempts at lying that you could possibly imagine?

People are pretending that the idea of Cope travelling to see Pooley is totally ludicrous. He was her coach for goodness sake!
Really ? From his CN interview it sounds more like he was not much more than the teaboy. He drove Dowsett to a race and said hello to Nicole Cooke

"I think that got misconstrued with me being the women's coach. That was part of my role as such. I was women's coach in title, but I didn't actually have a role in 2011 and I did a hell of a lot of work for Sky. No one is questioning me going to the end of Liège-Bastogne-Liège are they?" Err, well they are now
 
May 12, 2011
206
0
0
Re: Re:

JRanton said:
Jeroen Swart said:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=1982047#p1982047

This post I made in July will make more sense in light of recent events.

I got flamed for it by Benotti69.

Sometimes the benefit of hindsight makes things clearer. ;-)
Your comments surrounding these Wiggins TUE's does nothing to help the situation in cycling. Can I ask how you were able to conclude that they were unethical without actually seeing the individual's medical information? If anything was unethical it was you and others questioning the legitimacy of someone's medical treatment after an illegal hack of their data. It's absolutely appalling behaviour. I can understand a pretty simple man like Nico Roche making that mistake but you should have known much better.
I have not stated unequivocally that they were unethical. I stated that the timing, the chosen substance, the TUE application based on previous year's medical details and other points are highly suspicious and questionable.

Perhaps the question you should ask yourself is this: If the questioning is a mistake (as you purport), why has it lead to UKAD initiating an investigation? Why have leading medical experts expressed the same opinion that I have? Why has the former head of WADA expressed the same opinion? You seem to intimate that I am somehow a rogue clinician / scientist expressing an unsound and biased opinion. You are utterly mistaken on this.

With respect to the post which you replied to. That post was made in July before any leaks occurred. It came at a time when I was lambasted here for being a "Sky fan boy". It's relevance is that I had an educated guess that we might see exactly this scenario playing out. And reposting it was simply pointing out that this is indeed what has happened.

Please don't expect continued engagement on this.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Well, in December 2015 in a podcast with Ross Tucker you did say there's "absolutely nothing" on Team Sky, when in fact there was already a whole lot on Team Sky. We knew about:

- Lies and halftruths
- (very) dodgy staff
- dodgy transformations
- diseases
- conflicts of interest with the governing body.

Those are all the traditional ingredients of a traditional doping team and they were already known to us by then. So for you to say there was "absolutely nothing" on Team Sky (and also defend David Walsh in the process), that didn't look 100% objective at the time.

I think you've been much more objective and realistic in the past couple of weeks, for which kudos.
 
Re: Re:

Jeroen Swart said:
JRanton said:
Jeroen Swart said:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=1982047#p1982047

This post I made in July will make more sense in light of recent events.

I got flamed for it by Benotti69.

Sometimes the benefit of hindsight makes things clearer. ;-)
Your comments surrounding these Wiggins TUE's does nothing to help the situation in cycling. Can I ask how you were able to conclude that they were unethical without actually seeing the individual's medical information? If anything was unethical it was you and others questioning the legitimacy of someone's medical treatment after an illegal hack of their data. It's absolutely appalling behaviour. I can understand a pretty simple man like Nico Roche making that mistake but you should have known much better.
I have not stated unequivocally that they were unethical. I stated that the timing, the chosen substance, the TUE application based on previous year's medical details and other points are highly suspicious and questionable.

Perhaps the question you should ask yourself is this: If the questioning is a mistake (as you purport), why has it lead to UKAD initiating an investigation? Why have leading medical experts expressed the same opinion that I have? Why has the former head of WADA expressed the same opinion? You seem to intimate that I am somehow a rogue clinician / scientist expressing an unsound and biased opinion. You are utterly mistaken on this.

With respect to the post which you replied to. That post was made in July before any leaks occurred. It came at a time when I was lambasted here for being a "Sky fan boy". It's relevance is that I had an educated guess that we might see exactly this scenario playing out. And reposting it was simply pointing out that this is indeed what has happened.

Please don't expect continued engagement on this.
I stated that yourself and others have questioned the legitimacy of someone's medical treatment after an illegal hack of their data despite not being in possession of that individual's medical information. You're justifying that because someone has subsequently raised concerns to UKAD about a medical package? Are you serious? Frankly in this context, who cares about any potential anti-doping violation. It's not important.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
JRanton has to be paid to post this stuff!

Insulting Nico Roche by calling him a 'simple man'. If this guy is not paid to write this stuff, then he's an intern....

Unreal trying to defend the indefensible!
 
Re: Re:

JRanton said:
Jeroen Swart said:
JRanton said:
Jeroen Swart said:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=1982047#p1982047

This post I made in July will make more sense in light of recent events.

I got flamed for it by Benotti69.

Sometimes the benefit of hindsight makes things clearer. ;-)
Your comments surrounding these Wiggins TUE's does nothing to help the situation in cycling. Can I ask how you were able to conclude that they were unethical without actually seeing the individual's medical information? If anything was unethical it was you and others questioning the legitimacy of someone's medical treatment after an illegal hack of their data. It's absolutely appalling behaviour. I can understand a pretty simple man like Nico Roche making that mistake but you should have known much better.
I have not stated unequivocally that they were unethical. I stated that the timing, the chosen substance, the TUE application based on previous year's medical details and other points are highly suspicious and questionable.

Perhaps the question you should ask yourself is this: If the questioning is a mistake (as you purport), why has it lead to UKAD initiating an investigation? Why have leading medical experts expressed the same opinion that I have? Why has the former head of WADA expressed the same opinion? You seem to intimate that I am somehow a rogue clinician / scientist expressing an unsound and biased opinion. You are utterly mistaken on this.

With respect to the post which you replied to. That post was made in July before any leaks occurred. It came at a time when I was lambasted here for being a "Sky fan boy". It's relevance is that I had an educated guess that we might see exactly this scenario playing out. And reposting it was simply pointing out that this is indeed what has happened.

Please don't expect continued engagement on this.
I stated that yourself and others have questioned the legitimacy of someone's medical treatment after an illegal hack of their data despite not being in possession of that individual's medical information. You're justifying that because someone has subsequently raised concerns to UKAD about a medical package? Are you serious? Frankly in this context, who cares about any potential anti-doping violation. It's not important.
Is that you Dave?
 
Re: Re:

BullsFan22 said:
Really? They were calling for sanctions and eventual ban on all Russian athletes to Rio 2016 and beyond, at the behest of the Americans. That move was purely political. It fell in line with what's happened between Russia and America, politically and economically over the past 3 years or so. I am not defending Russians who dope, but reports and requests calling for an entire nation to be banned have massive political overtones in them.
It's nice that they at least talked about supporting a ban. But, they have no authority and they know it.

The biggest issue for me is there is no transparency into UKAD's activities. None! So, they can be as corrupted as Reedie or Coe and there's no way to know. The lack of transparency and the IOC's record of corruption are a bad combination.

Maybe they are actually operating with integrity. There's just no way to know.
 
Re: Re:

DirtyWorks said:
BullsFan22 said:
Really? They were calling for sanctions and eventual ban on all Russian athletes to Rio 2016 and beyond, at the behest of the Americans. That move was purely political. It fell in line with what's happened between Russia and America, politically and economically over the past 3 years or so. I am not defending Russians who dope, but reports and requests calling for an entire nation to be banned have massive political overtones in them.
It's nice that they at least talked about supporting a ban. But, they have no authority and they know it.

The biggest issue for me is there is no transparency into UKAD's activities. None! So, they can be as corrupted as Reedie or Coe and there's no way to know. The lack of transparency and the IOC's record of corruption are a bad combination.

Maybe they are actually operating with integrity. There's just no way to know.

That's the point, they don't have the authority because that's not their job. There are others who's job is to do exactly that, and they chose not to, rightly so. Banning entire federations is political to say the least. I mean, look at who 'donated' the most to WADA. Shades of Armstrong 'donating' to the UCI 'for testing for PED's and the general fight for anti-doping!'
 
Sep 15, 2016
230
0
0
Re: Re:

DirtyWorks said:
ColonelKidneyBeans said:
I know, i was just giving my opinion on why it's completely banned, i think that the reasoning of WADA on this one didn't need to go much further than "It's not approved for medical use in most countries apart for veterinary medicine" By that i mean that if it was generally approved, it might be allowed in inhaler form for asthma, like salbutamol.
Cortico can be good PED too but they appear to be more "hit or miss", some people might end bloated, some people might have a huge boost from them.
The closer one follows what WADA does/doesn't ban the more random it is. Clenbuterol is an easy one because it doesn't occur naturally in the body so it's easy to test and there are safer alternatives at least in the West.
I'm sorry i don't understand what you mean here, english isn't my first language so it's probably my fault :D
Tbf even if it was a common medication in the west i don't think clenbuterol would be allowed, it seems to be very potent at increasing basal metabolism, no wonder it's a wonder drug for weight loss.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY