Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1476 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Sky

sniper said:
thehog said:
How much is allocated to the PED program?
That's difficult to tell, because at least part of the transport and logistics is funded by BC.
Curious: Is team-organized doping at Sky (or any team for that fact) pretty much the general consensus here? The reason why I'm wondering is the CIRC report states that a culture of doping still exists but that it's been primarily pushed underground, and mentions that doping doctors are being used as a resource. Also, Di Luca in a CN interview has said no team-sanctioned doping exists anymore, however, riders are given advice from doctors but must source their own doping products:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/di-luca-90-per-cent-of-riders-in-giro-ditalia-were-doping/

I would think that any team-organized doping would be very risky in this current climate given the catastrophic consequences and fallout if exposed. Perhaps teams may still encourage doping and provide doctors for advice on what methods/products to use, avoiding detection, etc.? Maybe some teams closely monitor their rider's ABPs and preemptively intervene at the first sign of a problem? However, I would think they would just "wash their hands" of any rider caught doping and not risk any evidence supporting a team-organized doping scandal.

It's also my understanding that the current paradigm of O2-vector doping/PED use has shifted from an industrial-strength model to one of a microdosing strategy aimed at achieving performance benefits while avoiding detection. Dr. Joyner of the Mayo Clinic has done some interesting research in this area:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/20/doping-world-athletics-championships-cheats
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Sky

Nomad said:
sniper said:
thehog said:
How much is allocated to the PED program?
That's difficult to tell, because at least part of the transport and logistics is funded by BC.
Curious: Is team-organized doping at Sky (or any team for that fact) pretty much the general consensus here? The reason why I'm wondering is the CIRC report states that a culture of doping still exists but that it's been primarily pushed underground, and mentions that doping doctors are being used as a resource. Also, Di Luca in a CN interview has said no team-sanctioned doping exists anymore, however, riders are given advice from doctors but must source their own doping products
I don't think there is a consensus on 'team doping'.
But that is due in the first place to the fact that there is no consensus on how to *define* 'team doping'.

What Di Luca describes, that can indeed be called a consensus, sort of, the trend supposedly being: the rider dopes up on his own account, and the team docs ensure s/he doesn't trip the wire (which is common sense, really, and a decades old procedure).
Needless to say, there'll be tons of exceptions where team docs and soigneurs and other staff members do actually help the rider(s) purchase and administer drugs.
In that context, whether and when we can speak of 'team doping' becomes a bit of a moot point.

Nomad said:
I would think that any team-organized doping would be very risky in this current climate given the catastrophic consequences and fallout if exposed.
Negative. UCI are catching fewer athletes than ever before in the modern history of procycling. Why? (a) Because they don't want to; (b) because they don't have to. They control the testing. WADA is more corrupt than ever. The WADA labs are corrupt, too. The only risk comes from potential police and/or federal interference, but when does that really happen.

Nomad said:
Perhaps teams may still encourage doping and provide doctors for advice on what methods/products to use, avoiding detection, etc.? Maybe some teams closely monitor their rider's ABPs and preemptively intervene at the first sign of a problem? However, I would think they would just "wash their hands" of any rider caught doping and not risk any evidence supporting a team-organized doping scandal.
A pedantic yet adequate response would be "duh".

Nomad said:
It's also my understanding that the current paradigm of O2-vector doping/PED use has shifted from an industrial-strength model to one of a microdosing strategy aimed at achieving performance benefits while avoiding detection.
That shift happened at least a decade ago, if not earlier.
 
Re: Sky

sniper said:
Nomad said:
sniper said:
thehog said:
How much is allocated to the PED program?
That's difficult to tell, because at least part of the transport and logistics is funded by BC.
Curious: Is team-organized doping at Sky (or any team for that fact) pretty much the general consensus here? The reason why I'm wondering is the CIRC report states that a culture of doping still exists but that it's been primarily pushed underground, and mentions that doping doctors are being used as a resource. Also, Di Luca in a CN interview has said no team-sanctioned doping exists anymore, however, riders are given advice from doctors but must source their own doping products
I don't think there is a consensus on 'team doping'.
But that is due in the first place to the fact that there is no consensus on how to *define* 'team doping'.

What Di Luca describes, that can indeed be called a consensus, sort of, the trend supposedly being: the rider dopes up on his own account, and the team docs ensure s/he doesn't trip the wire (which is common sense, really, and a decades old procedure).
Needless to say, there'll be tons of exceptions where team docs and soigneurs and other staff members do actually help the rider(s) purchase and administer drugs.
In that context, whether and when we can speak of 'team doping' becomes a bit of a moot point.

Nomad said:
I would think that any team-organized doping would be very risky in this current climate given the catastrophic consequences and fallout if exposed.
Negative. UCI are catching fewer athletes than ever before in the modern history of procycling. Why? (a) Because they don't want to; (b) because they don't have to. They control the testing. WADA is more corrupt than ever. The WADA labs are corrupt, too. The only risk comes from potential police and/or federal interference, but when does that really happen.

Nomad said:
Perhaps teams may still encourage doping and provide doctors for advice on what methods/products to use, avoiding detection, etc.? Maybe some teams closely monitor their rider's ABPs and preemptively intervene at the first sign of a problem? However, I would think they would just "wash their hands" of any rider caught doping and not risk any evidence supporting a team-organized doping scandal.
A pedantic yet adequate response would be "duh".

Nomad said:
It's also my understanding that the current paradigm of O2-vector doping/PED use has shifted from an industrial-strength model to one of a microdosing strategy aimed at achieving performance benefits while avoiding detection.
That shift happened at least a decade ago, if not earlier.
What's the evidence that WADA is more corrupt than ever? (isn't that a little insulting to the many lab workers?). And why wouldn't they want to catch dopers? Seems like an awful waste of money. Lol.

I posted info on the steriodal module that was implemented in 2014 (it was effective in nailing Danielson). I also posted info on the WADA improved testing sensitivity of microdosing EPO in which the detection opportunity has been improved several hours beyond the 7-9 hr "safe nighttime window." This makes using EPO microdosing in-competition more difficult.

Did you ever think that maybe WADA is "catching fewer riders than ever before" because the improved drug testing is actually a deterrent to some riders?...riders can't dope like it's 1999. IMO, 02-vector doping has been significantly impacted with the improved EPO microdosing testing as riders are looking more fatigue than ever and many can barley finish GTs anymore.

I mentioned in the Sagan thread that I thought he was relatively clean and maybe only using TUEs. You say he's mechanically doping because he's winning too much (or something along those lines). Not everyone in the peleton may be doping sniper.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Sky

Nomad said:
sniper said:
thehog said:
How much is allocated to the PED program?
That's difficult to tell, because at least part of the transport and logistics is funded by BC.
Curious: Is team-organized doping at Sky (or any team for that fact) pretty much the general consensus here? The reason why I'm wondering is the CIRC report states that a culture of doping still exists but that it's been primarily pushed underground, and mentions that doping doctors are being used as a resource. Also, Di Luca in a CN interview has said no team-sanctioned doping exists anymore, however, riders are given advice from doctors but must source their own doping products:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/di-luca-90-per-cent-of-riders-in-giro-ditalia-were-doping/

I would think that any team-organized doping would be very risky in this current climate given the catastrophic consequences and fallout if exposed. Perhaps teams may still encourage doping and provide doctors for advice on what methods/products to use, avoiding detection, etc.? Maybe some teams closely monitor their rider's ABPs and preemptively intervene at the first sign of a problem? However, I would think they would just "wash their hands" of any rider caught doping and not risk any evidence supporting a team-organized doping scandal.

It's also my understanding that the current paradigm of O2-vector doping/PED use has shifted from an industrial-strength model to one of a microdosing strategy aimed at achieving performance benefits while avoiding detection. Dr. Joyner of the Mayo Clinic has done some interesting research in this area:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/20/doping-world-athletics-championships-cheats
Astana's team program really had massive dire consequences for Astana when they got caught!!!!

Teams have doping programs, but i would hazard a guess that contracts are extreme and when a rider signs for the team he is aware that he is not allowed to talk about team practices. Team doping programs will vary, with A teams, B teams, GT teams, Classic teams etc etc

Nothing has changed in the sport in regards to doping, the culture is a pervasive as ever.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
^indeed.
Ashenden really said all there is to say when he said new age teams are on sophisticated programs.
The (need for) secrecy is stronger than ever.
If were really lucky then in the next few years we might hear some of the ins and outs of new age doping programs. But only if we're really lucky.

That said, part of it will still be fairly straightforward, knowing that the testing bodies are corrupt.
 
Feb 23, 2011
618
0
0
Re: Sky

I mentioned in the Sagan thread that I thought he was relatively clean and maybe only using TUEs. You say he's mechanically doping because he's winning too much (or something along those lines). Not everyone in the peleton may be doping sniper
This all comes back to the issue of what is the definition of clean?

Team Sky Clean = Everything undetectable, allowed, cant be tested for, that we can mask
Normal Person Clean = bread and water

the fourth biggest expense for Sky is 'Sports Science and Medical' rising from £222,000 in 2014 to £271,000 in 2015**

4 Team Doctors and a 'legal' doping pot worth £1/4 million does not scream clean to me.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Sky

B_Ugli said:
I mentioned in the Sagan thread that I thought he was relatively clean and maybe only using TUEs. You say he's mechanically doping because he's winning too much (or something along those lines). Not everyone in the peleton may be doping sniper
This all comes back to the issue of what is the definition of clean?

Team Sky Clean = Everything undetectable, allowed, cant be tested for, that we can mask
Normal Person Clean = bread and water

the fourth biggest expense for Sky is 'Sports Science and Medical' rising from £222,000 in 2014 to £271,000 in 2015**

4 Team Doctors and a 'legal' doping pot worth £1/4 million does not scream clean to me.
4 team doctors is a big red flag.

You get sick go to your local GP, he will refer you to a specialist if needed.

Team doctors are specialists in doping.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Sky

Benotti69 said:
B_Ugli said:
I mentioned in the Sagan thread that I thought he was relatively clean and maybe only using TUEs. You say he's mechanically doping because he's winning too much (or something along those lines). Not everyone in the peleton may be doping sniper
This all comes back to the issue of what is the definition of clean?

Team Sky Clean = Everything undetectable, allowed, cant be tested for, that we can mask
Normal Person Clean = bread and water

the fourth biggest expense for Sky is 'Sports Science and Medical' rising from £222,000 in 2014 to £271,000 in 2015**

4 Team Doctors and a 'legal' doping pot worth £1/4 million does not scream clean to me.
4 team doctors is a big red flag.

You get sick go to your local GP, he will refer you to a specialist if needed.

Team doctors are specialists in doping.
And what to make of Sky's 10 carers and 7 mechanics: there are 1, maybe 2, Brits among them, even though Sky's mission statement was to become a truly British team where only English is spoken, etc.
So whence the need for all these Polish, Slowenian, Dutch/Belgian and Spanish carers/mechanics?
And Peter Verbeken, the former USPS mechanic, is now working at Team Sky Office/Operations.

Piss take.
 
Dec 18, 2013
241
0
0
Most GPs know *** all about sport medicine.
When I had rotator cuff injuries his great advice was to stop doing what was aggravating them, that's fine I'll become a couch potato instead and add to the obesity epidemic.

I had to push and push to get a referral to a sports physiologist in order to continue an active lifestyle.
GPs are great for bad backs, cold and flu etc but they haven't got a clue when it comes to peak physical performance.
 
Re: Sky

B_Ugli said:
I mentioned in the Sagan thread that I thought he was relatively clean and maybe only using TUEs. You say he's mechanically doping because he's winning too much (or something along those lines). Not everyone in the peleton may be doping sniper
This all comes back to the issue of what is the definition of clean?

Team Sky Clean = Everything undetectable, allowed, cant be tested for, that we can mask
Normal Person Clean = bread and water

the fourth biggest expense for Sky is 'Sports Science and Medical' rising from £222,000 in 2014 to £271,000 in 2015**

4 Team Doctors and a 'legal' doping pot worth £1/4 million does not scream clean to me.
Good point on the definition of "clean." I suppose an athlete who uses a TUE for the sole purpose of a PED, as opposed to one who legitimately needs a TUE for an illness/pre-existing condition, would not be considered clean while the other one would?

On Sky's alleged team-organized doping: Would they be the only team engaged in a prolific team-organized doping program? If they're actively administering doping products/procedures to their riders during competitions, doesn't the risk of getting caught go up considerably? Is that a risk mgmt is worth taking in today's climate of anti-doping? As I mentioned before, Di Luca says riders are sourcing their own doping products unlike the days of team-sanctioned doping (he specifically mentions Festina & USPS). Bernard Kohl also talks about how during the 08 Tour he had his agent arrange the transportation of his blood bags and how he transfused secretly without team mgmt involvement:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kohl-tells-all-about-doping-1/

Also, this from the CIRC:

"The CIRC report suggests that the various scandals and investigations, and the introduction of the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) in 2008 changed the way some riders and teams doped, with doping largely now an "underground" activity and not via organised team doping programmes as was often the case in the nineties."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/circ-suggests-that-doping-has-gone-underground-with-micro-dosing-and-tue-abuse/

The other question I have is what happens when a top rider leaves Sky? For example, say rider "A" was doping succesfully on Sky's alleged organized program...what occurs when that rider goes to another team? Does he participate in that team's subpar doping program (if they even have one, or certainly one not as good as Sky's). Or does he talk to the DS about starting a Sky-style doping program providing all the valuable information he learned at Sky? Perhaps, rider "A" just partakes in his own clandestine out-sourcing doping program?
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Sky

Nomad said:
...
I mentioned in the Sagan thread that I thought he was relatively clean and maybe only using TUEs. You say he's mechanically doping because he's winning too much (or something along those lines).
Take off the blinders, put on your glasses, and read again what I posted in the Sagan thread.
There's not gonna be much fruitful discussion if you keep putting words into my mouth whilst ignoring what was actually posted.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re:

deviant said:
Most GPs know *** all about sport medicine.
When I had rotator cuff injuries his great advice was to stop doing what was aggravating them, that's fine I'll become a couch potato instead and add to the obesity epidemic.

I had to push and push to get a referral to a sports physiologist in order to continue an active lifestyle.
GPs are great for bad backs, cold and flu etc but they haven't got a clue when it comes to peak physical performance.
You seem to think the doctors on teams are sports injury specialists! Not sure where you get that from. Most are performance enhancement specialists and in your case a truck load of pain killers and injections and get back on your bike son that is why we pay you!

Most riders go to sports science universities or specialists to get treated for injury. Team docs dont do much of that.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
^bingo.
Sky's Johnny Lee Augustyn is a case in point.
He may have gone to see Leinders for his saddle sore, but he went to Jeroen Swart for treatment of his knee injury.
 
Feb 23, 2011
618
0
0
Re: Sky

The point here is that the Pro Cycling circus (and even MPCC for that matter) want the definition of 'clean' to sit right in the middle of a large grey area.

That grey area is medical assistance in any way shape or form

Regardless of whether you think Peter Keen is part of the problem having been previously employed by the BCF what he says is right.......

"For me, one of the biggest lessons is what is the role of sports medicine, where does it sit, and what are the organisations best placed to employ sports physicians," said Keen. "My view is, not governing bodies or professional teams. They probably are going to be able to do a better job of making judgement of where there fine lines are if they're accountable to their peers of their hospital or specialist institute environments. It's one of the more important discussions that needs to come out of what has emerged, particularly around the use of TUEs and what is in that now-described 'grey area' of Rx medicines.
With the history of pro cycling I think its high time for MBAW Movement for Bread & Water!!!!
 
Dec 18, 2013
241
0
0
Re: Sky

The point stands, your average family GP/physician knows *** all about the mentality of a sports person or their extreme physiology.

I'll say it again, whenever I've had injuries through sport (usually rotator cuff) the medical advice is to stop doing whatever is making them hurt!....brilliant, cheers Doc.

You'll find the Docs on any sports team far more likely to suggest an immediate referral to physio, prescription strength analgesia, intra joint cortisone treatments etc than your average GP whose attitude tends to be 'wait and see'....pro sports people can't 'wait and see'....their career depends on having access to Docs prepared to get them functioning again even if there's long term damage down the road like early onset arthritis in your 40s or 50s.

Ethical?....it's not illegal, same grey area as lots of pro sports mud like TUEs.
Another poster mentioned specialists re. getting a knee fixed (i think?)....obviously, even Consultants and Professors know they can't be an expert in all fields, you have to specialise to get any good in medicine and once a sports person is diagnosed with a back complaint, shoulder injury, borked knee etc they'll go off to the appropriate specialist for definitive treatment as opposed to the stop gap effect of team Docs who just keep a rider going.

This isn't difficult to understand, maybe because it doesn't fit into the current narrative it's being dismissed.
 
Feb 24, 2015
241
0
0
Re: Sky

deviant said:
The point stands, your average family GP/physician knows *** all about the mentality of a sports person or their extreme physiology.

I'll say it again, whenever I've had injuries through sport (usually rotator cuff) the medical advice is to stop doing whatever is making them hurt!....brilliant, cheers Doc.

You'll find the Docs on any sports team far more likely to suggest an immediate referral to physio, prescription strength analgesia, intra joint cortisone treatments etc than your average GP whose attitude tends to be 'wait and see'....pro sports people can't 'wait and see'....their career depends on having access to Docs prepared to get them functioning again even if there's long term damage down the road like early onset arthritis in your 40s or 50s.

Ethical?....it's not illegal, same grey area as lots of pro sports mud like TUEs.
Another poster mentioned specialists re. getting a knee fixed (i think?)....obviously, even Consultants and Professors know they can't be an expert in all fields, you have to specialise to get any good in medicine and once a sports person is diagnosed with a back complaint, shoulder injury, borked knee etc they'll go off to the appropriate specialist for definitive treatment as opposed to the stop gap effect of team Docs who just keep a rider going.

This isn't difficult to understand, maybe because it doesn't fit into the current narrative it's being dismissed.
Seriously have you ever even been anywhere near a professional sport? If you had you never would go to see a GP for a rotator cuff injury in the first place.

Sports doctors are known to sports people, most semi pro athletes would not go to their GP for a sport related injury they have specialist sport doctors to go and see. Let alone a professional athlete.
I have been around many top athletes in a number of fields and not one of them goes to a gp for any sport related injury. Hell even the unknown pro triathletes I know have sports doctors on the speed dial and they are not even paid for by an association let alone a team set up.

So to make the point you are above is silly. No one is discussing the family GP.

The point being made is that to have 4 doctors within the team is ridiculous, because as you so rightly point out they will not be specialists.
A single sport doctor with a knowledge of cycling would be enough to determine what the issue is and then send the athlete to the relevant specialist. Which is what happens in most cases.
So why the need for 4? and why the need for 4 with track records in helping other dubious teams and riders?

The fact is that if the team wanted to do what it said it was setting out to; do there are plenty of sports doctors in the UK they could have hired and utilised; to make sure their athletes get the attention they needed when they needed it.

But to have the set up that they have begs the question as to whether they are hiring doctors for the athletes benefit and the medical aspects or hiring doctors who know how to bypass certain rules and regulations, or who have contacts that can assist with the teams, maybe in a lab somewhere or within the testing teams who can tip off a team on a visit.

As for your last point - I would love to see a doctor's thoughts on that - have you ever heard of the hypocratic oath. No moral or upstanding doctor would prescribe something to an athlete knowingly if they knew it would cause arthiritis or other major conditions down the line.
Some doctors have defended the use of EPO by stating that without them the athlete would take it anyway and be putting themselves in more danger, or by stating that the three week grand tours are actually damaging to an athletes health without assistance.
But to give medications that are know to damage a human being in full knowledge that they are not needed would get most legitimate doctors struck off. Maybe that is why the team scour the earth to find doctors that are potentially less scrupulous.
 
Dec 18, 2013
241
0
0
Re:

Why would they have 4 Docs?...

Let's see, how many riders does the team employ?....does a top athlete in the best funded team expect to wait around and see the one and only team DR?...don't make me laugh, half of these guys and girls are divas....seen any footage of Cavendish when he doesn't know there's a camera on him!?

Then there's the fact that the team split up and enter different races at the same time....is one DR supposed to charter a jet around Europe/the world and service the entire team?!....ridiculous idea again.

Pretty much every well funded cycling team, rugby team, football team etc use multiple DRs because that's what the millionaire athletes expect.

People seem to be clutching at straws with the 4 Docs thing.

Re. the ethics thing, I work in health care and just about every Doc makes a risk vs benefit decision on treatment....case in point, last GP I worked alongside advised a massive increase in dose of ibuprofen for a patient he had suffering joint pain, the risk is gastric upset and even ulcers/bleeding....however the Doc decided the patient's quality of life from being pain free and mobile was worth the risk of gastric bleeding.

Oh, last thing....read up on the Hippocratic oath, most don't take it any more....in the U.S. the osteopathic oath has been more common in recent decades and in the UK there is no obligation from medical students to take the oath.
Far more common now is an open ethical discussion between everyone involved in someone's healthcare (including the patient) about the 'risk vs benefit' options and any harm that may occur....the old adage of "first do no harm" is seen as restrictive and old fashioned these days.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS