Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Zypherov]

It's absolutely amazing that people are so sure that Sky are doping. Perhaps you should present your fully detailed documented evidence to the UCI & WADA. By the way what will the winning Lotto numbers for Saturday nights draw be.

 

[orbeas]

Seems word is out about Team Sky's yearly drug orders !!!

https://twitter.com/digger_forum?lang=en

 

[Benotti69]

Vayerism tweeting some info that shows Sky for the liars they are..

https://twitter.com/vayerism/with_replies

 

[rick james]

lol twitter news

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

lol twitter news

Compelling argument. Great post.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Sky

good guy Elissonde showing there´s no good or bad, warms my heart (I am not kidding and I support Kenny)

https://www.twitter.com/Digger_forum/status/801401545178968064

this to all of those who moaned when he signed for Sky.

it´s pro sport, guys and girls, the "my fav rider is better than yours" narrative has no place in it.

 

[BullsFan22]

Re: Sky

I know this is slightly off topic, but allow me to share an epiphany. From here on out, I will do my best to refer to Sir Bradley Wiggins as 'Sir Wiggles a Lot.' Appropriate, no?

 

[The Hegelian]

Re:

It's absolutely amazing that people are so sure that Sky are doping. Perhaps you should present your fully detailed documented evidence to the UCI & WADA. By the way what will the winning Lotto numbers for Saturday nights draw be.

Why would we need clairvoyance when we already possess such compelling and substantial empirical knowledge?

Knowledge, incidentally, that was fully detailed and documented from WADA.

 

[Zypherov]

Re: Re:

It's absolutely amazing that people are so sure that Sky are doping. Perhaps you should present your fully detailed documented evidence to the UCI & WADA. By the way what will the winning Lotto numbers for Saturday nights draw be.

Why would we need clairvoyance when we already possess such compelling and substantial empirical knowledge?

Knowledge, incidentally, that was fully detailed and documented from WADA.

So where are the sanctions ?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

It's absolutely amazing that people are so sure that Sky are doping. Perhaps you should present your fully detailed documented evidence to the UCI & WADA. By the way what will the winning Lotto numbers for Saturday nights draw be.

Why would we need clairvoyance when we already possess such compelling and substantial empirical knowledge?

Knowledge, incidentally, that was fully detailed and documented from WADA.

So where are the sanctions ?

Do you know the meaning of empirical?

 

[Zypherov]

Re: Re:

It's absolutely amazing that people are so sure that Sky are doping. Perhaps you should present your fully detailed documented evidence to the UCI & WADA. By the way what will the winning Lotto numbers for Saturday nights draw be.

Why would we need clairvoyance when we already possess such compelling and substantial empirical knowledge?

Knowledge, incidentally, that was fully detailed and documented from WADA.

So where are the sanctions ?

Do you know the meaning of empirical?

Of course I do. Why do you ask ? Does it spoil your fun and libellous allegations.

 

[sniper]

Indeed I'm afraid the words "empirical knowledge" were not well spent on Zypherov.
Were Indurain, Riis or Ulrich ever sanctioned?

Hegelian is right, we have the empirical knowledge of Wiggins' doping (like we do of Indurain, Riis and Ulrich's doping, and like we did of Lance's doping pre-sanction) and it comes straight from WADA, so it's rather difficult to refute.
As somebody else said, the rest is with the lawyers.

 

[Zypherov]

Re:

Indeed I'm afraid the words "empirical knowledge" were not well spent on Zypherov.
Were Indurain, Riis or Ulrich ever sanctioned?

Hegelian is right, we have the empirical knowledge of Wiggins' doping (like we do of Indurain, Riis and Ulrich's doping, and like we did of Lance's doping pre-sanction) and it comes straight from WADA, so it's rather difficult to refute.
As somebody else said, the rest is with the lawyers.

So by your logic every rider that has a sudden drop in weight, starts a high cadence, etc, TUE'S and all the rest must be doping. Observation is not evidence of the facts. If you were going to use a perception such as "empirical knowledge" in this case, it would not stand up in court. Well of course this is not a court of law. But still.

One must remember that if Chris Froome had been allowed a free reign when Wiggins won the Tour, Froome would have won it.

 

[sniper]

Me and thehog we were only saying that your "where are the sanctions?"-response was a fail.
The lack of sanctions does not nullify the empirical knowledge of doping, as shown by the cases of Indurain, Ulrich, Riis and tons of other known dopers who for one reason or another were never sanctioned.

Apart from that i think we agree. What we have on Wiggins wouldn't stand up in court. But again, that's pretty meaningless in terms of 'did he dope or not'. Not even the evidence against Ulrich could stand up in court. Nor did the evidence against Lance stand up in any kind of court prior to 2012. The threshold is very high.

 

[Archibald]

Re:

Me and thehog we were only saying that your "where are the sanctions?"-response was a fail.
The lack of sanctions does not nullify the empirical knowledge of doping, as shown by the cases of Indurain, Ulrich, Riis and tons of other known dopers who for one reason or another were never sanctioned.

Apart from that i think we agree. What we have on Wiggins wouldn't stand up in court. But again, that's pretty meaningless in terms of 'did he dope or not'. Not even the evidence against Ulrich could stand up in court. Nor did the evidence against Lance stand up in any kind of court prior to 2012. The threshold is very high.

Considering LA's lack of sanctions for his time actually riding, I'd say that if we see Froome, Wigans and DB on the guestlist of Jeremy Kyle, then they could be coming...

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

Indeed I'm afraid the words "empirical knowledge" were not well spent on Zypherov.
Were Indurain, Riis or Ulrich ever sanctioned?

Hegelian is right, we have the empirical knowledge of Wiggins' doping (like we do of Indurain, Riis and Ulrich's doping, and like we did of Lance's doping pre-sanction) and it comes straight from WADA, so it's rather difficult to refute.
As somebody else said, the rest is with the lawyers.

So by your logic every rider that has a sudden drop in weight, starts a high cadence, etc, TUE'S and all the rest must be doping. Observation is not evidence of the facts. If you were going to use a perception such as "empirical knowledge" in this case, it would not stand up in court. Well of course this is not a court of law. But still.

One must remember that if Chris Froome had been allowed a free reign when Wiggins won the Tour, Froome would have won it.

And Froome is less suspicious of course.

 

[jflemaire]

Re:

Of course Brailsford probably doesn't know anything about this either:

Diego Rosa
From: Astana
To: Team Sky

BMC and Team Sky fought over Rosa's future throughout the spring with both teams keen on the Italian's signature. In the end British Pound won over US Dollar and Dave Brailsford landed his latest acquisition from a team he once felt the UCI should sanction and ban.

Speaking of bans, Rosa also found himself on the cusp of a suspension during the season due to three possible whereabouts errors. However two of those episodes were struck off just before the Olympics, leaving the Italian clear to race.

You don't understand. Rosa was doping at Astana. Now that he'll be riding for Sky he'll no longer dope and be even better. That's the magic of Sky.

 

[jflemaire]

Re:

Were Indurain, Riis or Ulrich ever sanctioned?

Ullrich was, somewhat: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ullrich-apologizes-for-fuentes-dealings/

 

[doperhopper]

Re: Sky

good guy Elissonde showing there´s no good or bad, warms my heart (I am not kidding and I support Kenny)

https://www.twitter.com/Digger_forum/status/801401545178968064

this to all of those who moaned when he signed for Sky.

it´s pro sport, guys and girls, the "my fav rider is better than yours" narrative has no place in it.

no wonder Kenny is happy at SKY - impossible he haven't heard of Brailsford's dream of "coaching the french Tour winner"

 

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

Indeed I'm afraid the words "empirical knowledge" were not well spent on Zypherov.
Were Indurain, Riis or Ulrich ever sanctioned?

Hegelian is right, we have the empirical knowledge of Wiggins' doping (like we do of Indurain, Riis and Ulrich's doping, and like we did of Lance's doping pre-sanction) and it comes straight from WADA, so it's rather difficult to refute.
As somebody else said, the rest is with the lawyers.

So by your logic every rider that has a sudden drop in weight, starts a high cadence, etc, TUE'S and all the rest must be doping. Observation is not evidence of the facts. If you were going to use a perception such as "empirical knowledge" in this case, it would not stand up in court. Well of course this is not a court of law. But still.

One must remember that if Chris Froome had been allowed a free reign when Wiggins won the Tour, Froome would have won it.

Empirical = documented medical evidence that Sky rider Wiggins used the age old practice of big doses of cortico-steroids to drop weight and gain power/recovery, before each GT that he targeted.

That is not mere observation + speculation. It is something theoretically grounded in the medical science that underpins cycling. This is demonstrated by the fact the MPCC has a clear policy on cortio-steroid use, which is based on a direct understanding of the abuse of steroids in the pro peloton, its harmful implications for the human body (long term) and its demonstrable performance enhancing effects.

Let us be clear: you want to hold that it is libelous to assert that Sky are doping, and, that such inferences are as speculative and loose as guessing the lotto numbers before they are drawn.

I would hold that it is as clear as seeing the lotto numbers on screen, after they are drawn, and stating what they are.

Quite a difference between us on that matter!

 

[MatParker117]

No punishment for Wiggins over the package, Sky and BC could still be reprimanded for poor record keeping according to The Times:

The Times reports that UKAD is close to ending their investigation, which was launched in October. In addition to Cope, another member of staff is understood to have told UKAD that they have no recollection of what the package contained. UKAD has concerns about documentation kept by British Cycling and Team Sky, says the paper, along with the transportation of medicine. It is unlikely that any charges will be made.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

No punishment for Wiggins over the package, Sky and BC could still be reprimanded for poor record keeping according to The Times:

The Times reports that UKAD is close to ending their investigation, which was launched in October. In addition to Cope, another member of staff is understood to have told UKAD that they have no recollection of what the package contained. UKAD has concerns about documentation kept by British Cycling and Team Sky, says the paper, along with the transportation of medicine. It is unlikely that any charges will be made.

The SkyTimes.

Brit cycling doing an internal investigation has to be as laughable as the Russians doing an internal investigation. Same outcomes.

 

[sniper]

 

[ferryman]

So, no iffy jiffy for Wiggey......you all know what's coming... it's all a bit whiffey. Tis OK, I've already left with my coat

 

[doperhopper]

wahahahaaaa... yet another SKYborg weightloss overdosing

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/thomas-i-pushed-my-weight-loss-too-far-ahead-of-the-tour-de-france/

(after the famous wiggo's pre-breakfast 7 hour rides... aka PEDs that worked too much)