Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1520 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Sky

yaco said:
red_flanders said:
Zypherov said:
So Sky allegedly broke the no needles policy rule. What next.
I'm guessing, "Altitude camps are cover for blood value manipulation", "AICAR allowed us to lose weight and gain power", "It's still really easy to microdose EPO" and a few I can't think of.

yaco said:
I wonder if this leak is trying to make UKAD overspend their budget - Seems to be lots of leaks which raise the interest of UKAD, but at the same time little hard evidence.
Where have I heard this before...? It sounds so familiar...can't....quite put my finger on it...

Anyone?
My take is the leaker/s aim is to eventually make Brailsford resign from Sky - Continually build up public pressure so he is given little choice about his future - At the same time the leaks to UKAD contain soft evidence at best, which are unlikely to lead to any charges - And at the same time, NADO's always ask for more money when undertaking a complex investigation - Have to laugh at how NADO's telling sports organisations how to spend their money.
I don't know anything about all of that.

I'm wondering what would constitute "hard evidence" in your view. Personally I think there is hard evidence that they've been abusing the TUE process with incidents by both Froome and Wiggins. If someone puts their name to the needles allegation, that will potentially be eyewitness evidence of cheating, but that hasn't happened yet. That would be "hard evidence". Positive tests I would file under "proof".

There is so much circumstantial evidence of riders on their team cheating and management doing backflips to cover it up that it's not even funny–wildly beyond what I need to form a strong opinion on the matter. Whether there will ever be proof, I don't know, but it's hardly surprising that more and more is leaking out all the time.

Can't bring myself to be interested in the internal politics of any NADO. Their incentives are so far removed from preventing doping that it's pointless to wonder about.
 
Re:

Eyeballs Out said:
What is the deal with Tationil ? Skin whitening ? Wiggins not pale enough already ?
Recovery. Let us remember the famous list of products found in Rumsas wife's car, note that TAD 600 contains the same active substance as Tationil.

3 flasks of Actovegin
1 flask of Norditropin penset 24 (growth hormone)
1 flask of TAD 600
1 flask of solvent for Norditropin
1 injection of Actrapid Novolet (insulin)
1 box of Spascupreel
1 box of albumine humaine 20 %
1 box of Ubichinon Compositum (co-enzyme Q)
2 boxes of Thyreoida Compositum (hormone extracts)
3 boxes of Testis Compositum (hormone extracts)
2 ampoules of Coffeinum (caffeine)
1 ampoule of Celestone (anti-inflammatory)
1 ampoule of Benexol B12 5000 (vitamins)
3 ampoules of Ketonal
3 flasks of Kenacort genius (corticoids)
1 box of Toco 500 (vitamin E)
1 bottle of sodium chloride 0.9
3 capsules of No Spa Forte
15 capsules of Durvitan (caffeine)
10 ampoules and one tablet of Pentohexal 300 (vasodilator)
1 box and three tablets of MAG 2 (magnesium)
12 capsules of Ozothine
15 capsules of Optalidon
2 packets of Eurythrox 50
2 boxes of Immunoferon (immuno-stimulants)
2 boxes of Trofalgon
1 box of Androderm (testosterone)
6 capsules and one ampoule of Alphalipon (improves nervous functions)
2 tablets of Stilnox
4 capsules of Oltramp
30 tablets of Bentelan (corticoids)
30 tablets and 4 ampoules of Voltaren (anti-inflammatory)
3 tablets of Praxilen
1 tablet of Cafiaspirina (caffeine and aspirin)
1 ampoule of sterile water and one flask of Haes-Steril
1 flask of Geref (enhances production of endogenous HG)
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re: Re:

Rollthedice said:
Eyeballs Out said:
What is the deal with Tationil ? Skin whitening ? Wiggins not pale enough already ?
Recovery. Let us remember the famous list of products found in Rumsas wife's car, note that TAD 600 contains the same active substance as Tationil.

3 flasks of Actovegin
1 flask of Norditropin penset 24 (growth hormone)
1 flask of TAD 600
1 flask of solvent for Norditropin
1 injection of Actrapid Novolet (insulin)
1 box of Spascupreel
1 box of albumine humaine 20 %
1 box of Ubichinon Compositum (co-enzyme Q)
2 boxes of Thyreoida Compositum (hormone extracts)
3 boxes of Testis Compositum (hormone extracts)
2 ampoules of Coffeinum (caffeine)
1 ampoule of Celestone (anti-inflammatory)
1 ampoule of Benexol B12 5000 (vitamins)
3 ampoules of Ketonal
3 flasks of Kenacort genius (corticoids)
1 box of Toco 500 (vitamin E)
1 bottle of sodium chloride 0.9
3 capsules of No Spa Forte
15 capsules of Durvitan (caffeine)
10 ampoules and one tablet of Pentohexal 300 (vasodilator)
1 box and three tablets of MAG 2 (magnesium)
12 capsules of Ozothine
15 capsules of Optalidon
2 packets of Eurythrox 50
2 boxes of Immunoferon (immuno-stimulants)
2 boxes of Trofalgon
1 box of Androderm (testosterone)
6 capsules and one ampoule of Alphalipon (improves nervous functions)
2 tablets of Stilnox
4 capsules of Oltramp
30 tablets of Bentelan (corticoids)
30 tablets and 4 ampoules of Voltaren (anti-inflammatory)
3 tablets of Praxilen
1 tablet of Cafiaspirina (caffeine and aspirin)
1 ampoule of sterile water and one flask of Haes-Steril
1 flask of Geref (enhances production of endogenous HG)
Change a few of the medications for other 'improved' methods and i doubt too much has changed.

CIRC report had GT riders taking up to 30 tablets a day.
 
Jul 21, 2016
913
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Dan2016 said:
Benotti69 said:
yaco said:
I wonder if this leak is trying to make UKAD overspend their budget - Seems to be lots of leaks which raise the interest of UKAD, but at the same time little hard evidence.
Plenty of hard evidence.

Hired 4 doping doctors.

Needle use. IV use. Kenacort.

Countless lies.

Soon be enough for Walsh to write a book........... :D
That's circumstancialistical evidence in't it.

The whole thing doesn't pass that test when you smell things, or that one about balancing stuff...but there's no evidence of like totally hard things yet.
You know Wiggins does not have asthma or pollen allergies. That a big rich team can get doctors to sign prescriptions and certs saying he does dont make it so.

Try and remember we are talking professional cycling. Try and read up on a little history of the sport and you will see Wiggins another rider with buckets of talent who needed dope to win big races. Just like the rest of the GT winners.

You're welcome. :)
Thanks. :)

I was just kidding really, though pointing out that it is circumstantial so far.

But yes, as you say, the history is relevant and telling, and it certainly looks like Sky have been doping - it would be hard to conclude otherwise IMO. Will they go down for it though? It doesn't look likely so far. Some kind of slamdunk evidence is needed, or a confession, or something of that nature...the present circumstantial evidence isn't enough.


Edited: Nonsense deleted.
 
Re: Sky

red_flanders said:
yaco said:
red_flanders said:
Zypherov said:
So Sky allegedly broke the no needles policy rule. What next.
I'm guessing, "Altitude camps are cover for blood value manipulation", "AICAR allowed us to lose weight and gain power", "It's still really easy to microdose EPO" and a few I can't think of.

yaco said:
I wonder if this leak is trying to make UKAD overspend their budget - Seems to be lots of leaks which raise the interest of UKAD, but at the same time little hard evidence.
Where have I heard this before...? It sounds so familiar...can't....quite put my finger on it...

Anyone?
My take is the leaker/s aim is to eventually make Brailsford resign from Sky - Continually build up public pressure so he is given little choice about his future - At the same time the leaks to UKAD contain soft evidence at best, which are unlikely to lead to any charges - And at the same time, NADO's always ask for more money when undertaking a complex investigation - Have to laugh at how NADO's telling sports organisations how to spend their money.
I don't know anything about all of that.

I'm wondering what would constitute "hard evidence" in your view. Personally I think there is hard evidence that they've been abusing the TUE process with incidents by both Froome and Wiggins. If someone puts their name to the needles allegation, that will potentially be eyewitness evidence of cheating, but that hasn't happened yet. That would be "hard evidence". Positive tests I would file under "proof".

There is so much circumstantial evidence of riders on their team cheating and management doing backflips to cover it up that it's not even funny–wildly beyond what I need to form a strong opinion on the matter. Whether there will ever be proof, I don't know, but it's hardly surprising that more and more is leaking out all the time.

Can't bring myself to be interested in the internal politics of any NADO. Their incentives are so far removed from preventing doping that it's pointless to wonder about.
Circumstantial evidence doesn't pass muster with me - You need lots of circumstantial evidence, combined with affidavits and the leakers being prepared to give evidence at an Anti-Doping Tribunal - Leakers often give snippets of evidence but are unwilling to follow through 100% - So you have a few hurdles to hump - The needles part is probably an issue for the UCI.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re: Sky

yaco said:
Circumstantial evidence doesn't pass muster with me - You need lots of circumstantial evidence, combined with affidavits and the leakers being prepared to give evidence at an Anti-Doping Tribunal - Leakers often give snippets of evidence but are unwilling to follow through 100% - So you have a few hurdles to hump - The needles part is probably an issue for the UCI.
As i posted upthread, if you are a cycling fan pre-2010 you will understand Sky are a doping team.

There is Wiggins/Froomes use of Kenacort. Injections of Tationil. Testosterone patches. Ignoring the doping doctors and all the lies, which are a small part of the doping picture.

These things are not circumstantial. If the UCI or any anti-doping agency were run by the rules then bans would be flying!

But some of us have followed this circus for a long time. Sky are a doping team and posters like yourself will not change that.
 
Re: Sky

yaco said:
red_flanders said:
yaco said:
red_flanders said:
Zypherov said:
So Sky allegedly broke the no needles policy rule. What next.
I'm guessing, "Altitude camps are cover for blood value manipulation", "AICAR allowed us to lose weight and gain power", "It's still really easy to microdose EPO" and a few I can't think of.

yaco said:
I wonder if this leak is trying to make UKAD overspend their budget - Seems to be lots of leaks which raise the interest of UKAD, but at the same time little hard evidence.
Where have I heard this before...? It sounds so familiar...can't....quite put my finger on it...

Anyone?
My take is the leaker/s aim is to eventually make Brailsford resign from Sky - Continually build up public pressure so he is given little choice about his future - At the same time the leaks to UKAD contain soft evidence at best, which are unlikely to lead to any charges - And at the same time, NADO's always ask for more money when undertaking a complex investigation - Have to laugh at how NADO's telling sports organisations how to spend their money.
I don't know anything about all of that.

I'm wondering what would constitute "hard evidence" in your view. Personally I think there is hard evidence that they've been abusing the TUE process with incidents by both Froome and Wiggins. If someone puts their name to the needles allegation, that will potentially be eyewitness evidence of cheating, but that hasn't happened yet. That would be "hard evidence". Positive tests I would file under "proof".

There is so much circumstantial evidence of riders on their team cheating and management doing backflips to cover it up that it's not even funny–wildly beyond what I need to form a strong opinion on the matter. Whether there will ever be proof, I don't know, but it's hardly surprising that more and more is leaking out all the time.

Can't bring myself to be interested in the internal politics of any NADO. Their incentives are so far removed from preventing doping that it's pointless to wonder about.
Circumstantial evidence doesn't pass muster with me - You need lots of circumstantial evidence, combined with affidavits and the leakers being prepared to give evidence at an Anti-Doping Tribunal - Leakers often give snippets of evidence but are unwilling to follow through 100% - So you have a few hurdles to hump - The needles part is probably an issue for the UCI.
Didn't pass muster with Lance either, thankfully evidence regardless of what kind is considered by sporting agencies for sanction.

Fingerprints left at a crime scene in criminal cause is considered "circumstantial evidence", which in most cases provides the beyond reasonable doubt verdict.

Perhaps head back to BikeRadar? You're too obvious.
 

Irondan

Administrator
Moderator
Re: Sky

thehog said:
yaco said:
red_flanders said:
yaco said:
red_flanders said:
Zypherov said:
So Sky allegedly broke the no needles policy rule. What next.
I'm guessing, "Altitude camps are cover for blood value manipulation", "AICAR allowed us to lose weight and gain power", "It's still really easy to microdose EPO" and a few I can't think of.

yaco said:
I wonder if this leak is trying to make UKAD overspend their budget - Seems to be lots of leaks which raise the interest of UKAD, but at the same time little hard evidence.
Where have I heard this before...? It sounds so familiar...can't....quite put my finger on it...

Anyone?
My take is the leaker/s aim is to eventually make Brailsford resign from Sky - Continually build up public pressure so he is given little choice about his future - At the same time the leaks to UKAD contain soft evidence at best, which are unlikely to lead to any charges - And at the same time, NADO's always ask for more money when undertaking a complex investigation - Have to laugh at how NADO's telling sports organisations how to spend their money.
I don't know anything about all of that.

I'm wondering what would constitute "hard evidence" in your view. Personally I think there is hard evidence that they've been abusing the TUE process with incidents by both Froome and Wiggins. If someone puts their name to the needles allegation, that will potentially be eyewitness evidence of cheating, but that hasn't happened yet. That would be "hard evidence". Positive tests I would file under "proof".

There is so much circumstantial evidence of riders on their team cheating and management doing backflips to cover it up that it's not even funny–wildly beyond what I need to form a strong opinion on the matter. Whether there will ever be proof, I don't know, but it's hardly surprising that more and more is leaking out all the time.

Can't bring myself to be interested in the internal politics of any NADO. Their incentives are so far removed from preventing doping that it's pointless to wonder about.
Circumstantial evidence doesn't pass muster with me - You need lots of circumstantial evidence, combined with affidavits and the leakers being prepared to give evidence at an Anti-Doping Tribunal - Leakers often give snippets of evidence but are unwilling to follow through 100% - So you have a few hurdles to hump - The needles part is probably an issue for the UCI.
Didn't pass muster with Lance either, thankfully evidence regardless of what kind is considered by sporting agencies for sanction.

And because you're too stupid to realise that fingerprints left at a crime scene in criminal cause is considered "circumstantial evidence", which in most cases provides the beyond reasonable doubt verdict.

Perhaps head back to BikeRadar? You're too obvious.
Yaco is welcome to post comments on the CN Forums as long as they do so according to all forum rules.

Besides, the anti-Sky brigade need someone to argue with, the rest of them seem to have disappeared.... :D
 
Aug 26, 2014
2,148
0
0
Re: Sky

yaco said:
red_flanders said:
yaco said:
red_flanders said:
Zypherov said:
So Sky allegedly broke the no needles policy rule. What next.
I'm guessing, "Altitude camps are cover for blood value manipulation", "AICAR allowed us to lose weight and gain power", "It's still really easy to microdose EPO" and a few I can't think of.

yaco said:
I wonder if this leak is trying to make UKAD overspend their budget - Seems to be lots of leaks which raise the interest of UKAD, but at the same time little hard evidence.
Where have I heard this before...? It sounds so familiar...can't....quite put my finger on it...

Anyone?
My take is the leaker/s aim is to eventually make Brailsford resign from Sky - Continually build up public pressure so he is given little choice about his future - At the same time the leaks to UKAD contain soft evidence at best, which are unlikely to lead to any charges - And at the same time, NADO's always ask for more money when undertaking a complex investigation - Have to laugh at how NADO's telling sports organisations how to spend their money.
I don't know anything about all of that.

I'm wondering what would constitute "hard evidence" in your view. Personally I think there is hard evidence that they've been abusing the TUE process with incidents by both Froome and Wiggins. If someone puts their name to the needles allegation, that will potentially be eyewitness evidence of cheating, but that hasn't happened yet. That would be "hard evidence". Positive tests I would file under "proof".

There is so much circumstantial evidence of riders on their team cheating and management doing backflips to cover it up that it's not even funny–wildly beyond what I need to form a strong opinion on the matter. Whether there will ever be proof, I don't know, but it's hardly surprising that more and more is leaking out all the time.

Can't bring myself to be interested in the internal politics of any NADO. Their incentives are so far removed from preventing doping that it's pointless to wonder about.
Circumstantial evidence doesn't pass muster with me - You need lots of circumstantial evidence, combined with affidavits and the leakers being prepared to give evidence at an Anti-Doping Tribunal - Leakers often give snippets of evidence but are unwilling to follow through 100% - So you have a few hurdles to hump - The needles part is probably an issue for the UCI.
It seems to me that whilst there may not be actual 'proof' of doping - if you are asking for proof to be a positive test or similar - there is ample proof that the people giving evidence and asking for our trust are not to be trusted. It mystifies me how anyone can continue to give them the benefit of what has to be giant amounts of doubt under such circumstances. Perhaps it would be understandable if there was a credible explanation for all the mendacity, obstruction, half-truths etc etc. But I have yet to hear one. The mental gymnastics required to absolve BC/Sky/and the individuals involved is extraordinary. They are either utterly incompetent, negligent, irrational and inconsistent, or they are liars and cheats with something to hide. I just don't see how you can have it any other way.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re: Sky

Irondan said:
Yaco is welcome to post comments on the CN Forums as long as they do so according to all forum rules.

Besides, the anti-Sky brigade need someone to argue with, the rest of them seem to have disappeared.... :D
I think that is the 'anti stop insulting our intelligence brigade' you mean.

Not much left to argue with anymore.

Sky have been caught lying about almost everything.

We know how Wiggins won his TdF.

We know Froome is a doper/motor user.

What's left to argue with. They hired dopers and doping doctors. They had a positive with JTL. Edmondson admitted to injecting and doping.

Cookson former Sky/BC runs UCI, getting a positive from that set up nigh impossible.

Sky just another rich run of the mill WT doping team. Plus ca change.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Re: Sky

Benotti69 said:
Irondan said:
Yaco is welcome to post comments on the CN Forums as long as they do so according to all forum rules.

Besides, the anti-Sky brigade need someone to argue with, the rest of them seem to have disappeared.... :D
I think that is the 'anti stop insulting our intelligence brigade' you mean.

Not much left to argue with anymore.

Sky have been caught lying about almost everything.

We know how Wiggins won his TdF.

We know Froome is a doper/motor user.

What's left to argue with. They hired dopers and doping doctors. They had a positive with JTL. Edmondson admitted to injecting and doping.

Cookson former Sky/BC runs UCI, getting a positive from that set up nigh impossible.

Sky just another rich run of the mill WT doping team. Plus ca change.
Don't forget the "altitude native" rubbish too. I mean, the only guy who lives/comes from altitude to trip the ABP wire, when his cousin comes from the same town and other pro's live/come from a higher altitude and none of these guys have tripped the ABP.
 
Re: Sky

Benotti69 said:
yaco said:
Circumstantial evidence doesn't pass muster with me - You need lots of circumstantial evidence, combined with affidavits and the leakers being prepared to give evidence at an Anti-Doping Tribunal - Leakers often give snippets of evidence but are unwilling to follow through 100% - So you have a few hurdles to hump - The needles part is probably an issue for the UCI.
As i posted upthread, if you are a cycling fan pre-2010 you will understand Sky are a doping team.

There is Wiggins/Froomes use of Kenacort. Injections of Tationil. Testosterone patches. Ignoring the doping doctors and all the lies, which are a small part of the doping picture.

These things are not circumstantial. If the UCI or any anti-doping agency were run by the rules then bans would be flying!

But some of us have followed this circus for a long time. Sky are a doping team and posters like yourself will not change that.
Where have my posts stated Sky is a doping or non-doping team ? I am discussing the hard evidence needed by Anti-Doping Authorities to charge cyclists/support staff with anti-doping violations to successfully prosecute in an Anti-Doping Tribunal - I make no apologies for wanting a robust Anti-Doping system which prosecutes on hard evidence - What you or I think about a team or athlete holds no weight in the Anti-Doping World.
 
You need hard evidence for a NADO to charge and then successfully prosecute a non AAF at an Anti-Doping Tribunal - That means corroborated evidence, clear paper trails, person admitting guilt etc - I am very consistent in my posting across a number of threads in this part of the forum.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Re:

yaco said:
You need hard evidence for a NADO to charge and then successfully prosecute a non AAF at an Anti-Doping Tribunal - That means corroborated evidence, clear paper trails, person admitting guilt etc - I am very consistent in my posting across a number of threads in this part of the forum.
So let me check we're on the same page, until Lance went on Oprah,in your mind he was a clean 'cyclist'?
 
Re: Re:

BYOP88 said:
yaco said:
You need hard evidence for a NADO to charge and then successfully prosecute a non AAF at an Anti-Doping Tribunal - That means corroborated evidence, clear paper trails, person admitting guilt etc - I am very consistent in my posting across a number of threads in this part of the forum.
So let me check we're on the same page, until Lance went on Oprah,in your mind he was a clean 'cyclist'?
What a strange post - My posts aren't discussing who is clean and who is not - I am discussing the type of evidence a NADO needs to prove for a Non AAF - Think some need to take the blinkers off and stop cheer-leading.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Re: Re:

yaco said:
BYOP88 said:
yaco said:
You need hard evidence for a NADO to charge and then successfully prosecute a non AAF at an Anti-Doping Tribunal - That means corroborated evidence, clear paper trails, person admitting guilt etc - I am very consistent in my posting across a number of threads in this part of the forum.
So let me check we're on the same page, until Lance went on Oprah,in your mind he was a clean 'cyclist'?
What a strange post - My posts aren't discussing who is clean and who is not - I am discussing the type of evidence a NADO needs to prove for a Non AAF - Think some need to take the blinkers off and stop cheer-leading.
But NADO's don't actually want to bust anyone. I mean UKAD haven't done anything regarding the Linda McCartney Racing Team, USADA did next to nothing regarding Us Postal/Armstrong until it had too. In an ideal world NADO's would like to bust no one and get an increase to their funding. At the moment they bust small fish in small sports and hope they don't have to bust any big fish in any big sport.
 

Irondan

Administrator
Moderator
Re: Sky

Benotti69 said:
Irondan said:
Yaco is welcome to post comments on the CN Forums as long as they do so according to all forum rules.

Besides, the anti-Sky brigade need someone to argue with, the rest of them seem to have disappeared.... :D
I think that is the 'anti stop insulting our intelligence brigade' you mean.

Not much left to argue with anymore.

Sky have been caught lying about almost everything.

We know how Wiggins won his TdF.

We know Froome is a doper/motor user.

What's left to argue with. They hired dopers and doping doctors. They had a positive with JTL. Edmondson admitted to injecting and doping.

Cookson former Sky/BC runs UCI, getting a positive from that set up nigh impossible.

Sky just another rich run of the mill WT doping team. Plus ca change.
When I refer to people as the "anti-Sky" brigade I only mean that they're the people that don't believe the PR bull**** that Dave B and the rest of the crew tried to sell the general public. More like the antithesis of a Team Sky fan.

Happy Easter Benotti! :)
 
Re:

yaco said:
You need hard evidence for a NADO to charge and then successfully prosecute a non AAF at an Anti-Doping Tribunal - That means corroborated evidence, clear paper trails, person admitting guilt etc - I am very consistent in my posting across a number of threads in this part of the forum.
Are you saying you work for a NADO? Because it just sounds like you are a Sky fan.
 
Jul 21, 2016
913
0
0
Re: Re:

veganrob said:
yaco said:
You need hard evidence for a NADO to charge and then successfully prosecute a non AAF at an Anti-Doping Tribunal - That means corroborated evidence, clear paper trails, person admitting guilt etc - I am very consistent in my posting across a number of threads in this part of the forum.
Are you saying you work for a NADO? Because it just sounds like you are a Sky fan.
Funny how we all read things differently on forums isn't it. I've seen the last couple of pages and it just looked to me like someone stating the obvious...that is, under the present anti-doping framework there isn't enough evidence to prosecute anyone at Sky. That seems obvious to me, but maybe it's not. On what grounds within the current framework could they be prosecuted? Are they not currently protected by their TUE's and convenient lies?

Seems to me significantly more evidence is needed.

(and don't label me a Sky fan...Jaysus, god forbid...I hates 'em I do, I say yes I do I hates 'em I do)
 
Collins now a hero ! Aargh - Blackcat elucidated the situation perfectly in a post a while ago - Along the lines, that politicians are cheer-leaders when everything is rosy, then make themselves heroes when there is a sniff of a problem - Politicians are worse than the dopers.
 
Re: Re:

Dan2016 said:
veganrob said:
yaco said:
You need hard evidence for a NADO to charge and then successfully prosecute a non AAF at an Anti-Doping Tribunal - That means corroborated evidence, clear paper trails, person admitting guilt etc - I am very consistent in my posting across a number of threads in this part of the forum.
Are you saying you work for a NADO? Because it just sounds like you are a Sky fan.
Funny how we all read things differently on forums isn't it. I've seen the last couple of pages and it just looked to me like someone stating the obvious...that is, under the present anti-doping framework there isn't enough evidence to prosecute anyone at Sky. That seems obvious to me, but maybe it's not. On what grounds within the current framework could they be prosecuted? Are they not currently protected by their TUE's and convenient lies?

Seems to me significantly more evidence is needed.

(and don't label me a Sky fan...Jaysus, god forbid...I hates 'em I do, I say yes I do I hates 'em I do)

Well this is not true, there was a lot of evidence but it was concealed and likely destroyed, which in itself is a sancable offense. You only need to see how Brailsford attempted to sway Lawton with false information and then offered up information about a rival team (which clearly he hadn't taken to the UCI) as fodder to not print Sky's illegal use Kenalog.

Add in the unaccounted vials of Kenalog, the private use of the drug on staff members, the testosterone delivery and you have a very good case to sanction Wiggins.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re: Sky

Irondan said:
Benotti69 said:
Irondan said:
Yaco is welcome to post comments on the CN Forums as long as they do so according to all forum rules.

Besides, the anti-Sky brigade need someone to argue with, the rest of them seem to have disappeared.... :D
I think that is the 'anti stop insulting our intelligence brigade' you mean.

Not much left to argue with anymore.

Sky have been caught lying about almost everything.

We know how Wiggins won his TdF.

We know Froome is a doper/motor user.

What's left to argue with. They hired dopers and doping doctors. They had a positive with JTL. Edmondson admitted to injecting and doping.

Cookson former Sky/BC runs UCI, getting a positive from that set up nigh impossible.

Sky just another rich run of the mill WT doping team. Plus ca change.
When I refer to people as the "anti-Sky" brigade I only mean that they're the people that don't believe the PR bull**** that Dave B and the rest of the crew tried to sell the general public. More like the antithesis of a Team Sky fan.

Happy Easter Benotti! :)
Cheers Dan. Enjoy your Easter :D
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts