Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1590 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sometimes we get weary of debunking the Sky excusers. Many of the posts in this thread aren't worthy of a response. That Luke Rowe could win PR is truly toe curling.
 
Re: Sky

JosephK said:
So I see where a new sponsor for Sky seems to have played its card: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-expected-to-become-team-ineos/

I suppose it's not without a trace of irony that the tagline for the article reads: "Multinational chemical company registers team name online" [bold supplied]. :p

do you know what this company is doing?? so you see the word chemical and you think immediatly about drug, medication??

Solvents used in the production of insulin and antibiotics
Efficient and effective biofuels to improve the sustainability of modern transport
Chlorine to purify drinking water
Synthetic oils that help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from road transportation
Modern plastics to package, protect and preserve food & drink
Materials to insulate houses, offices, electrical and telecommunications cables
Products transformed into automotive parts, used in medical applications, mobile phones, and construction
 
Re: Sky

Gazprom (gas extraction, production, transport, and sale)
Direct Energie (Fossil Fueled Power Stations)
Orica (mining, quarrying, oil and gas)
OmegaPharma(Pharmeceuticals)
Liquigas (Petroleum Gas)

Nobody gave a monkeys about their business in cycling.
 
Re:

topcat said:
What we do care about is that there are different rules for Sky than for other teams.

topcat said:
Tue rules, salbutomol rules, testosterone rules. You should know, you've been defending them.
We don't know enough to be able to say this because we don't know how rules have been applied in every other case involving other teams' riders.

Going through your claims one by one:
1)TUE rules. Which rules did Sky break? Answer: None. I believe Team Sky exploited the rules, but that isn't the same as breaking them and it isn't reliant on a different set of rules. It is unlikely that Team Sky are the only team doing this and it is the fault of the rules rather than the fault of any team exploiting them.

However, Team Sky was afforded a fast-track TUE by the authorities, something which I find unacceptable and is an example of authorities favoring the 'star team'

2) Salbutamol. Not true. See Diego Ulissi.

3) Testosterone rules. As far as I can see there is no clear picture that a different set of rules were applied to BC/Team Sky. I think it is highly likely that Freeman was cheating or planning to cheat, but again, that doesnt mean rules were bent for Sky.
 
So you agree with me macbindle. I thought I was talking to Sam. You two seem to be tag teaming these days. I'm off to cheer on Wales against my home country. Sport transcends nationality.
 
Yes and no. I think through the history of cycling there have been accommodations made for the 'star' team, in terms of many aspects, not just application of anti-doping rules.

I think Sky is no exception. I think the Salbutamol case might be evidence of this in that there may have been a reluctance to ban a defending champion and the major GT star for something pretty marginal. I think the fast-track TUE is pretty crap, and again another example of favouritism.

What I don't think there is clear evidence of is blatant disregard of anti-doping rules, or lack of application to Sky. It might be happening, as it did with LA, but it is not in the public domain.

Beyond that, your comments about 'tag-teaming' seem like some sort of puerile attack. If you want to discuss dispassionately I'm here. But if you are into the playground name-calling stuff then you'll have to find somebody else to bait.
 
Re: Re:

macbindle said:
topcat said:
What we do care about is that there are different rules for Sky than for other teams.

topcat said:
Tue rules, salbutomol rules, testosterone rules. You should know, you've been defending them.
We don't know enough to be able to say this because we don't know how rules have been applied in every other case involving other teams' riders.

Going through your claims one by one:
1)TUE rules. Which rules did Sky break? Answer: None. I believe Team Sky exploited the rules, but that isn't the same as breaking them and it isn't reliant on a different set of rules. It is unlikely that Team Sky are the only team doing this and it is the fault of the rules rather than the fault of any team exploiting them.

However, Team Sky was afforded a fast-track TUE by the authorities, something which I find unacceptable and is an example of authorities favoring the 'star team'

2) Salbutamol. Not true. See Diego Ulissi.

3) Testosterone rules. As far as I can see there is no clear picture that a different set of rules were applied to BC/Team Sky. I think it is highly likely that Freeman was cheating or planning to cheat, but again, that doesnt mean rules were bent for Sky.
the TUE rules (and others) require the involvement of doctors...some doctors can provide a...how shall we say.....'favourable interpretation' of a riders 'condition'. Once that interpretation/diagnosis is made, the rider can benefit from TUEs which would otherwise not be available to them should, say a less favourable diagnosis be made. Any rule breaking moves from rider to doctor...now..imagine there was a situation where a team doctor didn't want to asnswer any questions...that might be a good indicator of such behaviour, no???? ;) ;) ;)
 
Re: Sky

samhocking said:
Gazprom (gas extraction, production, transport, and sale)
Direct Energie (Fossil Fueled Power Stations)
Orica (mining, quarrying, oil and gas)
OmegaPharma(Pharmeceuticals)
Liquigas (Petroleum Gas)

Nobody gave a monkeys about their business in cycling.
Your point is valid, but as far as I know Direct Energie doesn't produce any energy, they only sell to end customers. In France, over 70% of electricity produced is nuclear, less than 10% is from fossil fuels.
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
macbindle said:
topcat said:
What we do care about is that there are different rules for Sky than for other teams.

topcat said:
Tue rules, salbutomol rules, testosterone rules. You should know, you've been defending them.
We don't know enough to be able to say this because we don't know how rules have been applied in every other case involving other teams' riders.

Going through your claims one by one:
1)TUE rules. Which rules did Sky break? Answer: None. I believe Team Sky exploited the rules, but that isn't the same as breaking them and it isn't reliant on a different set of rules. It is unlikely that Team Sky are the only team doing this and it is the fault of the rules rather than the fault of any team exploiting them.

However, Team Sky was afforded a fast-track TUE by the authorities, something which I find unacceptable and is an example of authorities favoring the 'star team'

2) Salbutamol. Not true. See Diego Ulissi.

3) Testosterone rules. As far as I can see there is no clear picture that a different set of rules were applied to BC/Team Sky. I think it is highly likely that Freeman was cheating or planning to cheat, but again, that doesnt mean rules were bent for Sky.
the TUE rules (and others) require the involvement of doctors...some doctors can provide a...how shall we say.....'favourable interpretation' of a riders 'condition'. Once that interpretation/diagnosis is made, the rider can benefit from TUEs which would otherwise not be available to them should, say a less favourable diagnosis be made. Any rule breaking moves from rider to doctor...now..imagine there was a situation where a team doctor didn't want to asnswer any questions...that might be a good indicator of such behaviour, no???? ;) ;) ;)
Totally.

Although the point I am making is that this isn't about favouritism of authorities towards a given rider or team. The simple fact that authorities outside of cycling (DCMS & GMC) have failed to compel Freeman to be held to account is a clear demonstration of the systemic nature of the problem.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
I've understood the thread perfectly, also noted your passive-aggressive sarcastic attitude towards Sam Hocking and myself. If you behave like that, don't complain when held to account.

Also, do not act in a disingenuous manner when trying to account for your own posting. You understand my post very well, you arent stupid.

My previous point stands, you are wilfully exaggerating another person's words into a point that he isn't making and then attacking it. In common parlance, a straw man.

There has been a notable absence of that type of cheap tactic recently, so it stands out somewhat when somebody (you) employs it.
I love that you’re actually serious! I shall endeavor to post here more often.
 
Re:

topcat said:
Ulissi got a 9 month ban. Froome got no ban. Lance was stripped of his TdF titles. Froome hasn't been (yet). The rules are different for different riders.
No. Ulissi got a 2 year ban reduced to 9 months. Petacchi didn't. Is that evidence of different rules for different riders, or merely different mitigating arguments winning in CAS.

Why should Froome be stripped of his Tour titles line Lance when there is no evidence of Froome taking EPO, HGH, Testosterone like Lance did?
 
Re:

topcat said:
Ulissi got a 9 month ban. Froome got no ban. Lance was stripped of his TdF titles. Froome hasn't been (yet). The rules are different for different riders.
There were also numerous Salbutomol AAFs just like Froome that were exonerated like his too, not even by UCI necessarily. Each case is judged on the specifics of the case, that is why Salbutomol isn't simply prohibited with strict liability after-all, because it clearly is ambiguous with urine to inhalation. Anyway, bored of the case, it was talked to death, WADA said it wasn't unique, we either get upset for all the other athletes exonerated too and identify how, or we accept we don't know the specifics of the case, which we obviously don't.
 
Petacchi got a one year ban. Froome had a higher level of salbutomol than either. No ban whatsoever. Froome is more suspicious than Lance was. At least Lance was a talented triathlete in his younger years.
 
Re:

topcat said:
Ulissi got a 9 month ban. Froome got no ban. Lance was stripped of his TdF titles. Froome hasn't been (yet). The rules are different for different riders.
For the most parts this is true. Armstrong’s ban was excessive and not sure how they managed to pull that off. But has become very convenient to pretend the Armstrong era was dirty and everything after is clean. Ulissi’s error was to play by the rules whereas Froome stacked his case and kept riding to be exonerated in unknown circumstances. Sky have learnt a valuable lesson from the Froome case and applied the same tactics for Freeman. And then you have Henao who also wriggled himself out of passport case with a fake study that never eventuated. I wouldn’t suspect anyone from Sky will have issues again, it’s too costly for the authorities.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY