Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[mastersracer]

Masterracer. I asked you many times before, you are putting up strawmen. As soon as I point that out you shut up and just repeat the process three pages later. Man up and admit that I never said it was proof.

And the bolded part is lunacy. There have been many people implicated with epo turning in lower numbers than these. It proofs.... exactly nothing.

Back to the facts, do you have a good reason for Leinders? Or are you giving them a pass for this?

EPO has been implicated in poor amateur performances as well. No one is stating that physiologically plausible performances are evidence of non-doping. They provide no evidence of doping. There's a distinction in there you need to mull over.

Re, Leinders. How is this evidence of doping? Fine if you want to say its suspicious, but it does not constitute evidence of doping. In fact, recent years have shown that it is the doctors that are being used in secret - not on a team's payroll - that are most linked with doping. If Sky wanted a secret doping program, why would they put the doc on their payroll? They would set up secret meetings, money laundering etc.

Leinders is another good example of confirmation bias. Isn't it dodgy that Saxo Bank, Garmin, etc. all have DS's that are admitted dopers? RSNT DS is facing a lifetime ban. BMC is phonak - Och, Ballan, Hincapie, etc. You can cherry pick dodgy characters/backgrounds from any team.

 

[taiwan]

Isn't that indication a good thing? In favor of Sky, Wiggins and cycling in general .. these numbers aren't being produced by any random pro, just the top

I mean, if the numbers are within whats physiological capable by high end and naturally gifted athletes, in combination of no doping proof what so ever then I give them the benefit of the doubt, otherwise I would just stop watching, but that's just me.

Just pointing out that low numbers are not as meaningful as high numbers are.

 

[wannab]

Just pointing out that low numbers are not as meaningful as high numbers are.

I agree with you on that, that's why I remain skeptical for guys who appear out of nowhere or with sudden performances. That's also why I favor Wiggins over Froome, Wiggens always showed talent.

 

[keeponrollin]

Isn't that indication a good thing? In favor of Sky, Wiggins and cycling in general .. these numbers aren't being produced by any random pro, just the top

I mean, if the numbers are within whats physiological capable by high end and naturally gifted athletes, in combination of no doping proof what so ever then I give them the benefit of the doubt, otherwise I would just stop watching, but that's just me.

But even within the top 'gifted' athletes, we should be seeing that these guys don't perform at the maximum level __EVERY DAY__ !!!

A clean rider will have average days, good days & bad days. Only having good days is not credible in a 3 week GT.

 

[Cycle Chic]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/11/dave-brailsford-team-sky

Not only is it insulting to the memory of Txema Gonzalez, it doesn't even make sense. If you are so worried about bacterial infections, hire a specialist in that field, not someone who's most notable area of expertise is doping.

So a soigneur dies of a bacterial infection, the team also apparently come down with an infection same race, then Froome has this parasitical infection - anyone linked this and got a theory ?? new drug goes wrong ?

If already been discussed can you say which thread it is. ta

 

[Cerberus]

Isn't that indication a good thing? In favor of Sky, Wiggins and cycling in general .. these numbers aren't being produced by any random pro, just the top

I mean, if the numbers are within whats physiological capable by high end and naturally gifted athletes, in combination of no doping proof what so ever then I give them the benefit of the doubt, otherwise I would just stop watching, but that's just me.

Is it actually within what's physiologically possible? My impression is that good power data doesn't exist. The closest thing I've seen is Scienceofsports stating that it doesn't fall outside of what is "physiologically plausible" using "best case scenarios". If you do have some reliable data on what kind of power a clean, or at least, pre-epo rider can produce I'd love to see it, but my impression is that precise data simply doesn't exist.

 

[taiwan]

I agree with you on that, that's why I remain skeptical for guys who appear out of nowhere or with sudden performances. That's also why I favor Wiggins over Froome, Wiggens always showed talent.

And I agree that if the numbers are low then cycling is likely in a better situation than it was ten years ago, but it does look like there's still scope for advantage to be gained. At a guess it would be something to do with putting a lot of resources into fine manipulation 'within the bounds of the credible' or some new product, + pulling political strings.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/radio/bbc_radio_fourfm/listenlive (programme was "More or Less" on BBC Radio 4 in case you were wondering)

Relevant programme on the radio atm.

But I'm not a physiologist or whatever clearly.

 

[goggalor]

Richard Moore is at it again: http://www.skysports.com/opinion/story/0,,16299_7926831,00.html

Wiggins is a worthy winner. And, more importantly, he did all that he could - and more than any other Tour winner of the last 20 years - to convince a sometimes sceptical audience that he is a credible champion.

What exactly did he do?

It's strange how sports journalists are blind to their own nationalism. But it's also predictable. Most of them are really just sports fans with typewriters, aren't they, and they enjoy their countrymen or women winning too much to be able to do their job properly*. If Tony Martin wins next year, I'm sure many German journalists will be just as fawning and uncritical.

*Assuming Richard Moore isn't part of Sky's PR team, which I suppose is a stretch considering the article was posted on skysports.com.

(Btw, I don't mind Brits enjoying Wiggins' win, but why do they have to push him and Sky as clean and credible, especially when they don't even bother arguing why that would be the case?!)

 

[thehog]

So a soigneur dies of a bacterial infection, the team also apparently come down with an infection same race, then Froome has this parasitical infection - anyone linked this and got a theory ?? new drug goes wrong ?

If already been discussed can you say which thread it is. ta

Willy Voet would always test the gear on himself before giving it to the riders.

 

[sniper]

Richard Moore is at it again: http://www.skysports.com/opinion/story/0,,16299_7926831,00.html

What exactly did he do?

well, he has been very active insulting your and my intelligence.
Wiggins said a lot more than he should have.
Tbh, I have a lot more respect for the silent attitude of a guy like Cadel last year. In hindsight, I respect Cadel for not having given us the "Why would I cheat? / It's a new era / I've been tested a zillion times / LA is great / the UCI rules" kind of crap that Wiggins has given us.

 

[Benotti69]

Willy Voet would always test the gear on himself before giving it to the riders.

I never heard that. Might explain the Sky soigneur at la Vuelta and the reason the team hightailed it and it also might explain the real need for Leinders, which all point in the opposite direction of clean.

 

[D Avoid]

That's the exact phrase for it. Jingoistic nonsense and it clouds any sense of realistic judgement. This reminds when Michelle Smith from Ireland won her 3 golds and a bronze in swimming in the Olympics in 96. Her leap in performance was similiar to what Wiggins has done(probably even bigger) and if you questioned that over here at the time, you would of got your head bitten off. In the end that all ended in tears as everyone knows.

And they even tried to start a campaign to get Michelle carrying the nOlympic torch last month, it burnt out though!!

 

[180mmCrank]

Willy Voet would always test the gear on himself before giving it to the riders.

Was that in his book? I remember reading that he would take stuff to stay awake while driving ... but I can't recall (or not) that he specifically talked about testing gear on himself before he gave it to the riders.

Just curious.

T

 

[sniper]

I never heard that. Might explain the Sky soigneur at la Vuelta and the reason the team hightailed it and it also might explain the real need for Leinders, which all point in the opposite direction of clean.

yep, that is an interesting dot indeed. connects rather well with the dots we already have.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Richard Moore is at it again: http://www.skysports.com/opinion/story/0,,16299_7926831,00.html

What exactly did he do?

He called the doubters ****ing ****ers and ****s?

 

[the big ring]

*Assuming Richard Moore isn't part of Sky's PR team, which I suppose is a stretch considering the article was posted on skysports.com.

(Btw, I don't mind Brits enjoying Wiggins' win, but why do they have to push him and Sky as clean and credible, especially when they don't even bother arguing why that would be the case?!)

Even worse - he's an "author":

http://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/ne...s-new-heights-with-sky-cycling-team-1-4717906

Ex-racing cyclist Moore’s expertise and knowledge is self-evident in the reading and after his successful first award-winning book In Search of Robert Millar and best-seller Heroes, Villains and Velodromes, he is clearly becoming something of an authority.

 

[Cerberus]

Re, Leinders. How is this evidence of doping? Fine if you want to say its suspicious, but it does not constitute evidence of doping.

Actually that's exactly what it means, if something is supicious then it's evidence of doping, if it isn't evidence of doping then it's not suspicious either. you seem to have the words evidence and proof confused.

vIn fact, recent years have shown that it is the doctors that are being used in secret - not on a team's payroll - that are most linked with doping. If Sky wanted a secret doping program, why would they put the doc on their payroll? They would set up secret meetings, money laundering etc. [/QUOTE]
because
1) Hiring him allows them to work much more closely with him.
2) Hiring him openly allowsfans to beleive it's less suspicious than it is. Presumably even fans would find secret donations and money laundering just a tad suspicious, while Sky has caught very little flak for their total flip-slop on hiring shady doctors.

 

[mastersracer]

Actually that's exactly what it means, if something is supicious then it's evidence of doping, if it isn't evidence of doping then it's not suspicious either. you seem to have the words evidence and proof confused.

vIn fact, recent years have shown that it is the doctors that are being used in secret - not on a team's payroll - that are most linked with doping. If Sky wanted a secret doping program, why would they put the doc on their payroll? They would set up secret meetings, money laundering etc.

because
1) Hiring him allows them to work much more closely with him.
2) Hiring him openly allowsfans to beleive it's less suspicious than it is. Presumably even fans would find secret donations and money laundering just a tad suspicious, while Sky has caught very little flak for their total flip-slop on hiring shady doctors.[/QUOTE]

this has already been covered; suspicions are based on generic prior information, such as the doping rate of podium finishers over the last 25 years. Hence, any podium finisher may be viewed with suspicion. Evidence is information about specific riders that implicates them directly. There is no evidence re Sky.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Seems to me that peeps are ignoring the very significant benefits of EPO and the like give to recovery. Yes power levels MIGHT be down and teams are better at working within the constraints of the bio passport and positives in competition are perhaps less frequent though that ignores the fact that most doping occurs in training.
You train harder, you recover faster using PED,s. This fact has held true for decades.
We know from ex riders reports that an hours notice is enough time to get blood levels within the constraints. We know Leinders wasn't at the race, we know , again from riders reports at Robobank that his part of his role was making sure riders were able to pass tests.
We know there's more than quite roads and some mountains as an attraction to train in Tennerife.
In a clean peloton they,d be close competition and in a 3 week GT even the best would have off days. When one team dominates to the extent Sky have its taking the **** and nothing they have said so far is convincing.

 

[Cerberus]

this has already been covered; suspicions are based on generic prior information, such as the doping rate of podium finishers over the last 25 years. Hence, any podium finisher may be viewed with suspicion. Evidence is information about specific riders that implicates them directly. There is no evidence re Sky.

I'll grant the part about podium finishers, but hiring a shady doctor is not generic prior information, it's evidence.

 

[180mmCrank]

Seems to me that peeps are ignoring the very significant benefits of EPO and the like give to recovery. Yes power levels MIGHT be down and teams are better at working within the constraints of the bio passport and positives in competition are perhaps less frequent though that ignores the fact that most doping occurs in training.
You train harder, you recover faster using PED,s. This fact has held true for decades.
We know from ex riders reports that an hours notice is enough time to get blood levels within the constraints. We know Leinders wasn't at the race, we know , again from riders reports at Robobank that his part of his role was making sure riders were able to pass tests.
We know there's more than quite roads and some mountains as an attraction to train in Tennerife.
In a clean peloton they,d be close competition and in a 3 week GT even the best would have off days. When one team dominates to the extent Sky have its taking the **** and nothing they have said so far is convincing.

I have a feeling the questions I am about to ask is well trodden ground but I will ask it anyway...

If we start from the premise that seems to be the view in the Clinic that everyone is doing it. How can one team or riders better performance be explained by doping alone? Or is it that the conjecture is that these teams or riders have better (more systematic) doping programs?

I assume no one is trying to say only one team is doping and the others can't keep up because they are not?

The reason I ask is that it seems intuitively obvious that there are more factors at play in performance than doping or not doping but curious what others think.

AND there may be a previous Clinic Thread that covers this ... if so please point me in the direction and I will delete this post.

T

 

[Darryl Webster]

I have a feeling the questions I am about to ask is well trodden ground but I will ask it anyway...

If we start from the premise that seems to be the view in the Clinic that everyone is doing it. How can one team or riders better performance be explained by doping alone? Or is it that the conjecture is that these teams or riders have better (more systematic) doping programs?

I assume no one is trying to say only one team is doping and the others can't keep up because they are not?

The reason I ask is that it seems intuitively obvious that there are more factors at play in performance than doping or not doping but curious what others think.

AND there may be a previous Clinic Thread that covers this ... if so please point me in the direction and I will delete this post.

T

Better program , better ability to cover there tracks. Budgets for doping can be huge. No one is suggesting Sky alone are doping but all doping isn't equal,never has been and never will be.

 

[Knutsen]

Then I guess something like this did happen at Sky:

Brailsford: hi, Rupert!
Murdoch: Um..
Brailsford: the thing with winning tdf with a british rider does not work out. We need the juice.
Murdoch: Um.
Brailsford: there's this dodgy dutch doping doctor, Leinders, he is the man. We need him to run our doping program.
Murdoch: Um?
Brailsford: we put him on the payroll and call him just doctor, then no one will notice!
Murdoch: Um!
Brailsford: then we hide the riders down at Tenerife and and we are home free!
Murdoch: Um-um!

 

[Benotti69]

I have a feeling the questions I am about to ask is well trodden ground but I will ask it anyway...

If we start from the premise that seems to be the view in the Clinic that everyone is doing it. How can one team or riders better performance be explained by doping alone? Or is it that the conjecture is that these teams or riders have better (more systematic) doping programs?

I assume no one is trying to say only one team is doping and the others can't keep up because they are not?

The reason I ask is that it seems intuitively obvious that there are more factors at play in performance than doping or not doping but curious what others think.

AND there may be a previous Clinic Thread that covers this ... if so please point me in the direction and I will delete this post.

T

It comes down to many factors. Read the Armstrong threads to discover what it comes down when too all are doping.

But remember Sky started out be at this level, where they reach the maximum believed levels of human endurance and physiology. But their recovery is amazing. Everyday they looked like it was their 1st day of racing. No fatigue. Yellow jersey leading out the sprint train the day before the final TT of a 3 week GT. Incredible!

Did they have some premonition that others would not be able to achieve their prevoius levels and if so how did they know this? Are they buying the UCI who are threatening other teams with the biopassport and therefore making thm other teams scramble to find new programs? How come the Schlecks were so out of whack this year? What ruined their season, their attitude or a new program that they have yet to get to grips with?

 

[hrotha]

Better program , better ability to cover there tracks. Budgets for doping can be huge. No one is suggesting Sky alone are doping but all doping isn't equal,never has been and never will be.

It has been suggested that up to 1996 it was largely a matter of how much of a death wish you had. Then they introduced some element of skill in doing some minimal hematocrit control, which could be done easily to pass the blood tests and still race above 50%. Once EPO became detectable in urine, that changed. Now you needed a proper program to make sure you didn't trip the wire while still getting as much of a boost as possible. That's the era of the medical advantage, and it's a delicate balance. Small fish like Navigare could get very potent dope, even getting more of a boost than the most sophisticated teams, but they would get caught.

Of course, having the UCI in your pocket and receiving advance warnings makes everything much easier.

In that sense, the introduction of the EPO test made the competition less fair, at least for a while.