Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Parrot23]

There is another explanation, of course, which is that somehow, LOL, they are training better. And I think Sky's riders' training is directed by the team, unlike many other teams where riders each train with their own favourite trainer or longtime coach. It's unlikely, even very much so. I find it odd they can all be at the front.

But Brailsford does have a record, as does Tim Kerrison. That's obvious, but ignored by those looking for singular explanations. And we all know Sky has the money.

Another example: how do national swim teams all improve simultaneously, or national speed skating teams, or Canada's long eight rowing team (when U.K. coach Mike Spracklen went to Canada, for example)? It's certainly not doping in every case.

Just say'in...it's not impossible a priori as some insist. It's not my position, but a possibility.

 

[Franklin]

You raise a good question: Why, is so many other teams have leaders that have the knowledge, means and resources to dope as effectively as Sky (allegedly is doing) why are they sitting idly by and letting it happen? The other team directors are competitive type A guys who, one would imagine, would not just sit back and watch this right? Why the difference in programs?

It's about taking the risk... Evans for instance has a quite personal entourage. Without the Ferrari link we would be able to think he was a choir boy (I guess he has the voice). Just like SD took the risk and failed. Telekom took the risk a few times and succeeded (at least no evidence except confessions). USP has been another tough nut.

Also, keep in mind that Sky's medical team has a new (but tainted) man from another discipline, so they are bringing in new ideas.

 

[zapata]

Didn't someone on this forum say British journos would never be as fawning and wide-eyed as the Americans and Aussies? Anyway, I guess not.

That's the most annoying thing.Bllatant doping is one thing, I can't really get upset about that anymore, but touting it as a "victory for clean cycling" is disgusting.

 

[Mr Pumpy]

Essentially, on this board, if somebody wins a race they are a de facto doper.

 

[DirtyWorks]

But I'm always open to persuasion - if someone could point me to solid evidence that rider x is a non-doper, I'd be glad to look at it.

Here we go with the 'proof.' Do we have documentation about Sky's program? No. Even then, is that sufficient proof?

What happened today is a culmination of circumstantial evidence including:
-team doctor ran Rabobank's program.
-Extraordinary climbing powers after visiting Tenerife
-**VERY** low racing profile for such a supposedly powerful team of riders. Three of them at this point...
-A 1:1 replay of the Postal Train.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Sky's medical staff has doped athletes in the past. FACT.

Several of Sky's riders have "overwhelming" evidence against them according to the UCI's experts. FACT.

Several of Sky's riders have improved by a ludicrous amount in the past 6-12 months or so. FACT.

 

[Franklin]

But Brailsford does have a record, as does Tim Kerrison.

Tim had one stand-out client. Squeaky clean Thorpedoooooo

Another example: how do national swim teams all improve simultaneously, or national speed skating teams, or Canada's long eight rowing team (when U.K. coach Mike Spracklen went to Canada, for example)? It's certainly not doping in every case.

Actually, I'm of the opinion that yes, usually it's a combination of new training methods and doping, especially if it's a whole team. call me a cynic, but behind every team is a great medical staff and everywhere I look it's bad, bad news.

Just say'in...it's not impossible a priori as some insist. It's not my position, but a possibility.

For an individual, sure. But for a group of riders of the same team? they all have to be super-responders of these new magical training methods.

I don't fancy those odds

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Essentially, on this board, if somebody wins a race they are a de facto doper.

Of course. Otherwise it would mean someone clean could beat the 50-95% of the peloton that is smoked to the gills. That's just silly.

 

[asdfgh101]

Any man in any race? You don't want to take that challenge. You be trolling. Make it less obvious. Drop the UK from your next handle.

When were the doctors hired? Do you even know the name of the drug Wiggins used to strip the muslce he lost? The 10 odd kilos of it! Do you know how good that drug really is? Or is it not surprising that when Wiggins joined Sky, Alan Lim and his rice cakes didn't follow him from Garmin nor were any of these new specialists working for the team.

Anyone who doesn't call BS on riding 2010 like Wiggins did and two years later having a season like this is a damn fool. Or a trolling fanboy. Enjoy denial. Take a number, go join the Sky groupies and get down on your knees if you don't want to question. That's literally about all you'd be good for. That and baying in the wind.

I apologise if you already have (long thread) but can you post your facts and strong suspicions (re: medical team, drugs etc.)?

We are probably in agreement regarding the general state of affairs but i must challenge your assertion regarding Wiggin's 2010 season. There are factors other than 'training programme' which can affect a rider's performance.

 

[FabulousCandelabra]

Oh wait, they use a swimming trainer now.. no wonder they are stronger than the other racers who employ cycling trainers! Swimming is harder than cycling, you can't even drown in a bike race! So the coach must be way way better than these land lubbers!

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Froome's performance at last year's Vuelta was shocking and came out of nowhere. FACT.

Porte was a mediocre domestique for Contador in 2011. FACT.

Rogers has, by his own admission, improved his FTP by 5-7%, at age 32, having been in decline for years. FACT.

 

[cycladianpirate]

Here we go with the 'proof.' Do we have documentation about Sky's program? No. Even then, is that sufficient proof?

What happened today is a culmination of circumstantial evidence including:
-team doctor ran Rabobank's program.
-Extraordinary climbing powers after visiting Tenerife
-**VERY** low racing profile for such a supposedly powerful team of riders. Three of them at this point...
-A 1:1 replay of the Postal Train.

I asked for proof of a rider being a NON-doper. I understood that, on this board at least, the presumption was that they ALL are. I hope that the presumption is rebuttable.

 

[Parrot23]

Actually, I'm of the opinion that yes, usually it's a combination of new training methods and doping, especially if it's a whole team. call me a cynic, but behind every team is a great medical staff and everywhere I look it's bad, bad news.

I'll have to disagree with you one gracefully on that. There's too much evidence from multiple sports against it always being doping.

Mike Spracklen transforming Canadian long-eight rowing is a great example. Not a shred of evidence of doping. Tough, yes. Brutal, yes. Shrewd, yes. Experience, yes. Doping, no.

 

[Franklin]

Here we go with the 'proof.' Do we have documentation about Sky's program? No. Even then, is that sufficient proof?

What happened today is a culmination of circumstantial evidence including:
-team doctor ran Rabobank's program.
-Extraordinary climbing powers after visiting Tenerife
-**VERY** low racing profile for such a supposedly powerful team of riders. Three of them at this point...
-A 1:1 replay of the Postal Train.

You forget:

4. They brought in Thorpedo's physiologist (who also turned two brittish swimmers from also ran into winners)
5. The manager Yates was a doper AND was a DS of (have to keep a straight face here) US Postal.

Nothing to see here people, move along

 

[Parrot23]

There are other explanations too for Rogers.

Rogers has suffered from illness and injuries and bad luck for a good several years. Fact.

I don't quite believe Sky, but there are other other possible explanations too.

 

[hrotha]

Essentially, on this board, if somebody wins a race they are a de facto doper.

It might look like that to you because you're not bothering reading the thread.

 

[Parrot23]

You forget:

4. They brought in Thorpedo's physiologist (who also turned two brittish swimmers from also ran into winners)
5. The manager Yates was a doper AND was a DS of (have to keep a straight face here) US Postal.

Nothing to see here people, move along

The fact that you are arguing it means that you think it's not self-evident. If it were a slam-dunk, you wouldn't be here. Just sayin...

There is more than one explanation. Again, I don't quite believe Sky.

 

[Parrot23]

Of course. Otherwise it would mean someone clean could beat the 50-95% of the peloton that is smoked to the gills. That's just silly.

What really puzzles me is why Gilbert's performance dropped dramatically after going to BMC.

 

[Mr Pumpy]

Oh I've read it. All of it.

What I see is a load of totally unsubstantiated accusations, some of which have become forum lore, having been trumpeted by the forum's self-appointed experts.

Face it: None of you know jack ****. You are all just ****ing in the wind.

 

[Franklin]

The fact that you are arguing it means that you think it's not self-evident. If it were a slam-dunk, you wouldn't be here. Just sayin...

There is more than one explanation. Again, I don't quite believe Sky.

Of course it's not slam dunk... Unless they find the vials or they test positive nothing is slam dunk.

However, if we look at the odds it becomes a different ball game altogether. We need a hell of a lot strange explanations to make this wheel go round. So far nobody has been able to put up even one logical argument for Leinders/Kerrison. Or the position of Yates for that matter.

 

[hrotha]

Oh I've read it. All of it.

What I see is a load of totally unsubstantiated accusations, some of which have become forum lore, having been trumpeted by the forum's self-appointed experts.

Face it: None of you know jack ****. You are all just ****ing in the wind.

Sure. Like with Europcar last year.

If you read it all, you clearly weren't paying attention. To say we doubt Sky simply because they win is ridiculous.

 

[Franklin]

Oh I've read it. All of it.

What I see is a load of totally unsubstantiated accusations, some of which have become forum lore, having been trumpeted by the forum's self-appointed experts.

Face it: None of you know jack ****. You are all just ****ing in the wind.

Indeed, we know nothing about Yates being a doper or him being a DS of USPS. Nor do we only have the odd history of Leinders to go on.

How dare we question their place in this sanctuary of clean cycling?

 

[Franklin]

What really puzzles me is why Gilbert's performance dropped dramatically after going to BMC.

No proof, but check out this fella

Jose Ibarguren Taus

He has a pretty decent year since he switched from Gilbert to Boonen/Terpstra

I have a hard time thinking of a more tainted name in the current cycling medical teams.

 

[Parrot23]

However, if we look at the odds it becomes a different ball game altogether. .

Then there's much less room for the catharsis of umbrage first, and evidence second.

Frankly, I don't think Yates will feel a lot of enthusiasm for doping, after nearly wrecking his heart, it seems from doping. He's had multiple strokes from his heart condition. He talks slurred now from them. Listen to him on Eurosport. He's lucky to be alive.

Playing the odds, he's an unlikely doping enthusiast now.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

What really puzzles me is why Gilbert's performance dropped dramatically after going to BMC.

Yes, that's a puzzle. Maybe he knows; maybe it's a puzzle to him too.

There are many possible explanations besides he doped at Lotto but is clean at BMC, if that's what you're suggesting.