Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Seen this yet? Dim retweted it. Lars Petter Nordhaug on Rogers......

"Nordhaug used the name Michael Rogers in the interview that was done on tape. He now says he mixed name, and refer to what Michael Barry, who has admitted doping in conjunction with Armstrong"

Think it's been updated since it was first published

 

[Cycle Chic]

From todays Mail on Sunday in the UK..

" that a fourth person from Team Sky - a current senior employee - has opted to ' live a lie ' in regards to his doping past '

be interesting to see how this pans out !!!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...ons-doping-Lance-Armstrong-fallout-grows.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ar...-reputation--Des-Kelly-Daily-Mail-column.html

Yet everyone is talking about how the sport is ‘moving on’ and ‘looking forward, not back’. To listen to Team Sky chief David Brailsford, the man who boasted his outfit would be scrupulously clean and use a zero-tolerance policy on drugs, this was all a blinding revelation to him.

‘The more you read, the more the jaw drops,’ he said. ‘Armstrong was one of the first cyclists that maybe transcended the sport. It was an amazing thing, so to now find out what was behind it is disappointing.’

Brailsford says he only found out now.

But Canadian Michael Barry was at Team Sky. The same Barry that used to ride alongside Armstrong. The same Barry was named in the USADA report confessing to years of EPO and testosterone use within Armstrong’s team.
Barry claims he stopped doping in 2006, before he joined Bradley Wiggins and Team Sky in 2009. But since he lied beforehand it’s up to you whether you believe him now. Coincidentally, one month before the damning USADA report was issued, Barry retired from Team Sky.

At least Britain’s Tour de France champion, Wiggins, admitted that, while he was shocked by the scale of evidence, he was not by the facts themselves. ‘I’m not surprised by it —I had a good idea what is going on,’ he said.

It’s all a bit of a puzzle, isn’t it? Wiggins says he knew what Armstrong was up to. Ex- team-mate Barry certainly knew. Brailsford says otherwise and insists that Barry lied to him about past doping. Someone’s certainly gullible. As long as it’s not you or me.

The Team Sky website was still carrying an official statement about Barry’s retirement on Thursday, saying: ‘He was a founding member of Team Sky when he signed at the end of 2009, and over the last three seasons has set an example to the rest of the squad with his positive attitude, unwavering commitment to the cause, and wealth of cycling knowledge.’

There is no doubting his knowledge, but we might argue about the wisdom of using the word ‘positive’ in the circumstances.

Barry himself added: ‘Through my 14-year professional career I’ve been fortunate to race with many of the top teams. From my first coaches and club-mates, to Dave Brailsford and my Team Sky team-mates, I’ve had the opportunity to race and learn from many of the best.’

Ah yes. He learned a lot. He learned how to cheat. The page has disappeared now. This is all very uncomfortable for Sky and Brailsford. As was the recently terminated association with Dr Geert Leinders, a man with a murky past in cycling.

But history is being wiped away. We’re all ‘moving forward’, apparently. Yes, it’s better now. There’s nothing to see here any more, so move along. Can we believe that? I think Hendrix had it right without any need to change his lyrics.

‘Purple haze all in my eyes
Don’t know if it’s day or night
You’ve got me blowin’, blowin’ my mind,
Is it tomorrow, or just the end of time?’

 

[Froome19]

The quote from Wiggins is taken totally out of context

 

[Cycle Chic]

Daily Mail - in before the Close

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ar...-reputation--Des-Kelly-Daily-Mail-column.html

'Yet everyone is talking about how the sport is ‘moving on’ and ‘looking forward, not back’. To listen to Team Sky chief David Brailsford, the man who boasted his outfit would be scrupulously clean and use a zero-tolerance policy on drugs, this was all a blinding revelation to him.

‘The more you read, the more the jaw drops,’ he said. ‘Armstrong was one of the first cyclists that maybe transcended the sport. It was an amazing thing, so to now find out what was behind it is disappointing.’

Brailsford says he only found out now.

But Canadian Michael Barry was at Team Sky. The same Barry that used to ride alongside Armstrong. The same Barry was named in the USADA report confessing to years of EPO and testosterone use within Armstrong’s team.
It’s all a bit of a puzzle, isn’t it? Wiggins says he knew what Armstrong was up to. Ex- team-mate Barry certainly knew. Brailsford says otherwise and insists that Barry lied to him about past doping. Someone’s certainly gullible.

This is all very uncomfortable for Sky and Brailsford. As was the recently terminated association with Dr Geert Leinders, a man with a murky past in cycling.

But history is being wiped away. We’re all ‘moving forward’, apparently. Yes, it’s better now. There’s nothing to see here any more, so move along. Can we believe that? '

Could this be Murdoch getting in 'before the close' of Team Sky' ?? Its so damning of SKY that it raises red flags.

 

[Cycle Chic]

Journalists Turning up the Heat

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...at-cycling-can-regain-full-trust-of-fans.html

Which brings us neatly to Team Sky and Geert Leinders. On Tuesday, Sky announced that it would no longer work with the former Rabobank doctor after conducting an investigation into his controversial past. By then, however, he had been employed on an informal basis since late 2010.

The fact that Leinders’ hiring was not made public for over a year, and was not interrogated about his doping history until well after he began working with Sky, create the very haze of suspicion that cycling needs to shed.

Naturally, Sky deny that the employment of Leinders had anything to do with doping. But in the current climate, no longer will cycling fans be prepared to accept anything less than complete transparency. Full explanations are required. It will be many years before the sport can enjoy the benefit of any doubt.
For Sky and for Dave Brailsford, this means questions need to be answered immediately. Why did they not come clean about their use of Leinders from the outset?
Why, given their ‘zero tolerance’ approach to doping, did they not conduct a thorough audit of his past before taking him on? Was Leinders at Sky’s training camp in Tenerife earlier this year? If so, what was he doing there?
It also means opening the doors of the national headquarters at Manchester and letting us inspect the sophisticated medical and sports science operation within, as Brailsford promised during this year’s Tour de France that he would.
Let us be clear here. There is no intention to taint Team Sky's outstanding success this year. Nobody is accusing them of anything. No evidence of wrongdoing exists.
But these questions need answering, because cycling as a sport must now take responsibility for clearing its own name. It scarcely helps when Alex Dowsett can say of the Armstrong case: “I really don’t think it matters.” (He later backtracked, presumably at the bidding of the Sky hierarchy.)
Brailsford has argued that full transparency and full disclosure would hand a competitive advantage to rivals. But the integrity of the sport is now a far graver issue than the interests of any one team.
Sky, just like everyone else, will continue to maintain their blamelessness, gaily waving their multitude of clean tests at us. But you do not need the longest of memories to remember the sight of Armstrong and his US Postal team-mates doing the same.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

If you are going to talk physiology, at least learn it correctly first. Hill climbing over 4 minutes is not entirely aerobic. Back to school.

"How do you ride uphill, which is an aerobic only activity, as aerobically as possible?"

By not answering sharp accelerations. I won't be taking your posts seriously any more. You're even more dense than The Big ring

who said entirely? you. not i. learn to read.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

I bet the Sky Postal guys must be scared sh*tless. They're next

What's the deal here? you hate it when we talk about alberto contador velasco doping or problems he might have but you keep talking about sky

 

[Benotti69]

What's the deal here? you hate it when we talk about alberto velasco contador doping or problems he might have but you keep talking about sky

Bet Alberto is shaking as much as Sky. Remember the testimony we have seen is only from 11 riders. There are 15 others who testified and Armstrong rode for Astana in 2009 same as Alberto managed by Bruyneel!

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Bet Alberto is shaking as much as Sky. Remember the testimony we have seen is only from 11 riders. There are 15 others who testified and Armstrong rode for Astana in 2009 same as Alberto managed by Bruyneel!

Yea, I don't think he will be having a great and relaxing holiday at all. The Hog(not our hog ) should really go full ***.

 

[hrotha]

Bet Alberto is shaking as much as Sky. Remember the testimony we have seen is only from 11 riders. There are 15 others who testified and Armstrong rode for Astana in 2009 same as Alberto managed by Bruyneel!

Actually, it was 11 former teammates and 26 witnesses in total, and they're all accounted for in the LA decision. I have no idea if they have additional witnesses for the other cases though. What we've seen in the LA decision would be enough to fry them all up, so maybe they didn't bother going beyond that.

 

[Benotti69]

Actually, it was 11 former teammates and 26 witnesses in total, and they're all accounted for in the LA decision. I have no idea if they have additional witnesses for the other cases though. What we've seen in the LA decision would be enough to fry them all up, so maybe they didn't bother going beyond that.

I meant 15 other non rider witnesses.

There 800 other pages from USADA investigation. I guess a lot of that is related more towards the other 4 , Bruyneel, Del Moral, Marti and Ferarri.

Whether Contador is part of that, we will have to be patient.

 

[Benotti69]

Yea, I don't think he will be having a great and relaxing holiday at all. The Hog(not our hog ) should really go full ***.

I would love Bruyneel to throw the whole sport under the bus. It might make it clean up once and for all.

He could throw so many from way back at ONCE '92 to RNST '12, 20 years of doping and dopers.

 

[hrotha]

I meant 15 other non rider witnesses.

There 800 other pages from USADA investigation. I guess a lot of that is related more towards the other 4 , Bruyneel, Del Moral, Marti and Ferarri.

Whether Contador is part of that, we will have to be patient.

But look at the list of witnesses. There's 11 former teammates who talked about LA and Bruyneel's doping practices

1. Frankie Andreu; 2. Barry; 3. Danielson; 4. Hamilton; 5. Hincapie; 6. Landis; 7. Leipheimer; 8. Swart; 9. Vande Velde; 10. Vaughters; 11. Zabriskie.

There's also other witnesses who were pro riders:
12. Bertagnolli; 13. Bileka (also a former teammate, but his testimony was about Ferrari, not LA); 14. Jaksche; 15. Simeoni.

And then there's 'other witnesses':
16. Betsy Andreu; 17. Boccarossa; 18. Bowers; 19. Consonni; 20. Ferrante; 21. O'Reilly; 22. Polay; 23. Robertson; 24. Scott; 25. Testasecca; 26. Verdy

That's the full list, all 26 of them. None of the 'other witnesses' could really implicate Contador or Astana. They might have additional witnesses for the other cases, but the reported figure of 26 witnesses in the LA case is useless in that regard.

 

[Benotti69]

But look at the list of witnesses. There's 11 former teammates who talked about LA and Bruyneel's doping practices

1. Frankie Andreu; 2. Barry; 3. Danielson; 4. Hamilton; 5. Hincapie; 6. Landis; 7. Leipheimer; 8. Swart; 9. Vande Velde; 10. Vaughters; 11. Zabriskie.

There's also other witnesses who were pro riders:
12. Bertagnolli; 13. Bileka (also a former teammate, but his testimony was about Ferrari, not LA); 14. Jaksche; 15. Simeoni.

And then there's 'other witnesses':
16. Betsy Andreu; 17. Boccarossa; 18. Bowers; 19. Consonni; 20. Ferrante; 21. O'Reilly; 22. Polay; 23. Robertson; 24. Scott; 25. Testasecca; 26. Verdy

That's the full list, all 26 of them. None of the 'other witnesses' could really implicate Contador or Astana. They might have additional witnesses for the other cases, but the reported figure of 26 witnesses in the LA case is useless in that regard.

I missed the list of 'other witnesses.' Damn.

Ta for the correction. Sh-t. I was hoping for more evidence to hang Bruyneel from a higher tree than Armstrong.

 

[Benotti69]

Team Sky 'made full checks' on Dutch doctor

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/14/lance-armstrong-team-sky

If the Rabobank case in the courts makes any revelatory comments about Leinders, well Sky will have more than egg on their faces.

But talk about more sweeping it under the rug.

If he was a 'clean doctor' and they just won the TdF with him why let him go?

 

[JRanton]

I've no doubt that Sky did carry out full checks on Geert Leinders and that's precisely why Sky's decision to employ him is so ****ing suspicious!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I've no doubt that Sky did carry out full checks on Geert Leinders and that's precisely why Sky's decision to employ him is so ****ing suspicious!

I see this JEDI PR mind trick fails to work on you

 

[ferryman]

Given the revelations this week I'm blown away by the the amount of traffic this thread still continues to have. Long may it continue. The truth is out there.

 

[Yingge]

And if you think Armstrong and his circle are bullies, if Sky comes crashing down out of this then Rupert Murdoch will probably weigh in. Seems he has contempt for the victims of the phone hacking business, and wouldn't look kindly on his Sky team being discredited.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/14/rupert-murdoch-phone-hacking-scumbags?INTCMP=SRCH

 

[wirral]

And if you think Armstrong and his circle are bullies, if Sky comes crashing down out of this then Rupert Murdoch will probably weigh in. Seems he has contempt for the victims of the phone hacking business, and wouldn't look kindly on his Sky team being discredited.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/14/rupert-murdoch-phone-hacking-scumbags?INTCMP=SRCH

This is why I think the Sunday Times will not sue Armstrong for damages. No need to get into a war in which everybody's cycling team comes out damaged.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

6. No way round this...training on long steep hills at altitude to add the peak to the aerobic base.

Multiple study review, conducted in Colorado (ie where they know about altitude), 2005: http://www.colorado.edu/intphys/iphy3700/StephanieEyler.doc

In a society that places sports in the spotlight, athletes and coaches are constantly trying to find the ways to create the winning team. This review has illustrates that despite popular belief, higher altitude training does not create optimum running performance at sea level; perhaps the answer is in low altitude training. However, acclimatization has also become focus for optimal training methods. Elite athletes and coaches should seriously consider researching more about the live high train low theory in order to gain an extra edge over the competition.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I just want to know whether a rider's performance is set in stone throughout his career, because you make a lot of early results from Wiggins compared to his present form.

I believe once you hit your genetic potential, it's not changing much. I believe that takes 3-5 years to achieve full-time. I believe Brad hit it in 2004, given his IP time in 2008 was identical.

You've also previously stated that it is impossible for a track rider to do well on the road because Wiggins is the only rider to have successfully done it.

What I have said is, if he was any good on the road, he would have displayed this ability before 2009, all those years he rode as a pro. All his road wins were accidental or luck.

Also calling Wiggins an 'average fish' on the track is plain ridiculous. It may fit your paradigm but several gold medals at the Olympics as well as at the World Championships.

I gave sufficient information to answer this, that you must have missed, but you are polite and I am prepared to explain in a different way. And to clarify: Wiggins was an average world-level (roadie) fish in the tiny pond of 4km IP riders.

Brad was World and Olympic champion on the track in the 4km pursuit in 2004 and 2008. To do this, he rode at an average of ~580W.

There is a 4km TT on the road in 2006. Brad is competing, as are a host of professional bike riders. Brad is the only World and Olympic champion at this 4km distance on the track competing on the day. He is averaging 580W in training in the lead up to the TT.

Everyone else trains for 200+km multi-stage races. This stage is not all that important to them.

Brad is training exclusively for this stage, with a team of assistants devoted to helping him, spending 2 weeks in Mallorca to train for this single, 4km TT road stage.

Who will win this 4km road TT?

A. The current and future World and Olympic champion at 4km IP? OR
B. Some roadie who trains for 200+km/day stage races?

Answer: Brad came 21st. To win, he would have needed to ride at approximately 630W. (ie 10% more power)

Now stick the first 20 riders from that race on the track, give them the same amount of BC style support and funding and let them focus purely on the IP event, and tell me they won't pound Brad into the ground in a 4km IP.

2 years later, Brad is still only averaging ~580W for the 4km IP.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Brad was World and Olympic champion on the track in the 4km pursuit in 2004 and 2008. To do this, he rode at an average of ~580W.

...He is averaging 580W in training in the lead up to the TT.

But what was his power output in the TT itself? Plenty of people "leave it in the gym". Clearly, Wiggo was generally able to deliver the goods on the day on the track, but underperformance in this TT seems worthy of further consideration at least.

Or put another way, if Zabriskie is ~10 seconds superior to an on-form Wiggo over 4k, are you suggesting that DZ could do an IP in 4:06?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

But what was his power output in the TT itself? Plenty of people "leave it in the gym". Clearly, Wiggo was generally able to deliver the goods on the day on the track, but underperformance in this TT seems worthy of further consideration at least.

Or put another way, if Zabriskie is ~10 seconds superior to an on-form Wiggo over 4k, are you suggesting that DZ could do an IP in 4:06?

I am suggesting he would be quicker than Brad over 4km on the track, as he was quicker than Brad on the road.

Are you saying a multiple world and olympic champion froze up coz of a road TT? Not enough exposure to competitive stimulation and stress? Seriously?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

6. No way round this...training on long steep hills at altitude to add the peak to the aerobic base.

Multiple study review, conducted in Colorado (ie where they know about altitude), 2005: http://www.colorado.edu/intphys/iphy3700/StephanieEyler.doc

Oh look, she agrees with me:

High altitude training is known to decrease athletic capacity because maximal aerobic power decreases about 1% for every 100 meters above 1,500 m (Levine and Stray-Gundersen). If elite athletes are training at a lower capacity than normally possible, their training will not necessarily improve or even maintain the athlete’s competitive fitness. As mentioned previously, every split second is of utmost importance in the world of elite sports. If these athletes choose to train at a level below maximum capability they will not maintain or improve performance compared to those placing 100% into training at lower altitudes.

Please tell me again how dumb I look.

Oh the IRONY of the researcher's hyphenated name.