Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Don't be late Pedro]

I still don't get how this zero tolerance doping policy works. Yates has already tested positive as a rider therefore how can they still retain him?

 

[Ferminal]

I still don't get how this zero tolerance doping policy works. Yates has already tested positive as a rider therefore how can they still retain him?

Yeh I don't understand it either, maybe he gets a pass because it was disclosed/known when he was hired? But if they did that it would make the whole thing look stupid (zero tolerance "but").

Maybe Yates never tested positive or something.

 

[maxmartin]

Yeh I don't understand it either, maybe he gets a pass because it was disclosed/known when he was hired? But if they did that it would make the whole thing look stupid (zero tolerance "but").

Maybe Yates never tested positive or something.

The policy is just a joke, pure PR trick to comfort majority of British people who have no idea what is going on.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Sky employed the same tactics as USPS - glad to see you admit that. The tactic? Ride so fast noone can attack or get away. How do you do that without being better "prepared" than anyone else?

In 2000, everyone else rode slower than USPS.
USPS had a better "program".
In 2012, Sky are riding slower than USPS - correct.
In 2012, everyone else is now riding slower than Sky - correct.
Sky has a better "program".

It's just logic.

Same tired garbage day in day out. There are no physiological differences amongst pro cyclists, there are no differences in training programs, there are no differences in racing calendar, there are no differences in performance due to overtraining, undertraining, injury, illness, all pro cyclists attempt to get the highest GC placing in every event they enter no matter what their role is within the team, race tactics and team strategy play no role whatsoever in GC placing for all pro cyclists, all pro teams have the exact same goals throughout the racing calendar and all pro teams use the exact same preparation methods over multi year training and racing cycles.

Therefore, all pro cyclists and all pro teams are equal in every way except for doping. The ONLY possible reason that some go faster than others is because they have a better doping "program". Spare the drivel because this mentality is a complete joke.

On the other hand, I have always maintained that Sky could be doping, but I am yet to see you or anyone else who is 100% convinced that Sky are doping even acknowledge the role that differences in all of the above factors play on performance let alone demonstrably prove that those differences in fact do not exist (which would thus lead to a stronger conclusion of a doping explanation). You don't want to believe that these differences are real because that would rip a tear the fabric of your little fantasy world.

And what say you about Mick Rogers and "one of his best ever" power records? If you say it's not possible during a 7 day race (towards the end of a stage on day 6), then was he lying about it in the ridemedia interview? Please explain.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

And what say you about Mick Rogers and "one of his best ever" power records? If you say it's not possible during a 7 day race (towards the end of a stage on day 6), then was he lying about it in the ridemedia interview? Please explain.

It definitely was one of his best - easily explained by his threshold power being up 5-7%, which he also said in the interview.

How did his threshold increase 5-7%?

- MAGIC! -

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Same tired garbage day in day out. There are no physiological differences amongst pro cyclists, there are no differences in training programs, there are no differences in racing calendar, there are no differences in performance due to overtraining, undertraining, injury, illness, all pro cyclists attempt to get the highest GC placing in every event they enter no matter what their role is within the team, race tactics and team strategy play no role whatsoever in GC placing for all pro cyclists, all pro teams have the exact same goals throughout the racing calendar and all pro teams use the exact same preparation methods over multi year training and racing cycles.

Same response from you too. Yes all those variable play a part, any idiot knows that.

BUT

You seem to think these variables play a greater part than the riders themselves, that all these pros and pro team managers with decades of experience haven't sorted these variables out as well as a 3 year old team Sky, who just dominated the rest of these teams and riders, with an amassed professional road racing and success experience of centuries, from February to September.

 

[Alphabet]

Look, the thing with Rogers is that all the arguments against him come straight from the horses mouth. He said he was pushing 450 watts, he said he was feeling better than ever, he said he had increased his threshold. Discrediting Dear Wiggo's posts would need a different argument. Anyone basing the 'Rogers is doping' argument only has to quote interviews he has given, it's not like they are scouring the internet looking for obscure pieces of material that says "Rogers was pushing 450 watts".

 

[Tinman]

There are no physiological differences amongst pro cyclists, there are no differences in training programs, there are no differences in racing calendar, there are no differences in performance due to overtraining, undertraining, injury, illness, all pro cyclists attempt to get the highest GC placing in every event they enter no matter what their role is within the team, race tactics and team strategy play no role whatsoever in GC placing for all pro cyclists, all pro teams have the exact same goals throughout the racing calendar and all pro teams use the exact same preparation methods over multi year training and racing cycles.

Suggest we analyse these line by line? Or maybe Brailsford - if indeed he has the answer - could clarify for us, for once and for all - how they blew everyone else out of the water in 2012. Occam's razor for me.

Same tired garbage day in day out.

 

[sittingbison]

I notice Krebs said Dear Wiggo was lying that Rogers said he was at his lightest weight since 16yo.

Ermmm....I distinctly heard that during the Tour, and made comment about it at the time to my friend.

So what gives. Is Krebs playing semantics with some innacuracie from Dear Wiggo (such as which article, the date it was said etc) OR is Krebs inferring the comment was never said, and Dear Wiggo made it up.

For those interested such as Wallace and Grommet, who was working out some power/weight figures, Dodger rode the Tour at about 69kg, not his "fighting" weight of 75kg. Which he proudly proclaimed to all and sundry. Don't believe me? Open your eyes and have a look at him. Then have a look at him in a pink Telekon jersey.

Sometimes the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Oh, has anybody managed to explain yet how TeamSKY managed to employ Knees at 6 Dodger at 7 and Sioutsou (sic) at 8 on the suspicion index? Where higher than a five is certain as can be of doping? Not paying much attention to validity of the index per se, but using it as a comparison? EBH being a zero for example.

 

[Tinman]

It is the cynics that refuse to accept the fact that 1) history has changed and doping is not the same as it used to be, 2) many of their so called facts are either incorrect, unverified or not evidence of doping, and 3) I'm not even a Sky supporter.

Don't like the putting words in others' mouths' approach here
1. Don't think anyone here has any doubt that doping methods have changed
2. The forum is a large puzzle, not a scientific publication, some facts, some observations, many speculations, but generally this "method" has been found to work pretty well
3. It's not about you Krebs (or either of the Wiggo's for that matter), as much as you may like it to be, it's about another snow job happening

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Team Sky and Brailsford braced for departures

Creating a rod for their own back. Would hate to be an employee who just wants to leave for legitimate reasons.

 

[Ferminal]

There's a point, when the axe falls - do Sky reveal their histories to the public, pass on the relevant information to anti-doping authorities?

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Future Knight needs to unfcuk this situation.

 

[onimod]

Team Sky and Brailsford braced for departures

Creating a rod for their own back. Would hate to be an employee who just wants to leave for legitimate reasons.

I think they might need an IQ test to be a condition of employment as well...

 

[ToreBear]

I still don't get how this zero tolerance doping policy works. Yates has already tested positive as a rider therefore how can they still retain him?

Yeh I don't understand it either, maybe he gets a pass because it was disclosed/known when he was hired? But if they did that it would make the whole thing look stupid (zero tolerance "but").

Maybe Yates never tested positive or something.

Apearantly his positive was overturned and he was cleared.

http://www.dopeology.org/incidents/Yates,-S-adverse-analytical-finding/

Yates initially tested positive for testosterone after winning the 1989 Torhout - Werchter Classic but additional samples showed negative and there were procedural errors in the testing process. Yates was not subject to any sanctions.

His name wasn't big enough to merit a coverup IMHO, so it could be a lab screw up. Doubt they had as strict lab procedures in those days as they do now.

 

[Ferminal]

Apearantly his positive was overturned and he was cleared.

http://www.dopeology.org/incidents/Yates,-S-adverse-analytical-finding/


His name wasn't big enough to merit a coverup IMHO, so it could be a lab screw up. Doubt they had as strict lab procedures in those days as they do now.

I see. So Yates actually denies ever doping then, Brailsford should be happy with that.

 

[Tinman]

I see. So Yates actually denies ever doping then, Brailsford should be happy with that.

Yes and the cycling public will keep asking questions and the Sky brand will get more tainted and cycling will get more damaged... Until Sky purges, a new UCI gets serious or Murdoch pulls the Sky plug.

Great move for now Brainsford. "Run with it until it explodes"

 

[hrotha]

Apearantly his positive was overturned and he was cleared.

http://www.dopeology.org/incidents/Yates,-S-adverse-analytical-finding/


His name wasn't big enough to merit a coverup IMHO, so it could be a lab screw up. Doubt they had as strict lab procedures in those days as they do now.

This was 1989. No need for cover-ups, you'd just have the authorities publicly giving you "the benefit of the doubt".

 

[Benotti69]

Ashenden talks about Sky.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/20/doping-team-sky-cyclin

One of the world's leading experts on blood doping, who worked for cycling's governing body, the UCI, until April, has called for greater scrutiny of Team Sky's zero-tolerance stance on drugs and warned of the need for increased vigilance if the sport's battered credibility is to be restored.

 

[ToreBear]

I see. So Yates actually denies ever doping then, Brailsford should be happy with that.

Somehow I dont see brailsfords happiness lasting.

Yes and the cycling public will keep asking questions and the Sky brand will get more tainted and cycling will get more damaged... Until Sky purges, a new UCI gets serious or Murdoch pulls the Sky plug.

Great move for now Brainsford. "Run with it until it explodes"

Yep, DB is giving himself more grief in the future if his process is all image and no substance.

This was 1989. No need for cover-ups, you'd just have the authorities publicly giving you "the benefit of the doubt".

This sounds more like a genuine lab screw up to me, since subsequent samples were negative.

 

[davidmam]

This was 1989. No need for cover-ups, you'd just have the authorities publicly giving you "the benefit of the doubt".

The tests are hard enough to do properly now with modern equipment. In 1989 it hardly surprises me that there were positive A samples and negative Bs, probably due to some mixture of lab variability and the mark being very close to the threshold.

 

[Tinman]

Apearantly his positive was overturned and he was cleared.

http://www.dopeology.org/incidents/Yates,-S-adverse-analytical-finding/


His name wasn't big enough to merit a coverup IMHO, so it could be a lab screw up. Doubt they had as strict lab procedures in those days as they do now.

Come on. It's not just 1989. Check who he's hung around since, which riders, teams, doctors, associates. Check the motoman pics, and then conclude he "has had no past associations with doping", "he saw nothing, just drove the car" and looked the other way. Get real.

The least he could do/have done is to come clean and say, "yes I did, but now I am clean, and this is what we are doing at team Sky now". We don't even hear that... just a denial of the past and hoping the fans and press are stupid enough...

And that is the problem with Brainsford's doping pledge, it leaves these guys no alternative, as their careers will be finished. No-one will have them, back to gardening. So "run with it until it explodes" is the motto...

 

[Don Quixote]

Come on. It's not just 1989. Check who he's hung around since, which riders, teams, doctors, associates. Check the motoman pics, and then conclude he "has had no past associations with doping", "he saw nothing, just drove the car" and looked the other way. Get real.

The least he could do/have done is to come clean and say, "yes I did, but now I am clean, and this is what we are doing at team Sky now". We don't even hear that... just a denial of the past and hoping the fans and press are stupid enough...

And that is the problem with Brainsford's doping pledge, it leaves these guys no alternative, as their careers will be finished. No-one will have them, back to gardening. So "run with it until it explodes" is the motto...

If the guy lied to get the job in the first place, he's only got himself to blame.

I think the problem with Brailsfords doping pledge is simply his reluctance to enforce it. Cycling needs a new, transparent and clean team to cut free from the past and lead the way to the future. Whilst inexperience would not necessarily bring it success on the road, it would win the hearts and minds of the fans and the press. This is good commercial sense. Longer term the success would come because its commercial success would enable it to afford the very best (clean) riders and staff - and more importantly the very best riders and staff would want to ride there.

He has made a complete hash by pursuing this Tour winner in xyrs rubbish -and lost sight of what really quantifies success in cycling at this juncture in its history.

The window of opportunity is closing fast for him to open his eyes and start the purge.

 

[ToreBear]

Come on. It's not just 1989. Check who he's hung around since, which riders, teams, doctors, associates. Check the motoman pics, and then conclude he "has had no past associations with doping", "he saw nothing, just drove the car" and looked the other way. Get real.

The least he could do/have done is to come clean and say, "yes I did, but now I am clean, and this is what we are doing at team Sky now". We don't even hear that... just a denial of the past and hoping the fans and press are stupid enough...

And that is the problem with Brainsford's doping pledge, it leaves these guys no alternative, as their careers will be finished. No-one will have them, back to gardening. So "run with it until it explodes" is the motto...

He still doesn't have any doping sanction on his palmares.

Otherwise I agree with you. Brailsfords approach is all down to follow up. The dailymail points to it being just a pr excercise. We will see in the future if that really is the case.

 

[Benotti69]

If the guy lied to get the job in the first place, he's only got himself to blame.

I think the problem with Brailsfords doping pledge is simply his reluctance to enforce it. Cycling needs a new, transparent and clean team to cut free from the past and lead the way to the future. Whilst inexperience would not necessarily bring it success on the road, it would win the hearts and minds of the fans and the press. This is good commercial sense. Longer term the success would come because its commercial success would enable it to afford the very best (clean) riders and staff - and more importantly the very best riders and staff would want to ride there.

He has made a complete hash by pursuing this Tour winner in xyrs rubbish -and lost sight of what really quantifies success in cycling at this juncture in its history.

The window of opportunity is closing fast for him to open his eyes and start the purge.

Brailsford knows the score. He was there when Millar was arrested by the Gendarmes. Brailsford spent a long time being interviewed by the Gendarmes. He has been long enough around cycling to know more than enough about the doping. He is being disingenous about all this.