Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Dear Wiggo]

that doctor has no clue about cycling. what good is that. you don't want a doctor that has to learn everything yet

You never met that doctor, so how on earth can you say that? This myth is easily debunked.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Yes, I understand...but if you don't notice and acknowledge change then you become part of the problem. You become an anachronism that belongs in another time. It doesn't help. The argument that you are having loses credibility.

Yes yes change is good. Please highlight below the teams that are still doping:

(Accepted dodgy teams in red)

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/cqRankingTeam.asp?year=2012
1. [Gbr] Sky Professional Cycling Team PRT 15062
2. [Rus] Katusha Team PRT 11528
3. [Bel] OmegaPharma - Quick Step PRT 11445
4. [Esp] Movistar Team PRT 9980
5. [Lux] Radioshack - Nissan PRT 9673
6. [Ita] Liquigas - Cannondale PRT 9373
7. [Usa] BMC Racing Team PRT 9050
8. [Usa] Team Garmin - Sharp PRT 8842
9. [Ned] Rabobank PRT 8090
10. [Kaz] Astana PRT 8002
16. [Den] Team Saxo Bank - Tinkoff Bank PRT 5948
19. [Ita] Lampre - ISD PRT 4686
20. [Esp] Euskaltel - Euskadi PRT 4680

I'm an anti-doper FFS. We're on the same side. I just recognise change when I see it.

You're a Sky defender and apologist. You recognise change when you get paid to do so.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

How did the British Cycling / Sky machine deal with the 50% rider they had back at the start of their program , a track rider ?

Rob Hayles. 50% is a non-issue: you just take a 2 week suspension. There's a thread dedicated to it here somewhere - basically did some extra tests, dropped his Hct from 50.3 to 45% in 2 weeks and was clear to go - but did not get invited back to the Olympics games, funnily enough...

Kinda like now - admit to doping or get caught and you're out of the team but financially no worse off.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

This is what a clean team Sky looks like:

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/cqRankingTeam.asp?year=2010
1. [Usa] Team HTC - Columbia PRT 11133
2. [Den] Team Saxo Bank PRT 10340
3. [Ita] Liquigas - Doimo PRT 10038
4. [Rus] Team Katusha PRT 8784
5. [Ned] Rabobank PRT 8745
6. [Usa] Garmin - Transitions PRT 7870
7. [Usa] Team RadioShack PRT 7066
8. [Esp] Caisse d'Epargne PRT 6812
9. [Bel] OmegaPharma - Lotto PRT 6653
10. [Ned] Vacansoleil Pro Cycling Team PROF 6626
11. [Kaz] Astana PRT 6195
12. [Ita] Lampre - Farnese Vini PRT 6138
13. [Gbr] Sky Professional Cycling Team PRT 5856
14. [Esp] Euskaltel - Euskadi PRT 5821
15. [Fra] Ag2r - La Mondiale PRT 5666

The first race they tried doping in - 2010 Vuelta - it went horribly wrong and they withdrew the entire team after soigneur Txema Gonzalez died in hospital, and 3 other riders had withdrawn with "stomach bugs". Curiously, the whole "cortisol weakens your immune system" doesn't really fit here, coz it all happened within the first week, and any noob knows you come in to a Tour fresh or better yet underdone and ride yourself into form...

After coming 4th at the Tour the year before, Brad says in October 2010 (yes, after the disastorous doping attempt at the Vuelta):

I am not going to play by the book any more.
I am going to do it my way.

Then look at 2011 and 2012. - BOOM -

 

[blackcat]

Rob Hayles. 50% is a non-issue: you just take a 2 week suspension. There's a thread dedicated to it here somewhere - basically did some extra tests, dropped his Hct from 50.3 to 45% in 2 weeks and was clear to go - but did not get invited back to the Olympics games, funnily enough...

Kinda like now - admit to doping or get caught and you're out of the team but financially no worse off.

its not even a suspension. Its a health time-out.

 

[pmcg76]

This is what a clean team Sky looks like:




The first race they tried doping in - 2010 Vuelta - it went horribly wrong and they withdrew the entire team after soigneur Txema Gonzalez died in hospital, and 3 other riders had withdrawn with "stomach bugs". Curiously, the whole "cortisol weakens your immune system" doesn't really fit here, coz it all happened within the first week, and any noob knows you come in to a Tour fresh or better yet underdone and ride yourself into form...

After coming 4th at the Tour the year before, Brad says in October 2010 (yes, after the disastorous doping attempt at the Vuelta):

I am not going to play by the book any more.
I am going to do it my way.

Then look at 2011 and 2012. - BOOM -

Looking at this statistically,

SKY scored 15,000 points, 2012 v 6,000 (rounded-up) 2010

Wiggins and Froome accounted for 4,000approx of that tally this year. Cavendish who was a big scorer in 2010 as well accounts for another 1,000 approx. 3 riders alone account for 5,000 points of the 2012 tally.

Uran, Henao and Rogers are the next big scorers on the team in 2012, all have been bought in after 2010.

Apart from Wiggins and Froome(of whom the most suspicion is on and rightly so) SKY have primarily bought their points. Not saying those guys are not doping, just that they were brought into the team as opposed to being developed at SKY.

Using the same points system logic as evidence of doping, it would seem that apart from Wiggins & Froome, none of the guys who started on the team in 2010 and are still there are actually doping!!!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Looking at this statistically,

SKY scored 15,000 points, 2012 v 6,000 (rounded-up) 2010

Using the same points system logic as evidence of doping, it would seem that apart from Wiggins & Froome, none of the guys who started on the team in 2010 and are still there are actually doping!!!

Your logic is sound.

I am more than happy to start with the premise that Wiggins and Froome are doping.

 

[blackcat]

Your logic is sound.

I am more than happy to start with the premise that Wiggins and Froome are doping.

that aint actually much of a leap. No premise required. You dont need the hypodermic or saucepan sticking outta their @rse

 

[Ferminal]

Yes yes change is good. Please highlight below the teams that are still doping:

(Accepted dodgy teams in red)





You're a Sky defender and apologist. You recognise change when you get paid to do so.

What have you done to Lampre?

Interesting assignment would be to look at % gain for each rider.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

What have you done to Lampre?

Interesting assignment would be to look at % gain for each rider.

I deliberately unredded them to emphasise the point that people are labeling all the teams as "dirty" through whatever theoyr, but Sky and Garmin are "clean" for one reason alone: they say they are.

Agreed, it would be an interesting assignment. Can you recommend a rider as a baseline against which other riders can be compared?

 

[Ferminal]

2011 2012 12>11 Contribution
APPOLLONIO Davide 268 102 0.381 0.007
BARRY Michael 142 110 0.775 0.007
BOASSON HAGEN Edvald 1391 1780 1.280 0.118
CAVENDISH Mark 1469 1150 0.783 0.076
DOWSETT Alex 383 227 0.593 0.015
EISEL Bernhard 280 178 0.636 0.012
FLECHA GIANNONI Juan Antonio 426 579 1.359 0.038
FROOME Chris 779 1427 1.832 0.095
HAYMAN Mathew 397 165 0.416 0.011
HENAO MONTOYA Sergio Luis 190 1136 5.979 0.075
HUNT Jeremy 59 46 0.780 0.003
KENNAUGH Peter 273 0 0.000 0.000
KNEES Christian 80 222 2.775 0.015
LÖFKVIST Thomas 311 170 0.547 0.011
NORDHAUG Lars Petter 182 827 4.544 0.055
PATE Danny 83 35 0.422 0.002
PORTE Richie 291 680 2.337 0.045
PUCCI Salvatore 100 136 1.360 0.009
ROGERS Michael 137 1074 7.839 0.071
ROWE Luke 75 171 2.280 0.011
SIUTSOU Kanstantsin 472 101 0.214 0.007
STANNARD Ian 208 215 1.034 0.014
SUTTON Christopher 348 61 0.175 0.004
SWIFT Ben 437 388 0.888 0.026
THOMAS Geraint 555 181 0.326 0.012
URAN URAN Rigoberto 759 1162 1.531 0.077
WIGGINS Bradley 1323 2687 2.031 0.178
ZANDIO ECHAIDE Xabier 67 52 0.776 0.003

Rider Score 2011: 11485
Rider Score 2012: 15062

31% Increase

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Forums suck ©

Can you throw it up on a google spreadsheet and just provide read access?

So Wiggins is 2.5 - 3 x everyone else? Quel supris!

 

[blackcat]

I deliberately unredded them to emphasise the point that people are labeling all the teams as "dirty" through whatever theoyr, but Sky and Garmin are "clean" for one reason alone: they say they are.

Agreed, it would be an interesting assignment. Can you recommend a rider as a baseline against which other riders can be compared?

yeah, and if Garmin say they are clean, the Italian teams are within their rights to call them @rseholes.

@rseholes, aint clean folks.

 

[sittingbison]

...

Rider Score 2011: 11485
Rider Score 2012: 15062

31% Increase

marginal increase

 

[Krebs cycle]

No, you're being deliberately obtuse.

The argument presented was, Brailsford said in no uncertain terms that they were clean, therefore they're clean.

I therefore counter-argued with, many other people have said they were clean, and they weren't clean.

Ergo, not everybody who says they're clean is clean, therefore the statements to that effect cannot be taken at face value without further information.

Of course! This is stating the obvious. ALL dopers lie and deny that they are doping before getting caught. However, this argument cannot be used as evidence to the contrary, ie: the fact that the anti-doping controls can be beaten is not proof that anyone who does not test positive, and says they are not doping, actually is doping.

It is basically saying that everyone is guilty until proven innocent (which just happens to be the clinic MO btw), and since there is no way to prove innocence, then by default, everyone is guilty. This is a logical fallacy.

 

[Ferminal]

I don't believe LS is suggesting they are dirty because they say they are clean. Rather, they can say whatever they want, and it means nothing in terms of whether they are clean/dirty. We simply don't know.

In general I think what people say is not relevant to the question of cleanliness/filth.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I don't believe LS is suggesting they are dirty because they say they are clean. Rather, they can say whatever they want, and it means nothing in terms of whether they are clean/dirty. We simply don't know.

In general I think what people say is not relevant to the question of cleanliness/filth.

I agree, we simply don't know one way or the other which is precisely the reason that I question those who pretend they DO know with 100% certainty that Sky are doping and then use completely ignorant and uneducated arguments such as "altitude training is detrimental to performance and is only used to mask blood doping" to support their views. I don't consider anything that pro cyclists or their DSs say on the subject of doping to be circumstantial evidence one way or the other. On this forum however, various actions or statements by Sky or their cyclists get cited ad finitum as hard evidence of doping. The concept that Sky are trying to incriminate themselves by saying and doing things that make it "look like" they are doping is a nonsensical argument and a particularly weak burden of proof to hang your hat on. I think that Sky made some mistakes in hiring Leinders, Jullich and Yates in particular, but at least those guys are on the way out (Yates should definitely go) and Wiggins has not come out in support of Armstrong unlike his peers Contador, Sanchez and Valverde.

 

[Alphabet]

Exactly, this is why Brailsford's interview should be required listening in the clinic.
Brailsford has now made himself the most unequivocal anti-doper in the sport. He has gone further than anyone else...including JV, who I respect. He couldn't really dance to the clinic tune any more energetically.

Not really, no. Speaking out about doping doesn't mean you're actively trying to get rid of it within your team or the sport in general. What good did Wiggins' rant do in 2007?

 

[JimmyFingers]

The first race they tried doping in - 2010 Vuelta - it went horribly wrong and they withdrew the entire team after soigneur Txema Gonzalez died in hospital, and 3 other riders had withdrawn with "stomach bugs". Curiously, the whole "cortisol weakens your immune system" doesn't really fit here, coz it all happened within the first week, and any noob knows you come in to a Tour fresh or better yet underdone and ride yourself into form...

So you are saying Sky's botched doping caused the death of Gonzalez?

Even for you that is one hell of a claim and accusation. Not nice

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So you are saying Sky's botched doping caused the death of Gonzalez?

Are you asking a question or making a statement.

Even for you that is one hell of a claim and accusation. Not nice

Ah I see - making a statement.

Brailsford hiered Leinders because Texma died.

Do the math.

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

Brailsford and Team Sky reconsidered their medical policy – initially no practitioners with a background in cycling were to be hired – after the death of the carer Txema González following a bacterial infection contracted during the 2010 Vuelta a España, citing the need for specialist knowledge to put the riders first.

...
Leinders is not with Team Sky at the Tour, which Bradley Wiggins led entering Wednesday's 10th stage, and works for 80 days a year with the British squad, which has a zero tolerance attitude to doping.

Let me get this straight:

a soigneur dies
hire a doctor involved in doping to put the riders first (even though 3 of them withdrew, none of them died)
then don't bring that doctor to the Tour

Sure, that makes sense.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I agree, we simply don't know one way or the other which is precisely the reason that I question those who pretend they DO know with 100% certainty that Sky are doping and then use completely ignorant and uneducated arguments such as "altitude training is detrimental to performance and is only used to mask blood doping" to support their views. I don't consider anything that pro cyclists or their DSs say on the subject of doping to be circumstantial evidence one way or the other. On this forum however, various actions or statements by Sky or their cyclists get cited ad finitum as hard evidence of doping. The concept that Sky are trying to incriminate themselves by saying and doing things that make it "look like" they are doping is a nonsensical argument and a particularly weak burden of proof to hang your hat on. I think that Sky made some mistakes in hiring Leinders, Jullich and Yates in particular, but at least those guys are on the way out (Yates should definitely go) and Wiggins has not come out in support of Armstrong unlike his peers Contador, Sanchez and Valverde.

There is no burden of proof whatsoever in this place. You can compare rider performances from season to season and use it as proof of doping, essentially arguing that a rider's performance will be identical throughout his career, and the only fluctuations are caused by doping. Apparently you can compare the amount of races a team wins from season to season in complete ignorance of changes in personnel and the overall experience of a team and that is proof.

And lastly you can say a team killed a soigneur through botched doping without a single shred of evidence and say that is proof. What it actually feels like is people really, really want Sky to be doping and are determined to make whatever information they have to fit that paradigm. I'm getting out of this thread: it has become a parody of what is supposed to be, there's no constructive debate left

 

[Dear Wiggo]

And lastly you can say a team killed a soigneur through botched doping without a single shred of evidence and say that is proof. What it actually feels like is people really, really want Sky to be doping and are determined to make whatever information they have to fit that paradigm. I'm getting out of this thread: it has become a parody of what is supposed to be, there's no constructive debate left

Freel free to bring some debate, Jimmy. Feel free.

Open your eyes.

Just coz Krebs Cycle says these blatantly dodgy characters are leaving Sky, does not excuse the fact they were there in the first place, violating rather obviously the zero tolerance policy.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Are you asking a question or making a statement.



Ah I see - making a statement.

Brailsford hiered Leinders because Texma died.

Do the math.


Let me get this straight:

a soigneur dies
hire a doctor involved in doping to put the riders first (even though 3 of them withdrew, none of them died)
then don't bring that doctor to the Tour

Sure, that makes sense.

Mate I think you're rabid. Why would botched doping kill a soigneur? Seriously when you start saying stuff like this I'm out, it's a terrible accusation to be making, nauseating in fact.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Mate I think you're rabid. Why would botched doping kill a soigneur? Seriously when you start saying stuff like this I'm out, it's a terrible accusation to be making, nauseating in fact.

Brailsford hired him - I'm just repeating what your clean team idol is saying.

Your complete and utter blinkered fanatical bias is showing through when Brailsford can act the way and say what he has, but when someone points out the behaviour, you get all knotted up about it and accuse the person pointing out the behaviour as rabid.

Complete and utter blinkered fanatical bias.

 

[proffate]

I too am confused about how the soigneur's death had to do with bringing in Leinders. Why do you need a cycling doctor to take care of a non-cyclist? Of course you don't, but that still leaves the question of why did Txema die in the first place? Handling dirty needles?