Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[BroDeal]

2005 Tour de L'Avenir. Stage win into Aurillac

Happy?

The leader's team allows Wiggins to go in a break and that means he is a great climber? Fail.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Yates? Not in my book. He is a guy with a suspect history, like many other DSs his age. Also he has never been sanctioned for doping(cue skys no doping sanctions policy).

He may not be a guy who drops the hint that "Sky are dirty" in 2010, but he does drop the hint that the zero tolerance policy mightn't be as effective as made out, i.e. the moral compass could be stretched to accommodate other things in the future too.

Michael Barry was on the 2010 team too, of course. Same thing - not a flag of anything dodgy, but a flag that the zero tolerance policy is probably a bit more flexible than they'd like to admit.

 

[Dead Star]

The leader's team allows Wiggins to go in a break and that means he is a great climber? Fail.

I remember there was this domestique called George Hincapie who did the sa....oh wait a minute.

 

[hrotha]

2005 Tour de L'Avenir. Stage win into Aurillac




Happy?

That one's been debunked about a hundred times already.

 

[taiwan]

Well, as I say, if I'm using the search facility correctly, then no.
Doesn't seem (according to me) to have registered here, in May.
Come late July, it certainly was.

Be helpful if somebody checked.

I admit I knew little about him, but knew well enough about the humanplasma blood bank in Vienna, story.

05-05-12, good spot Lanark.

The team docter from that period already left, Geert Leinders. He works for Team Sky now

From the same thread, seems prescient now:

Doping @ Sky would be hardly surprising isn't it?

Kick out all the people that flourished in the epo period is the best solution, but impossible to do.

I hope Rabobank sticks to cycling, but good god the cyclists make it hard for the sponsors to stay around. I guess they want to get rid of all the sponsors.

 

[coinneach]

This thread is unbelievable (but compulsive reading!)
Has it occured to anyone that Sky might not have worried about hiring Leinders because they were going to manage him in a clean team with clear expectations?
I agree a fuller explanation would be nice BUT both Leinders & Yates may wish to have a future in cycling, and we can read between the lines.
So, Sky are dodgy because they hired people with a past in cycling
Some of these people are found to have been, in the past, involved in doping!!
Sky gets rid of these people (we are still waiting to hear about Rogers)
View from the clinic? "This proves they are/were lying/doping"
It will be impossible for Sky to please the clinic: no matter what season they have or staff they hire.
The debate gets hopelessly polarized, rather than accepting steps in the right direction. With friends like this on the clinic, who needs enemies?

 

[taiwan]

Not really about the support staff, I think Wiggins juiced to the Tour win. When you see a miraculous transformation in cycling, 2+2=4.

 

[armchairclimber]

This thread is unbelievable (but compulsive reading!)
Has it occured to anyone that Sky might not have worried about hiring Leinders because they were going to manage him in a clean team with clear expectations?
I agree a fuller explanation would be nice BUT both Leinders & Yates may wish to have a future in cycling, and we can read between the lines.
So, Sky are dodgy because they hired people with a past in cycling
Some of these people are found to have been, in the past, involved in doping!!
Sky gets rid of these people (we are still waiting to hear about Rogers)
View from the clinic? "This proves they are/were lying/doping"
It will be impossible for Sky to please the clinic: no matter what season they have or staff they hire.
The debate gets hopelessly polarized, rather than accepting steps in the right direction. With friends like this on the clinic, who needs enemies?

Unfortunately much of the thread undermines the credibility of the clinic.

Maybe when the likes of Race Radio start calling SKY out for doping and maybe are backed up with good science from posters like acoggan, then it might have credibility.

 

[Mellow Velo]

05-05-12, good spot Lanark.


From the same thread, seems prescient now:

Yes, you are correct. Indeed a good spot.
This was the one thread that falls between those dates, in which he appears.

Must mean my search was correct then.

 

[armchairclimber]

Clearly a trolling thread.

There's already a SKY thread. There is no doping scandal.

 

[ebandit]

now i'm shocked

The Ferrari connection is going to kill them.

what ferrari connection?

oh...............sky team members drive italian muscle cars............that's
so ungreen!

 

[ToreBear]

He may not be a guy who drops the hint that "Sky are dirty" in 2010, but he does drop the hint that the zero tolerance policy mightn't be as effective as made out, i.e. the moral compass could be stretched to accommodate other things in the future too.

Michael Barry was on the 2010 team too, of course. Same thing - not a flag of anything dodgy, but a flag that the zero tolerance policy is probably a bit more flexible than they'd like to admit.

As I wrote a few pages back:

As far as I understand Skys policy.

1) They started with the policy of not hiring people with doping convictions.
2) No non UK cycling docs.

They have stuck to number 1 but not number 2.

I can't see that they have violated rule 1 up to this point.
note: Yates had no prior doping conviction.

They have now tightened number 1. It is now more like:
1.1) Don't have any doping in your past even though you got away with it at the time.


On rule number 2 I have no idea what their current policy is.

It would be interesting to know the reasoning for breaking with their policy back in 2010/2011. It might be as their press releases at the time states, but I would like to know more about their thinking at that time. The process and reasoning behind hiring Leinders is in my mind still to be sufficiently clarified.

Yates had no doping conviction.

As for stretching:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/bike-blog/2011/feb/15/dave-brailsford-full-transcript

This interview gives the impression that they will not be as black and white as they had initially planned.

But you have changed in that you are willing to hire people who might have been tainted by doping in the past?

I think it's very dependent on the individual and his history. You have your anti-doping policy and belief but you need to weigh it up and, actually, if the need of the team in performance was such and there was an individual that was generally considered in the 'positive' group, to excuse the pun, then he couldn't be ruled out

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Yes, you are correct. Indeed a good spot.
This was the one thread that falls between those dates, in which he appears.

Must mean my search was correct then.

Which proves what? Brailsford is running a multi-million pound team that prides itself in getting 'the little details correct' and yet they can't do a ****ing background check on the people they are hiring?

Either Sky are incompetent and Brailsford is not quite the genius that the pr made him out to be, or he knew exactly who he was hiring and why he was hiring them.

'I didn't know' sounds as implausible coming from Brailsford as it does coming from that other shaven-headed DS whose riders keep on getting them involved in doping scandals much to his surprise.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

2005 Tour de L'Avenir. Stage win into Aurillac




Happy?

debunked: http://dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/transformation-1-climber.html

 

[bobbins]

Which proves what? Brailsford is running a multi-million pound team that prides itself in getting 'the little details correct' and yet they can't do a ****ing background check on the people they are hiring?

Either Sky are incompetent and Brailsford is not quite the genius that the pr made him out to be, or he knew exactly who he was hiring and why he was hiring them.

'I didn't know' sounds as implausible coming from Brailsford as it does coming from that other shaven-headed DS whose riders keep on getting them involved in doping scandals much to his surprise.

Nail on the head. He knows all about everyone he has hired. He just didn't expect it to blow up in his face like it has.

 

[Telmisartan new]

Quite a few people saying last day or so that if the cull is to be taken seriously then Rogers must go.I wholeheartedly agree, if he is still there then this is nothing but a whitewash.He may not have a doping conviction but his past connections must surely make his position untenable or would him leaving be risking too much attention on our Bradley.I have said this before, but the staff who have left are replaceable,Rogers going would taint Sky's 2012 irredeemably in the eyes of the MSM and general public.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

'...'So, Sky are dodgy because they hired people with a past in cycling. Some of these people are found to have been, in the past, involved in doping!!
Sky gets rid of these people (we are still waiting to hear about Rogers)
View from the clinic? "This proves they are/were lying/doping"
It will be impossible for Sky to please the clinic: no matter what season they have or staff they hire.
The debate gets hopelessly polarized, rather than accepting steps in the right direction. With friends like this on the clinic, who needs enemies?

Sky are dodgy because they started off advertising an unworkable policy of hiring no tainted staff. They failed to make staff and rider selections consistent with the policy, proving it was about appearance, not about substance. It's not possible Brailsford doesnt know about cyclings history, he knew what those guys had been up to at postal etc. Next, they failed to even ask Landis about Barry, although they promised a full investigation at the time. How does that fit? It fits with an omerta policy, not a clean policy.

They then speak publicly about some flexibility and hire Leinders. Then they have an amazing tour where their A team arrives in carreer best form all at once. The bad publicity hits, and all of a sudden they are back to the hard line. This time people are losing their jobs.......are they paying off the fall guys, and circling the omertà wagons around the current team? Or are they belatedly doing what they promised at the start? If they beleived kicking everyone with a tainted history out would help cycling, WHY DIDN'T THEY DO IT AT THE START?

Any talk about Mick Roger's interview yet?
Thought not.

Sky is dodgy because they are quacking like a duck. I don't know for sure that their riders are dirty, but I don't trust Sky management at all.

 

[Velo_vicar]

It's a PR **** up because as even a fanboy like Matt Slater on the BBC has pointed out - if you go around being holier than thou and rubbing everyone's face in how clean you are, only to then lose a large chunk of your senior management because of their doping links.

Anyone with a bit of savvy would have said - either - stick to the stated policy of not hiring people implicated in doping (anyone with google or a little bit of knowledge of UK road cycling would know that Yates was toxic), or if you are going to hire people with skeletons in their closet then tone down the rhetoric about being clean.

It's a bit like the Tories and the 'Back to Basics' scandals - most people knew for years about Tory MPs and their affairs but it only became an issue when politicians started lecturing others about how to manage their private lives while doing the complete opposite themselves.

I agree that it is a **** up that is exactly my point. However a PR disaster does not mean doping. It certainly doesn't help prove cleanness but it is a long way from proof of doping. I was trying to quote Benotti who seemed to be saying that you only do PR if you are not clean, I just pointing out that all teams do PR. PR is not a sign of doping.

 

[Benotti69]

Unfortunately much of the thread undermines the credibility of the clinic.

The clinic is not the one sacking people because the head man lied that he had no clue they doped beforeSky

You choose to believe the lies now from Brailsford that they did a check but found nothing before hiring, congrats. I am sure Santa Claus will leave you a nice pressie this year for being so good.

Maybe when the likes of Race Radio start calling SKY out for doping and maybe are backed up with good science from posters like acoggan, then it might have credibility.

Daryl Webster has called them out. RR is in USA. Daryl is in UK.

 

[Benotti69]

I agree that it is a **** up that is exactly my point. However a PR disaster does not mean doping. It certainly doesn't help prove cleanness but it is a long way from proof of doping. I was trying to quote Benotti who seemed to be saying that you only do PR if you are not clean, I just pointing out that all teams do PR. PR is not a sign of doping.

All teams do PR. But when it is PR to cover lies that is something else.

 

[D-Queued]

Gruppetto for years to 4th or a podium, 3rd, as Armstrong has been stripped !


Yeah you are a fanboy if you cant see that!

Did or did Wiggins not come out of the grupetto to finish 4th (3rd) in 2009?

I said he made it from the Gruppetto to a podium. He has now a 3rd at 2009 TdF as Armstrong was stripped.

Cant see it can you?

Nope, can't see it.

The UCI and ASO have resolved not to award the vacated placings.

That being an indirect indictment of those that could be awarded these placings as potentially contaminated due to doping.

So, rather than a 3rd placing, Wiggins has an asterisk.

Dave.

 

[manafana]

always disliked sky for their actual policy when setup admit or get caught and we wont hire, been obviously guilty was ok thou.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Nope, can't see it.

The UCI and ASO have resolved not to award the vacated placings.

That being an indirect indictment of those that could be awarded these placings as potentially contaminated due to doping.

So, rather than a 3rd placing, Wiggins has an asterisk.

Dave.

Good point. The uniballer tendrils reach far and wise.

 

[blaxland]

Quite a few people saying last day or so that if the cull is to be taken seriously then Rogers must go.I wholeheartedly agree, if he is still there then this is nothing but a whitewash.He may not have a doping conviction but his past connections must surely make his position untenable or would him leaving be risking too much attention on our Bradley.I have said this before, but the staff who have left are replaceable,Rogers going would taint Sky's 2012 irredeemably in the eyes of the MSM and general public.

Spot on with this statement...Nothing more to add..

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

There must be something coming down the pipe.

No way is someone this panicked about nothing...

I'm thinking UCI complicity in something re SKY.

Mind you, I could be wrong. I am only a bone-idle ****ing ****er ****, afterall...