Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Spencer the Half Wit]

Why would they avoid it?

Yates used it, Armstrong used it, Rogers used it, Ferrari used it - a lot.

What's to avoid?

Because of what Ferrari apparently said about avoiding it. I know Ferrari is a lying, cheating, low life but what he apparently said would have been in confidence to a client and is therefore more likely to be correct than not.

Unless it was all a huge double bluff

 

[Hugh Januss]

Agreed, but having seen it happen, means I have to give the benefit of the doubt.

How often has it happened in a GT since 1990 or so?

 

[Grandillusion]

The only evidence of Sky doping is probably staff and rider testimony.


They appear to have taken steps to ensure that will not see the light of day.

I would guess if there were positives the samples were destroyed.

You'll be pointing that fact out to hog 'til you're blue in the face, without getting any reply.

Are you referring to staff and rider testimony when you say Sky "appear to have taken steps to ensure that will not see the light of day"? The only way that would be true is if this really was the mafia, and they'd been bumped off.

It's not the mafia, and powerful legal screws can be and have been applied to people with amazingly successful results.

I just want to know why the screws can't be applied equally successfully in this case, if it's all true.

 

[andy1234]

How often has it happened in a GT since 1990 or so?

Maybe 2011, maybe 2012.
Maybe none.

I have no first hand experience of a rider I guarantee to be clean winning a GT.
Stages yes, leading the race, yes, overall winner, no.

Does that mean its impossible? I'm willing to keep an open mind.

 

[thehog]

Because of what Ferrari apparently said about avoiding it. I know Ferrari is a lying, cheating, low life but what he apparently said would have been in confidence to a client and is therefore more likely to be correct than not.

Unless it was all a huge double bluff

But the timeline doesn't fit.

Sky were training there in 2011. The Ferrari comment came out in very late 2012.

So when were Sky informed that its a good place for a clean team to train? It has a notorious history. SKy went there when it was still known for its past. And still went there.

Yates loved the place and recommended Wiggins to go there because of Armstrong.

Also the translation was poor. He was saying "be careful" not "don't go".

Which makes sense.

 

[thehog]

You'll be pointing that fact out to hog 'til you're blue in the face, without getting any reply.

.

Yes. Never tested positive.

My god. Haven't we come a long way!

 

[Grandillusion]

Yes. Never tested positive.

My god. Haven't we come a long way!

Jeez hog, I'm honestly not trying to shut you down, your level of knowledge (and humour) are both impressive, and I'm learning lots from you and the other guys.

But Benotti was talking about the usefulness of the OTHER type of evidence. The type successfully used to almost destroy your sport (it was needed, unfortunately).

The never tested positive stuff is irrelevant.

But thanks for at least replying

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

But the timeline doesn't fit.

Sky were training there in 2011. The Ferrari comment came out in very late 2012.

So when were Sky informed that its a good place for a clean team to train? It has a notorious history. SKy went there when it was still known for its past. And still went there.

Yates loved the place and recommended Wiggins to go there because of Armstrong.

Also the translation was poor. He was saying "be careful" not "don't go".

Which makes sense.

And here we go full circle. You have said Sky (or at least Wiggins) are working with Ferrari, so presumably they (he) would have known of Ferrari's advice. On the other hand if they are clean why would they give a stuff about Ferrari/other teams/past history, they would go to Tenerife for the good training conditions. That is why I can't follow your logic

 

[thehog]

And here we go full circle. You have said Sky (or at least Wiggins) are working with Ferrari, so presumably they (he) would have known of Ferrari's advice. On the other hand if they are clean why would they give a stuff about Ferrari/other teams/past history, they would go to Tenerife for the good training conditions. That is why I can't follow your logic

I agree with you. But I'm not the one saying Ferrari "advice" is a sign of their cleanliness or not.

I've said they're going to Tenerife with Yates, Rogers and Ferrari.

What Ferrari has said to Sky we'll never know. Besides the quote attributed to Ferrari came in late 2012 not 2011.

So maybe he's warnes Bergatoli after Sky have tried there 5 times in one year?

Who knows? I'm not using his advice as anything because its 4th hand and he's a liar.

But many here latched onto his quote as "proof" that Tenerife is clean.

Do you follow now?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Maybe 2011, maybe 2012.
Maybe none.

I have no first hand experience of a rider I guarantee to be clean winning a GT.
Stages yes, leading the race, yes, overall winner, no.

Does that mean its impossible? I'm willing to keep an open mind.

Yes I know how that goes, I am still keeping an open mind about whether the earth is really round and the second gunman theory.

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

I agree with you. But I'm not the one saying Ferrari "advice" is a sign of their cleanliness or not.

I've said they're going to Tenerife with Yates, Rogers and Ferrari.

What Ferrari has said to Sky we'll never know. Besides the quote attributed to Ferrari came in late 2012 not 2011.

So maybe he's warnes Bergatoli after Sky have tried there 5 times in one year?

Who knows? I'm not using his advice as anything because its 4th hand and he's a liar.

But many here latched onto his quote as "proof" that Tenerife is clean.

Do you follow now?

Not really, but if you've got evidence of the bolded bit it may become clearer as to what your logic is. At the minute it just seems to be confirmation bias.

 

[ebandit]

take the money............we're on.............

The only evidence of Sky doping is probably staff and rider testimony.


They appear to have taken steps to ensure that will not see the light of day.

I would guess if there were positives the samples were destroyed.

so what steps would those be?

financial pay offs?.....................but how effective would they be

i don't know about yourself............but i would take the £...........

then speak out later......one could hardly be in breach of contract

if speaking about dodgy activity?

 

[armchairclimber]

Evidence of Ferrari working with SKY will no doubt emerge from Italy in the immediate future. Won't it Hog?

 

[DirtyWorks]

so what steps would those be?

financial pay offs?.....................but how effective would they be

i don't know about yourself............but i would take the £...........

As this relates to the big question of Sky's doping, imagine a scenario where Sky buys non-positives from the UCI. In the era of oxygen-vector doping, this is a way to pick very likely winners.

The how of that is unknown. We don't know what happens to sample reports inside the UCI. Contador's positive suggests the process is not particularly anonymous.

All that said, it seems like Hein would do it to the ASO without a moment of hesitation. Imagine the money he could pocket for strategically supressing tests.

then speak out later......one could hardly be in breach of contract

if speaking about dodgy activity?

It's not that there's a perfect defense to speaking out or the exit money is too good to pass up. It's that the lawyer bills to work through that defense would impoverish the Omerta-breaker.

 

[Mellow Velo]

But the timeline doesn't fit.

Sky were training there in 2011. The Ferrari comment came out in very late 2012.

So when were Sky informed that its a good place for a clean team to train? It has a notorious history. SKy went there when it was still known for its past. And still went there.

Yates loved the place and recommended Wiggins to go there because of Armstrong.

Also the translation was poor. He was saying "be careful" not "don't go".

Which makes sense.

Gawd Hog, it's like trying to catch porridge in a sieve.

Didn't we clear this up yesterday?
The comment, however roughly translated, that came out in late 2012 was from a conversation made to a client, in December 2010.

Given Sky are allegedly clients, then it's a sound assumption that they would be given the same "advice".

So, the timeline does fit and makes sense.

Only if they weren't clients would late 2012 be applicable.

Catch 22, for you.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Gawd Hog, it's like trying to catch porridge in a sieve.

Didn't we clear this up yesterday?
The comment, however roughly translated, that came out in late 2012 was from a conversation made to a client, in December 2010.

Given Sky are allegedly clients, then it's a sound assumption that they would be given the same "advice".

So, the timeline does fit and makes sense.

Only if they weren't clients would late 2012 be applicable.

Catch 22, for you.

I'm not so sure. The impression I got from the various affidavits is that Ferrari tells everyone different things. Remember, he never saw two riders together, always alone and so on and so forth.

Lets look at it this way - he was in 2010 still working out of his camper van in Italy - with Italian and Italian based riders. Now, considering how secretive Ferrari is, and how no one (even at the same camp) knows what programmes other riders are on, does it also not make sense to not tell riders where you might also be working and with whom you might be working.

Lets say you are an Aussie who lives in Italy and you pay vast sums of money to Ferrari for him to give you a doping programme to give you an edge. Wouldn't you be a bit ****ed off if you then found out that your doping doctor was also working with one of your main rivals - and that the edge you are paying for is being neutralised, because he's giving exactly the same programme to some **** with stupid facial hair.

Needless to say - if you were a doping doctor, would it not make sense to throw everyone off the scent and to not let anyone know where or who you are working with, or even to encourage the impression that you wouldn't work in a specific place.

Given Ferrari's secretiveness, his tendency to say one to one person and something different to another, do you not think there is the danger of assuming that what Ferrari says is true (given that he must also be aware that he was under surveillance) and that what is says may not actually be what he was going to do? Given how slippery Ferrari is, why should we take one statement at facevalue as a definitive statement that he is no longer working in Tenerife?

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

I'm not so sure. The impression I got from the various affidavits is that Ferrari tells everyone different things. Remember, he never saw two riders together, always alone and so on and so forth.

Lets look at it this way - he was in 2010 still working out of his camper van in Italy - with Italian and Italian based riders. Now, considering how secretive Ferrari is, and how no one (even at the same camp) knows what programmes other riders are on, does it also not make sense to not tell riders where you might also be working and with whom you might be working.

Lets say you are an Aussie who lives in Italy and you pay vast sums of money to Ferrari for him to give you a doping programme to give you an edge. Wouldn't you be a bit ****ed off if you then found out that your doping doctor was also working with one of your main rivals - and that the edge you are paying for is being neutralised, because he's giving exactly the same programme to some **** with stupid facial hair.

Needless to say - if you were a doping doctor, would it not make sense to throw everyone off the scent and to not let anyone know where or who you are working with, or even to encourage the impression that you wouldn't work in a specific place.

Given Ferrari's secretiveness, his tendency to say one to one person and something different to another, do you not think there is the danger of assuming that what Ferrari says is true (given that he must also be aware that he was under surveillance) and that what is says may not actually be what he was going to do? Given how slippery Ferrari is, why should we take one statement at facevalue as a definitive statement that he is no longer working in Tenerife?

I think what you are basically saying is the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever linking Sky with Ferrari is now proof that he must be working with them because if he was he would be secretive about it. You could use that to prove anything and it is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Mellow Velo]

I'm not so sure. The impression I got from the various affidavits is that Ferrari tells everyone different things. Remember, he never saw two riders together, always alone and so on and so forth.

Lets look at it this way - he was in 2010 still working out of his camper van in Italy - with Italian and Italian based riders. Now, considering how secretive Ferrari is, and how no one (even at the same camp) knows what programmes other riders are on, does it also not make sense to not tell riders where you might also be working and with whom you might be working.

Lets say you are an Aussie who lives in Italy and you pay vast sums of money to Ferrari for him to give you a doping programme to give you an edge. Wouldn't you be a bit ****ed off if you then found out that your doping doctor was also working with one of your main rivals - and that the edge you are paying for is being neutralised, because he's giving exactly the same programme to some **** with stupid facial hair.

Needless to say - if you were a doping doctor, would it not make sense to throw everyone off the scent and to not let anyone know where or who you are working with, or even to encourage the impression that you wouldn't work in a specific place.

Given Ferrari's secretiveness, his tendency to say one to one person and something different to another, do you not think there is the danger of assuming that what Ferrari says is true (given that he must also be aware that he was under surveillance) and that what is says may not actually be what he was going to do? Given how slippery Ferrari is, why should we take one statement at facevalue as a definitive statement that he is no longer working in Tenerife?

Well, he certainly wouldn't want to over-populate Tenerife with clients, just after the Spanish have broken up a major clen ring.
However, I reckon that it's unlikely that his "gilt edge" clients would be the first ones that he'd (Stefano) go there to meet, a couple of months later, to test if the coast was again clear.

Risky all round.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Well, he certainly wouldn't want to over-populate Tenerife with clients, just after the Spanish have broken up a major clen ring.
However, I reckon that it's unlikely that his "gilt edge" clients would be the first ones that he'd (Stefano) go there to meet, a couple of months later, to test if the coast was again clear.

Risky all round.

12 months is a bit more than a couple of months. He might well have concluded post Clen bust that it was no longer being watched and was hence safe.

Just out of interest - how do the dates stack up between the clen ring being broken up and Ferrari's conversation? Which comes first?

As for going back there - It is a little bit like the scene in Blackadder where the British military tactics are being explained - we're going to do exactly as we've done before and catch the enemy out as they won't be expecting us to do exactly the same as we've done before.

Of course when all is said and done - it'll turn out that Ferrari was doing his doping of Sky from a flat in Lancashire.

 

[blackcat]

only thought I had of this scenario, was right now thanks to MJM. And acuity is regular MJM genius. I would like some more invective and Frodos tho, if you dont mind MJM.

 

[martinvickers]

The only evidence of Sky doping is probably staff and rider testimony.


They appear to have taken steps to ensure that will not see the light of day.

I would guess if there were positives the samples were destroyed.

That's pure conjecture, B - but to be fair, it's at least pretty logical pure conjecture

 

[ultimobici]

I think what you are basically saying is the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever linking Sky with Ferrari is now proof that he must be working with them because if he was he would be secretive about it. You could use that to prove anything and it is beyond ridiculous.

If one has made one's mind up that something is so, anything can and will be bent to prove that view point.

I'm all for healthy debate & rigorous investigation. This has become more like the Inquisition or Salem.

 

[armchairclimber]

If one has made one's mind up that something is so, anything can and will be bent to prove that view point.

I'm all for healthy debate & rigorous investigation. This has become more like the Inquisition or Salem.

The words "ducking" and "stool" spring to mind.

 

[Mellow Velo]

12 months is a bit more than a couple of months. He might well have concluded post Clen bust that it was no longer being watched and was hence safe.

Just out of interest - how do the dates stack up between the clen ring being broken up and Ferrari's conversation? Which comes first?

As for going back there - It is a little bit like the scene in Blackadder where the British military tactics are being explained - we're going to do exactly as we've done before and catch the enemy out as they won't be expecting us to do exactly the same as we've done before.

Of course when all is said and done - it'll turn out that Ferrari was doing his doping of Sky from a flat in Lancashire.

Sorry I'm getting back to this so late (or early)
Well, the timeline could hardly be worse, in terms of those speculating.

Spanish raid and arrests on Gran Canaria and Tenerife took place, on or abouts 21st-22nd October 2010.
Ferrari conversation with LB on December 1st, 2010.
Wiggins training on Tenerife, January 2011.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/may/23/bradley-wiggins-tour-de-france

You see this is why I asked the question about viable alternatives to Tenerife in the first place.

To me, to return there before the dust had even had time to settle would be extremely ballsy, but also extremely risky. (no to mention stupid)
Totally contrary to the masters micro management.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Sorry I'm getting back to this so late (or early)
Well, the timeline could hardly be worse, in terms of those speculating.

Spanish raid and arrests on Gran Canaria and Tenerife took place, on or abouts 21st-22nd October 2010.
Ferrari conversation with LB on December 1st, 2010.
Wiggins training on Tenerife, January 2011.

You see this is why I asked the question about viable alternatives to Tenerife in the first place.

To me, to return there before the dust had even had time to settle would be extremely ballsy, but also extremely risky. (no to mention stupid)
Totally contrary to the masters micro management.

Great work, Mello.