Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[sniper]

oh..........the immortal 'clinic 12'.............were those the only ones whom
could read david walsh paul kimmage l'equipe etc?

i'm still waiting to hear of similar revelations for team sky

Phil Liggett 2.0.

 

[thehog]

what good? team sky are not in the dogooding business but to win races

if they cheat they must be 'popped'

i called bs to your claims and you answer with a riddle

100s of tests all of them clean. What else can be done? How do you prove a negative?

In and out competition. What more can they do?

 

[ebandit]

silly me

100s of tests all of them clean. What else can be done? How do you prove a negative?

In and out competition. What more can they do?

well i will be hog gone.................silly me.............fancy expecting

your claims to be authenticated

 

[martinvickers]

There’s not a shred of physical evidence. Until then it’s just hearsay. Show me a positive test then we’re talking but until then it’s just bitterness and jealously.

Eyewitness evidence is not Hearsay - that's the whole point of it.

I saw X dope, X told me he doped, I saw Dr Y arrive - eye witness direct evidence.

Someone once told me something about X, i've heard rumours about Y - hearsay

The first is high quality evidence - see Hincapie, Vaughters, CVV, Zubriskie

The latter is two tonne of bullsh*t - see fair amount of cynic...sorry, meant Clinic, regulars.

Eyewitness statements are direct evidence, not hearsay.

Blood profiling is also evidence
Test controls are evidence
Financial records are evidence

Hearsay isn't evidence.
Rumour isn't evidence.

Maybe time some of those who get annoyed at the "500 tests, never failed" line, also realise the difference between evidence and hearsay rumour.

Hint; it's nothing to do with whether it's physical or not. complete red herring.

 

[red_flanders]

I think you're missing the sarcasm in the Hog's posts.

 

[martinvickers]

I think you're missing the sarcasm in the Hog's posts.

Trust me, I'm not.

 

[andy1234]

I think you're missing the sarcasm in the Hog's posts.

No. He nailed it.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Eyewitness evidence is not Hearsay - that's the whole point of it.

I saw X dope, X told me he doped, I saw Dr Y arrive - eye witness direct evidence.

Someone once told me something about X, i've heard rumours about Y - hearsay

The first is high quality evidence - see Hincapie, Vaughters, CVV, Zubriskie

The latter is two tonne of bullsh*t - see fair amount of cynic...sorry, meant Clinic, regulars.

Eyewitness statements are direct evidence, not hearsay.

Blood profiling is also evidence
Test controls are evidence
Financial records are evidence

Hearsay isn't evidence.
Rumour isn't evidence.

Maybe time some of those who get annoyed at the "500 tests, never failed" line, also realise the difference between evidence and hearsay rumour.

Hint; it's nothing to do with whether it's physical or not. complete red herring.

So you agree that there is evidence Mick Rogers should not pass the Team Sky 'Zero Tolerance' test and should be jettisoned like the expendable DSes were?

 

[Krebs cycle]

Yes of course. Because being up and down is a sure sign of doping, whereas dominating multi-stage races from February to July after being a nobody autobuser in said races is quite plainly an indication of sparkling cleanliness.

This is the same argument David Millar used in his infinite wisdom of declaring Contador clean as his performances were so consistent. Clenbutador!

Another stunning display of PhD sciency stuff. Chapeau, Krebs Cycle.

*yawn* yet another broken down record that has been debunked 1000 times over...

track to road: training changes = road performance improves (whoa, you mean that training affects performance? no way!!!)
domestique to GC contender: GC placing improves (wow who would've thought?)
lose weight = w/kg goes up (amazing!)
lose weight = w/CdA maybe goes down, maybe not. Maybe goes down but the difference is made up for by improved %LT as a result of surprise surprise, changes to training. Maybe it did go down but since at 53kph you need BIG changes in power to make SMALL changes in velocity, it doesn't have much of an effect compared to say climbing performance where SMALL changes in w/kg make BIG changes to climbing speed.

yeah totally inexplicable fringe science there hey?

The simple truth is that the physiology which enables an individual to produce somewhere around 7 w/kg for 4-5min (especially or perhaps even only... if a higher than average amount of that power is derived from aerobic sources as opposed to anaerobic) can be used to produce around 6.2 W/kg at FTP. (edit: it is not easy to do of course though). I know this because I witnessed it personally many years ago when Cadel Evans used to get tested at the AIS. All I am saying is that it is possible, not that I believe with 100% certainty that Wiggins is clean. You are the one who stubbornly refuses to even accept this possibility and as a result you dispute every piece of scientific literature that I post and instead carry on with a bunch of ignorant and uneducated mumbo jumbo day after day in order to justify your opinion.

 

[orbeas]

Sky

I see Sky/BC have shipped Shane Sutton out of the country back to Aus.
Away from the awkward british press coverage ???

 

[Libertine Seguros]

More likely to be with his family after the trauma of the crash.

 

[Mellow Velo]

I see Sky/BC have shipped Shane Sutton out of the country back to Aus.
Away from the awkward british press coverage ???

He has gone with all the GB track sprinters, plus Laura Trott and Dani King, for a month's warm weather training in Perth.
Before anybody draws another wrong conclusion, this has been on the schedule for a number of months.
That is an actual bit of inside info, albeit small.

More likely to be with his family after the trauma of the crash.

No doubt he will take the opportunity.

 

[Krebs cycle]

100s of tests all of them clean. What else can be done? How do you prove a negative?

Well that's the problem with people like you and many others in the clinic. It's just so easy for you to call everyone a doper because it's very difficult to prove a negative. If they do eventually test positive you carry on like you're cycling Nostradamus and give yourself a high five every 2 seconds. If they don't test positive nor have been caught up and proven to be involved in a doping investigation you just say "the tests can be beaten" and rattle off a bunch of admitted dopers who didn't test positive. In the event of the latter, you still high five yourself and act as if you are still 100% correct but in actual fact you're just full of sh!t.

Calls for publishing power data is akin to asking a corporation to release IP information. That isn't a sign of non-transparency IMO because it can give away valuable information to you competitors. Calls for publishing biopassport data are meaningless and not revealing that data also isn't a sign of non-transparency because the biopassport data already gets reviewed by an independent panel of experts. Allowing the lay public to view that data won't achieve anything because the lay public doesn't know how to analyse biopassport data since they are not experts. The problem doesn't reside with the teams being non-transparent, it resides with the UCI, who as we know are corrupt.

What needs to happen is that the process of sanctioning riders on the basis of biopassport data must not be left in the hands of the UCI. Those riders who are deemed positive by an independent panel should have a ban put in place by some other body such as WADA, and the UCI must comply with that ban or face expulsion from the olympics or some other consequence such as the formation of breakaway leagues that support "clean cycling" and do comply with WADA.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Come on Krebs. Call me a liar then ignore the post seems very suspect. Why did you delete this post?

I don't recall deleting any post about MAOD. You're just making up a lie and repeating it over and over. Pretty much what you always do. If you want me to clarify something about MAOD just ask and I'll give you a straight up answer.

Given I have already quoted the deleted post and linked to a post quoting the deleted post previously, your personal attack - yet again - on my honesty seems very suspect.

Here are the pertinent details, yet again, for you to perhaps refresh your memory:


It's the post that has been part-quoted here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=956871&postcount=3709

Don't jump on the bandwagon dude. You evidently know more about physiology than some of the trolls around here, but you made some assumptions in your post earlier that were incorrect, specifically the bit about high VO2max and high % type II fibres. Learn and understand what MAOD is first then read the following.....

 

[blackcat]

If what I have heard Vinnicombe allege in the past comes out, the whole BC program would be in the spotlight. Again it all comes down to here say though and I'm not sure if he's a great witness. Combine that with the Sky setup, there are some dubious people involved in that and the entire set up looks questionable. I'm not sure how widely knows the whole story is and it's in no ones best interests to come forward. Unless they want out of the sport completely.

MV was Mr May, 1993 Australian Women's Forum. Wearing emperors clothes.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Come on Krebs. Call me a liar then ignore the post seems very suspect. Why did you delete this post?

Maybe if you can tell me what the hell it was in the post that I supposedly deleted I can help you. Until then, I've got no idea what you're crapping on about, and I still don't recall deleting a post about MAOD. Regardless, you're just flogging a dead horse anyway because on many occasions I have clarified my position which is supported by the scientific literature.

Given I have already quoted the deleted post and linked to a post quoting the deleted post previously, your personal attack - yet again - on my honesty seems very suspect.

Here are the pertinent details, yet again, for you to perhaps refresh your memory:


It's the post that has been part-quoted here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=956871&postcount=3709

That post says nothing. Where is the bit that I supposedly deleted?

And for the record I'm attacking your knowledge of science and physiology, not you personally. Don't cry about it because you are quite the personal insult troll yourself aren't you? It's not enough just to insult my anonymous online persona (which I really couldn't care less about), you had to go digging around trying to figure out my real name and now you have started attacking me personally. It's really quite pathetic that you had to stoop to such bottom feeder depths. Whatever it is you think you know about me personally I can assure you that your information is outdated and like many other topics, you are just plain wrong.

 

[coinneach]

Sky on implementing anti-doping policy:

"“I don’t think the process will ever conclude,” a team spokesperson told Cyclingnews."

On No...another 895 pages to come!!!!!!!!

 

[thehog]

Well that's the problem with people like you and many others in the clinic. It's just so easy for you to call everyone a doper because it's very difficult to prove a negative. If they do eventually test positive you carry on like you're cycling Nostradamus and give yourself a high five every 2 seconds. If they don't test positive nor have been caught up and proven to be involved in a doping investigation you just say "the tests can be beaten" and rattle off a bunch of admitted dopers who didn't test positive. In the event of the latter, you still high five yourself and act as if you are still 100% correct but in actual fact you're just full of sh!t.

Calls for publishing power data is akin to asking a corporation to release IP information. That isn't a sign of non-transparency IMO because it can give away valuable information to you competitors. Calls for publishing biopassport data are meaningless and not revealing that data also isn't a sign of non-transparency because the biopassport data already gets reviewed by an independent panel of experts. Allowing the lay public to view that data won't achieve anything because the lay public doesn't know how to analyse biopassport data since they are not experts. The problem doesn't reside with the teams being non-transparent, it resides with the UCI, who as we know are corrupt.

What needs to happen is that the process of sanctioning riders on the basis of biopassport data must not be left in the hands of the UCI. Those riders who are deemed positive by an independent panel should have a ban put in place by some other body such as WADA, and the UCI must comply with that ban or face expulsion from the olympics or some other consequence such as the formation of breakaway leagues that support "clean cycling" and do comply with WADA.

I don't what you say. No one on Sky has ever tested positive. Ever. Period. Without doubt. No re-runs, do-ins, love-ins.

Clean.

 

[ferryman]

Krebs, I've not seen evidence of this but if true not good. Can you post any links I have missed:
It's not enough just to insult my anonymous online persona (which I really couldn't care less about), you had to go digging around trying to figure out my real name and now you have started attacking me personally. It's really quite pathetic that you had to stoop to such bottom feeder depths.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Krebs, I've not seen evidence of this but if true not good. Can you post any links I have missed:
It's not enough just to insult my anonymous online persona (which I really couldn't care less about), you had to go digging around trying to figure out my real name and now you have started attacking me personally. It's really quite pathetic that you had to stoop to such bottom feeder depths.

He can't, because it's not true. I've only ever repeated what he has posted himself - he worked at the AIS/SAS/SIS, has been a lecturer for 2 years and has a PhD in something - he even posted a picture of his PhD certificate.

ETA: here's a summary of Krebs Cycle posts outlining his experience and work history: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1035915&postcount=445

There happy now? Anyone who knows anything about altitude training in Australia knows that the altitude chamber is located in the Dept of Physiology at the AIS. where do you think Ashenden did his PhD and those EPO studies were carried out?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

That post says nothing. Where is the bit that I supposedly deleted?

Your post is quoted in Turner's reply. You cannot find the post of yours he is quoting because you deleted it. I am surprised that someone who is intelligent enough to have a PhD and has spent so much time on the forums cannot follow such a simple thread.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Your post is quoted in Turner's reply. You cannot find the post of yours he is quoting because you deleted it. I am surprised that someone who is intelligent enough to have a PhD and has spent so much time on the forums cannot follow such a simple thread.

How do you know that he (Krebs) deleted the post in question and not the mods?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

How do you know that he (Krebs) deleted the post in question and not the mods?

2 possibilities:
1. mods did it
2. krebs did it

all krebs has to say - i didn't delete it. he's then either lying or the mods deleted it.

I asked an admin 2 weeks ago if he could tell who deleted it, but got no response.

Finally, look at what's been quoted - hardly delete worthy.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

2 possibilities:
1. mods did it
2. krebs did it

all krebs has to say - i didn't delete it. he's then either lying or the mods deleted it.

I asked an admin 2 weeks ago if he could tell who deleted it, but got no response.

Finally, look at what's been quoted - hardly delete worthy.

He has said he doesnt remember deleting any such post - yet you said this....

Your post is quoted in Turner's reply. You cannot find the post of yours he is quoting because you deleted it. I am surprised that someone who is intelligent enough to have a PhD and has spent so much time on the forums cannot follow such a simple thread.

......and you expect someone to remember a post they made back in July?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

He has said he doesnt remember deleting any such post - yet you said this....

......and you expect someone to remember a post they made back in July?

Thank you for the refresher on why I am ignoring you.