Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[blackcat]

you really don't get it krebs.

First you said cycling journos (Anthiny Tan anyone? Mike Tomalaris?) (this is a joke right? )would have turned something up, when its the complete abject failure of cycling journos to do any investigation on any doping for 15 years that has largely allowed cycling into this mess.

now you are claiming the UCI would have found Rogers out. WTF? You mean the same UCI that Tygart showed had only found ONE of the TWENTY podium dopers during Armstrongs era guilty? Hein and McQuaid? I must admit I had a laugh at that.

And WADA? Well every time Pound tried to focus the spotlight on cycling, that very same UCI sued him. And refused to co-operate with any WADA initiative, including not signing the code until 2006 after Armstrong retired. And not allowing control of the ABP to WADA, or even the data.

And what do you expect the Germans ADA to do when Kloden can happily pay the investigators a 30k fee to stop the investigation?

Talk about obtuse. This is professional cycling in 2005 we are talking about. Ferrari has just been found guilty and banned by the Italians (remember LA chasing down Simeoni in 2004 for testifying). Levi is on Tenerife with Ferrari TO DOPE. He has no need to mention anybody else (omerta ring a bell?), or at a pinch he could dob in Vino and Kashechkin et al as known dopers for some street cred. Yet knowing full well what would be the ramifications he lumps Dodger in with the filthy blood doping swine.

Now the point of all this is NOT to find Dodger guilty of doping, it is to demonstrate he is unsuitable to be on clean Team Sky with their zero tolerance policy. Both before and after Brailsfords affidavit scheme.

dont know if Australian cycling media has anyone who can legit call themselves a journo. If they could not see the writing on the Clinic Wall in the past half dozen years, they have no right being in cycling media and callihng themselves a journalist, reporter, pundit, commentator.

The best person in the media would be Henk Vogels. The only person plainspeaking.

 

[sittingbison]

... nor the UCI, nor WADA, nor ASADA, nor the german anti-doping authorities in the 6yrs since. ...various articles which report the UCI clears Rogers...

...You've got the UCI declaring Rogers not to be involved...As a result Rogers is the only one out of all of them (Kessler, Mazzolini, Honchar etc) who kept his contract after t-mobile pulled its sponsorship...

you really don't get it krebs.

First you said cycling journos (Anthiny Tan anyone? Mike Tomalaris?) would have turned something up, when its the complete abject failure of cycling journos to do any investigation on any doping for 15 years that has largely allowed cycling into this mess.

now you are claiming the UCI would have found Rogers out. WTF? You mean the same UCI that Tygart showed had only found ONE of the TWENTY podium dopers during Armstrongs era guilty? Hein and McQuaid? I must admit I had a laugh at that.

And WADA? Well every time Pound tried to focus the spotlight on cycling, that very same UCI sued him. And refused to co-operate with any WADA initiative, including not signing the code until 2006 after Armstrong retired. And not allowing control of the ABP to WADA, or even the data.

And what do you expect the Germans ADA to do when Kloden can happily pay the investigators a 30k fee to stop the investigation?

Talk about obtuse. This is professional cycling in 2005 we are talking about. Ferrari has just been found guilty and banned by the Italians (remember LA chasing down Simeoni in 2004 for testifying). Levi is on Tenerife with Ferrari TO DOPE. He has no need to mention anybody else (omerta ring a bell?), or at a pinch he could dob in Vino and Kashechkin et al as known dopers for some street cred. Yet knowing full well what would be the ramifications he lumps Dodger in with the filthy blood doping swine.

Now the point of all this is NOT to find Dodger guilty of doping, it is to demonstrate he is unsuitable to be on clean Team Sky with their zero tolerance policy. Both before and after Brailsfords affidavit scheme.

 

[sittingbison]

krebs is a scientist. He does not joke

 

[thehog]

Oh dear Chris.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-looking-to-lead-sky-in-2013-tour-de-france

He's a worry that boy.

Asked if cycling now had a fresh start, Froome replied: “I can't really answer that to be honest. I'd hate to think that there are things still going on but through my own performances I'd say that the peloton has cleaned up a massive amount. There are always going to be individuals who are bending the rules and trying to do something but the vast majority have cleaned up. My results speak for that because I wouldn't be able to get the results I get if it was still going on.”

Has a cleaner peloton therefore been the major shift that has allowed Froome to move from grand tour obscurity into the bracket of overall contenders?

“I wouldn't say that it’s the factor but it’s definitely a factor. If all of that was still going on now there’s no way I could be able to keep up with guys changing their blood every few days and using EPO. I just wouldn't be in the picture any more. I don't think I or Brad would be. It would be a different speed as the French call it. I wouldn't be able to perform the way I am now if doping was prevalent.”

Froome is aware that doubts and suspicions have been raised over Sky’s performance. It’s not that Sky have been necessarily singled out,

“Wining is number one but also the way we won,” he admits.

“We were so dominant throughout as a Tour group, through so many races. There have been a lot of comparisons between us and Discovery, and us and US Postal and people are drawing similar conclusions now which is understandable.”

“From our side we think it's unfair. We know what we've done to get there. It didn't involve any needles or any pills. As a team we've been really careful to talk to the media. We've not been out there being vocal and maybe that's something we need to do, open up more to people so they can see more inside the team.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Bob Stapleton declared Rogers clean in 2007

"What we know is that Rogers was part of a very strictly controlled anti-doping program in 2007, and that he has complied entirely with our own anti-doping rules," Stapleton told Die Welt.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/tm...inkewitz-claims/2007/11/01/1193619042013.html

That's about as "declared clean" as Armstrong's "I have never tested positive" non-admission admission.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

And now krebs cycle is defending my man Roggy hahaha.

 

[Krebs cycle]

you really don't get it krebs.

First you said cycling journos (Anthiny Tan anyone? Mike Tomalaris?) would have turned something up, when its the complete abject failure of cycling journos to do any investigation on any doping for 15 years that has largely allowed cycling into this mess.

now you are claiming the UCI would have found Rogers out. WTF? You mean the same UCI that Tygart showed had only found ONE of the TWENTY podium dopers during Armstrongs era guilty? Hein and McQuaid? I must admit I had a laugh at that.

And WADA? Well every time Pound tried to focus the spotlight on cycling, that very same UCI sued him. And refused to co-operate with any WADA initiative, including not signing the code until 2006 after Armstrong retired. And not allowing control of the ABP to WADA, or even the data.

And what do you expect the Germans ADA to do when Kloden can happily pay the investigators a 30k fee to stop the investigation?

Talk about obtuse. This is professional cycling in 2005 we are talking about. Ferrari has just been found guilty and banned by the Italians (remember LA chasing down Simeoni in 2004 for testifying). Levi is on Tenerife with Ferrari TO DOPE. He has no need to mention anybody else (omerta ring a bell?), or at a pinch he could dob in Vino and Kashechkin et al as known dopers for some street cred. Yet knowing full well what would be the ramifications he lumps Dodger in with the filthy blood doping swine.

Now the point of all this is NOT to find Dodger guilty of doping, it is to demonstrate he is unsuitable to be on clean Team Sky with their zero tolerance policy. Both before and after Brailsfords affidavit scheme.

Thats a lot of words there but still no links to any evidence better than attended a training camp and Sinkewtiz says t-mobile but not even Rogers specifically..

Do you honestly believe that any court anywhere in the world would ban Rogers on that skimpy evidence and would any pro team fire him?

Of course I was going to get flamed as soon as I brought up the UCI, but thanks everyone, I'm just as aware of the corruption that exists as any of you, but I'm also a realist and I don't ignore the fact that the UCI does in fact hand out bans to pro cyclists for doping offenses. So if anyone has evidence that Rogers is a protected rider (ala Armstrong) then please post it. Why did the UCI chose to protect Rogers and not say Ivan Basso who received a 2yr ban??

Hello? evidence? Anyone? Cover up? Links? Anything? Bueller? Bueller?

oh yes is professional cycling and EVERYONE IS DOPING. Of course silly me how could I forget.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

And now krebs cycle is defending my man Roggy hahaha.

I'm actually pleased he is - means his pay just went up, surely?

 

[Krebs cycle]

And now krebs cycle is defending my man Roggy hahaha.

Can you read?

I think you guys totally misrepresent my position in these debates. I am not arguing that Rogers is clean, do you understand that? I am saying that I don't know if Rogers doped in 2006 because the evidence is not strong enough for me to make an informed judgment.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I'm actually pleased he is - means his pay just went up, surely?

Do you speak english?

I think you guys totally misrepresent my position in these debates. I am not arguing that Rogers is clean, do you understand that? I am saying that I don't know if Rogers doped in 2006 because the evidence is not strong enough for me to make an informed judgment.

Hello? evidence? Anyone? Cover up? Links? Anything? Bueller? Bueller?

 

[Krebs cycle]

Man if the fight against doping were truely left up to some of you jokers the system would fail miserably and it would literally be no different today than it was at the height of the EPO era.

Over your heads though I suppose that one goes.

 

[Ferminal]

Is there a list of Ferrari clients broken down into the ones who received training plans, and the others who received doping plans? Has anyone actually seen a Ferrari training plan which didn't consist of circles and dots?

 

[sittingbison]

... I don't ignore the fact that the UCI does in fact hand out bans to pro cyclists for doping offenses.

Its partly my fault, I said it was Tygart criticizing UCI and this might have confused your scientific analytical mind. I was wrong, I apologise. It was USADA attorney Bill Bock who stated that and between 1999-2005, just two of the podium finishers at the Tour de France have not been associated with a doping case. One of those is Armstrong.

“By our count, of the 21 podium finishers at the Tour de France during the period from 1999-2005, only a single rider other than Mr. Armstrong was not implicated in doping by a subsequent investigation. Yet, only a single one of these riders had a positive test with the UCI.”

Rogers does not have to be a protected species. The UCI has patently failed in its duty to investigate and prosecute doping in cycling.

...Do you honestly believe that any court anywhere in the world would ban Rogers on that skimpy evidence and would any pro team fire him?...

Can you read?

Do you speak english?

...Over your heads though I suppose that one goes.

krebs, it is you who has obfuscated and wriggled, purposely ignoring the ridiculous position you have boxed yourself into. Who said anything about courts of law? Who said anything about direct evidence (which by the way asking for such is the last resort of the feeble minded)?

Now the point of all this is NOT to find Dodger guilty of doping, it is to demonstrate he is unsuitable to be on clean Team Sky with their zero tolerance policy. Both before and after Brailsfords affidavit scheme.

 

[Krebs cycle]

krebs, it is you who has obfuscated and wriggled, purposely ignoring the ridiculous position you have boxed yourself into. Who said anything about courts of law? Who said anything about direct evidence (which by the way asking for such is the last resort of the feeble minded)?

hahahaa!! I'm a scientist though aren't I? Asking for evidence is not the last thing I resort to, it's the first thing I look for and I'm proud of it.

You and everyone else are the ones obfuscating and wriggling around like a politician with fleas when I ask for you to produce something better than "attended training camp" ... "sinkewitz says t-mobile". That is 3 times in row you couldn't give me a straight up answer and finally made up some garbage about evidence being for the feeble minded.

Do the feeble minded even ask for evidence? I reckon you may have got that one ar$e about brother!

 

[Tinman]

What I enjoy about this place:
- we can speculate here
- many folk who contribute in different ways
- join the dots allows for a reasonable process to hypothesize
- some personal humility from time to time as we all get it wrong occasionally
- humor

What I don't enjoy:
- threads being clogged by personal conflict being played out to the audience rather than PM
- personal grand standers with a need to prove themselves separately from the topic at hand ("I told you so, I am a lawyer, I have a PhD", etc)
- posters with expectations that this place is the real world, who insist on only 'hard evidence', whatever that means...
- posters twisting and attributing statements to others that are not intended
- posters routinely playing the man rather than the content

 

[Tinman]

You and everyone else are the ones obfuscating and wriggling around like a politician with fleas when I ask for you to ...

Krebs we enjoy the good stuff you contribute. But please don't take on the whole of the board in your frustration to find support. You go too personal too often, just not necessary. You can and do do better, stick with what you're good at.

And by the way, the science is great, but sadly not the be all end all here. Just in case you needed a reminder.

 

[sittingbison]

...That is 3 times in row you couldn't give me a straight up answer...

le coq crowed thrice..

...Levi specifically named Dodger as being on Tenerife with Ferrari while Levi was there to dope. Ask yourself this - when omerta reigns supreme, why would Levi specifically name Dodger with Vino and the others...

...Levi Leipheimer can tell you - and has told us, in a legally binding document no less - that Mick Rogers was at a camp with Michele Ferrari alongside a number of other riders who have been busted....Notwithstanding that Ferrari was banned from acting as a doctor at the time Rogers was using him for coaching...

Leipheimer's affidavit states he, Popovych, Kashechkin, Vinokourov and Rogers were at a camp with Ferrari as coach in May 2005. Ferrari was given a suspended prison sentence and banned from acting as a doctor for 11 months in October 2004....

...For context, Rogers was at a camp alongside Levi Leipheimer (confessed doper), Alexander Vinokourov and Andriy Kashechkin (known and caught dopers) and Yaroslav Popovych (a long-suspected doper whose PC was raided). This was in May 2005, when Leipheimer was doping, Vino and probably Kashechkin were doping, and Popo had been in the top 5 of the Giro the previous two years...

...Ill say it again, Levi knew exactly what he was saying. He did not name Dodger as attending that Ferrari camp with Vino Kaschekin et all bu accident. Anybody who thinks otherwise is gullible or being knowingly obtuse

...Ferrari has just been found guilty and banned by the Italians (remember LA chasing down Simeoni in 2004 for testifying). Levi is on Tenerife with Ferrari TO DOPE. He has no need to mention anybody else (omerta ring a bell?), or at a pinch he could dob in Vino and Kashechkin et al as known dopers for some street cred. Yet knowing full well what would be the ramifications he lumps Dodger in with the filthy blood doping swine...

Is that enough for you krebs? It seems YOU can't read. As I said before, this is professional cycling in 2005. If you cannot see the relevance of Dodger being on Tenerife with Ferrari while he was doping every other client in the sordid grubby gang of dopers, that would prevent him being employed by a clean team with an anti doping policy with zero tolerance, you are being obtuse. Gullible is reserved for the general public

hahahaa!! I'm a scientist though aren't I?

lol

 

[Ferminal]

sb - do you have any idea why someone would go to the trouble (and risk) of working with a banned person, but only use them for minimal gains? To me it would seem a bit counter-intuitive to not maximise the results from that relationship.

 

[thehog]

What I enjoy about this place:
- we can speculate here
- many folk who contribute in different ways
- join the dots allows for a reasonable process to hypothesize
- some personal humility from time to time as we all get it wrong occasionally
- humor

What I don't enjoy:
- threads being clogged by personal conflict being played out to the audience rather than PM
- personal grand standers with a need to prove themselves separately from the topic at hand ("I told you so, I am a lawyer, I have a PhD", etc)
- posters with expectations that this place is the real world, who insist on only 'hard evidence', whatever that means...
- posters twisting and attributing statements to others that are not intended
- posters routinely playing the man rather than the content

Good post.

 

[Tinman]

sb - do you have any idea why someone would go to the trouble (and risk) of working with a banned person, but only use them for minimal gains? To me it would seem a bit counter-intuitive to not maximise the results from that relationship.

unless many marginal >>> minimal...

 

[Krebs cycle]

le coq crowed thrice..


Is that enough for you krebs? It seems YOU can't read. As I said before, this is professional cycling in 2005. If you cannot see the relevance of Dodger being on Tenerife with Ferrari while he was doping every other client in the sordid grubby gang of dopers, that would prevent him being employed by a clean team with an anti doping policy with zero tolerance, you are being obtuse. Gullible is reserved for the general public

lol

Ok so you just repeated the same thing over and over like 10 times. Didn't I already say that "attended a ferrari training camp" doesn't cut it? I want to see more guts. Sure it looks suspicious and I'm not naive as to what was going on in pro cycling circa 2005-2006, but it's not enough for me to say with 100% certainty... Rogers is dirtier than a hooker's sanitary pad in the tropics. Why? Because I know that Rogers power data that were measured over the years at the AIS are amongst the best that Australia has on record with Cadel being at the top, and his palmares from junior through senior ranks demonstrate that. Rogers on dope should actually be better than Cadel but he never has been. He came 9th in the 2006 tour and I think it is possible he could have achieved that without doping.

Again, I'm not saying he was clean in 2006, just that given his long term pedigree going back to his Charlie Walsh days, it is possible he could have performed at that level without PEDs.

 

[ebandit]

the whole hog

Only Wiggins did

hog another accusation........................completely lacking substance

any chance you can back it up?

as to rogers?................debate continues.......same suspicion but not

enough evidence to give him the push from team sky

 

[Tinman]

Because I know that Rogers power data that were measured over the years at the AIS are amongst the best that Australia has on record with Cadel being at the top

Now you are talking.

 

[martinvickers]

What I enjoy about this place:
- we can speculate here
- many folk who contribute in different ways
- join the dots allows for a reasonable process to hypothesize
- some personal humility from time to time as we all get it wrong occasionally
- humor

What I don't enjoy:
- threads being clogged by personal conflict being played out to the audience rather than PM
- personal grand standers with a need to prove themselves separately from the topic at hand ("I told you so, I am a lawyer, I have a PhD", etc)
- posters with expectations that this place is the real world, who insist on only 'hard evidence', whatever that means...
- posters twisting and attributing statements to others that are not intended
- posters routinely playing the man rather than the content

Translated

What I like -

Talking sh*t

What I don't like -

Being called on it.

What can I tell you, sucks to be you...

 

[RownhamHill]

What I enjoy about this place:
- we can speculate here
- many folk who contribute in different ways
- join the dots allows for a reasonable process to hypothesize
- some personal humility from time to time as we all get it wrong occasionally
- humor

What I don't enjoy:
- threads being clogged by personal conflict being played out to the audience rather than PM
- personal grand standers with a need to prove themselves separately from the topic at hand ("I told you so, I am a lawyer, I have a PhD", etc)
- posters with expectations that this place is the real world, who insist on only 'hard evidence', whatever that means...
- posters twisting and attributing statements to others that are not intended
- posters routinely playing the man rather than the content

This is a very good post, which I agree almost completely with, except, in my opinion, for the bolded bit.

The Clinic is very much part of the real world – it's published material on a mainstream cycling site, that lots of people read – riders, fans, journalists alike. As such it helps set the media narrative/context for how we all think about and discuss riders, and has very real world affects – for good or ill.

This isn't to say that I think people shouldn't speculate – I like all the things you've highlighted as things you enjoy, too – simply that when speculating there should be a bit more awareness of the evidential limits to the speculation. Everyone posting really is a real person in the real world, and the people you're posting about really are real people too. This isn't (despite some posters continued attempts to prove otherwise), or perhaps I should say, shouldn't be, a parallel reality world, where it really is ludicrous to expect those who assert that all and sundry are guilty of of all sorts of stuff on the basis of gut feeling and joining the dots, but not provide any real actual evidence.

As an aside, lots of people on twitter who recently named an 80s politician as a paedophile are currently finding out the hard way that their contributions to twitter very much are part of the real world.

Finally, in the interests of constructive conversation. Can someone clarify the details of Italian ban of Ferrari in 2004? How I read Libertine's post is that as Ferrari was banned in 2004, and as Rogers was working with him in 2005, then by definition he's guilty of flouting the ban, and guilty of some kind of offence (regardless of what he did with Ferrari) - which is completely fair enough, and goes way beyond speculation (obviously). What I'm not clear about is who the ban was from, and who it applied to - was it a UCI/WADA type thing that all pro-riders were bound by, or was it more of a local, you can't practise in Italy type thing? (I'm not interested in the rights or wrongs, just the details of the ban!)