Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Darryl Webster]

Geert Leinders. What do we have on Sky,s Doctor?. As you might imagine over here in blighty critisism of Sky is met with a barage of nonsense and big shouts of " evidence".
If anyones got any useful links regards this dodgy Dr to support the case that a Quack like him doesnt belong on any team making claim to be clean could you post em up.
It aint much fun being pretty much a lone voice over here..it all gets a bit personal .
Anyone fancy contributing heres Cycling Weekly,s forum. : http://forums.cyclingweekly.co.uk/forum.php

 

[wattage]

I think there will be some outside factor that will blow the whole lid on Sky doping. I dont hold my breath for Sky positive, since I think UCI and ASO would just not allow it. It would be bad for business.

I just hope we would see it sooner rather than later.

 

[Fergoose]

Something unsurprisingly not picked up on by folk is that Wiggins had a few spats on Twitter prior to the TdF. He launched a charity called "Wiggo Foundation" in late May and then immediately received tweets accusing him of being an egotist for attaching his name to a charity. That he was doing it for his own ego first and foremost rather than to help people. It understandably got right up Wiggin's nose and there were some curt replies from him on the matter.

Therefore, part of the venom in his reply is almost certainly directed at rude folk on Twitter in general, rather than specifically anyone making remarks about doping. The tweets were around late May, but I'll be damned if I can find them now so he has obviously had them deleted somehow.

I note a complete absence of remarks about yesterdays stage by the "Sky-must-be-doping-more-than-others" brigade. It's encouraging that the best you have is sound and fury rather than fresh observations. It's also encouraging for the sport that there are no fresh posts in any Lotto thread in the clinic given that they had exactly the same effect on the peloton as Sky did on the preceding stage. Colour me unsurprised!

 

[pelodee]

CyclingNews gets into the act:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tour-de-france/stage-8/photos/230632

Better appreciate it now before they take it down!

"yeah, that's not right. It's coming down now."

http://i50.tinypic.com/2hn6pa8.png

 

[D Avoid]

Entertainment?. Peeps enjoy pro wrestling knowing full well it aint straight but still able to admire the athetisism.
Doping in pro cycling is as old as pro cycling and for decades played its part in the sports attraction for many fans. Its rather like a real life soap opera.
In the great scheme of all thats wrong in the world its pretty low on the list of priorities to sort out but we all have our own personal interests and reasons for them.
Its easy to dismiss it all as unimportant but for many genuine lovers of the sport who know the devestation caused to individual lives it feels almost an obligation to speek out. Doping, and in particuler doping in from the late 80,s onwards causes stolen carreers from those who ride clean, in many cases broken relationships, mental health problems and even death for both dopers and none dopers.
I know of one former UK champ for who doping caused him to lose all pleasure in his achievements and a severe curtailment of his carreer. Life after cycling was frought with depression and addiction, that addidction finaly claiming his life before he reached 50.
Personally as a rider who was clean ( you,l have to take my word on that) my dreams were shattered and that , for many years contributed to severe depressions and even suicide attempts. Pathetic realy on reflection but then depression isnt reasonable otherwise it wouldnt be depression.
So I,d say many of those who, like me, love the sport, speek out as and when they see "suspect" in the hope, perhaps naivily, that by doing so clean riders are encouraged and those fighting doping keep doing so.
Those dead riders deserve that.

Well done Darryl for daring(being brave enough)
to speak out. You might at some point like to address the levels of corruption through out the sport, I am aware of them but see nothing of it in print.

 

[UlleGigo]

It's also encouraging for the sport that there are no fresh posts in any Lotto thread in the clinic given that they had exactly the same effect on the peloton as Sky did on the preceding stage.

Just like they have been doing all season. Oh wait.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Just like they have been doing all season. Oh wait.

So you are saying Lotto peaked just for the Tour hence they must be doping? I see...

 

[Bala Verde]

Geert Leinders. What do we have on Sky,s Doctor?. As you might imagine over here in blighty critisism of Sky is met with a barage of nonsense and big shouts of " evidence".
If anyones got any useful links regards this dodgy Dr to support the case that a Quack like him doesnt belong on any team making claim to be clean could you post em up.
It aint much fun being pretty much a lone voice over here..it all gets a bit personal .
Anyone fancy contributing heres Cycling Weekly,s forum. : http://forums.cyclingweekly.co.uk/forum.php

Here's some stuff on his past at RAB

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=17096&highlight=leinders

He left in 2009, because he was unable to reconcile himself with the new rules and regulations that would guide the team in the wake of the Rasmussen incident.

He worked for Histor and Lotto before, and he provided Erik Dekker and Michael Boogerd with training advice.

I think he was the chief medical doctor at RAB, and recent allegations made by de Rooij (disgraced technical director who oversaw the Rasmussen debacle at RAB in 2007) said the RAB medical staff could pick up signals from riders and slow them down and correct them [i.e. their values, so they wouldn't test positive...]

He explicitly says "If it [doping] happened it was a decision made by the medical staff"

http://wielrennen.startpagina.nl/prikbord/read.php?3313,15445986,15446348#msg-15446348

http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/wielersport/4313591/__Rabo-arts_Geert_Leinders_stapt_op__.html

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=FS1FUJGR

Jans Koerts about Leinders in 2007

In 1997, je reed bij Rabobank, is de hematocriettest ingevoerd, een anti-epotest. Als het aantal rode bloedlichaampjes in je bloed vijftig procent bedraagt, mag je twee weken niet koersen. Tegelijk zet die test de deur open naar misbruik: renners met een hematocriet onder vijftig konden epo bijspuiten tot net onder vijftig, want epo was tot in 2000 niet opspoorbaar.

'Op een gegeven moment moest ik in de Ronde van Duinkerke bij ploegdokter Geert Leinders op de kamer komen. Hij controleerde mijn bloed. Daarna gaf hij me zouttabletten. Zouttabletten?! Vanavond goed drinken en zout nemen, anders zal het misschien veertien dagen rust zijn, zei hij. Maar als je geen doping neemt, hoef je toch ook niets te nemen om te maskeren? Nu, ik moest ook niets maskeren, maar wel onder 50 blijven. Probleem is dat mijn natuurlijke waarde tussen 49 en 50 schommelt: dat was dus nog een keer pech. Want andere renners met een natuurlijke waarde van 41 of zelfs 45 konden rustig bijspuiten. Dat is echt de rottigheid. Dat moet ook gewoon stoppen. Ik heb nog resultaten met mijn bloedwaarden als nieuweling. Iedere renner heeft die. Je moet die hematocrietgrens van vijftig afschaffen en het hele jaar door de bloedwaarden controleren. Dan weet je genoeg.'

In 1997 you rode with RAB and the hematocrit limit of 50 was introduced. If you exceed 50, you were automatically suspended for 2 weeks. At the same time, that test opens the doors for abuse: riders with hematocrit under 50 could just shoot themselves up to just below 50, because EPO was undetectable until 2000.

"At one point I had to visit team doctor Leinders in the Tour of Dunkirk. He checked my blood. Then he gave me salt-tablets (?). Salt- tablets???" "Tonight you need to drink well and take the salt, otherwise you might have to take a 14 day 'rest period." (referring to the automatic ban). "But if you don't take doping, I don't need to mask anything? Well, I had to stay under 50 (hematocrit). The problem was, my natural value was between 49-50; that was doubly unfortunate. Because other riders wioth natural values of 41 or even 45 could just shoot themselves up. That really sucked. That just has to stop. I still my blood values as a neo. Every rider has those. You have to get rid of this hematocrit limit of 50 and monitor blood the whole year. Then you know enough.

So according to this interview Geert Leinders knew full well what was going on, but he assisted him in staying below the limit to not get caught. He helped riders mask their values.

Does the team SKY "year round peaking" program have something to do with the blood passport? To avoid detection and anomalies, you have to stay within a bandwidth of parameters. Sudden increases or drops in values increase the off set score and make you more suspicious, but if you can manage to stay within a bandwidth all year long, there will be no huge drops or increases, and hence you won't look suspicious?

 

[Darryl Webster]

Well done Darryl for daring(being brave enough)
to speak out. You might at some point like to address the levels of corruption through out the sport, I am aware of them but see nothing of it in print.

Thank you. Yes corruption is a massive issue. So much vested interest from race organisers to governing bodies on keeping a lid on it. My carreer is a long time ago now and small fry compared the discussions taking place here.
Yet I witnesed riders injecting on 4 occasions , collusion in covering medical control evasion and had the unfortunate experience of being involved / forced into in a race fix that I won. I regulerly get accused of being bitter and envious because I cant present solid evidence of what I say but then very few can can they?.
No rider is gonna let ya take photo,s !
One of those I witnessed injecting is a DS on the current " top " team ...he never tested possitive, surprise , surprise. Peeps say " name names"...to those I say...you want to pay my legal bills?

 

[Caruut]

Geert Leinders. What do we have on Sky,s Doctor?. As you might imagine over here in blighty critisism of Sky is met with a barage of nonsense and big shouts of " evidence".
If anyones got any useful links regards this dodgy Dr to support the case that a Quack like him doesnt belong on any team making claim to be clean could you post em up.
It aint much fun being pretty much a lone voice over here..it all gets a bit personal .
Anyone fancy contributing heres Cycling Weekly,s forum. : http://forums.cyclingweekly.co.uk/forum.php

It's quite hard to find links right now because his name has exploded all over the internet with all the TeamSky criticisms over the last few days. He was team doctor at Rabobank from 1996 to 2007.

There's a few things I can find;

Leinders leaves Rabobank
English
He was apparently dissatisfied with the new team policies - the article slightly euphemistically refers to him as accompanying Boogerd and Dekker.

Rabobank tolerated doping from 1996-2007
English

A long article on all that happened at Rabobank, alleging that Leinders was given "carte blanche"
English

 

[Caruut]

I note a complete absence of remarks about yesterdays stage by the "Sky-must-be-doping-more-than-others" brigade. It's encouraging that the best you have is sound and fury rather than fresh observations. It's also encouraging for the sport that there are no fresh posts in any Lotto thread in the clinic given that they had exactly the same effect on the peloton as Sky did on the preceding stage. Colour me unsurprised!

They spent a huge amount of time on the front all day, on a rolling stage, of course they didn't have many left at the end of the race. Lotto didn't have exactly the same effect, nor did they do what they did in the same manner. Two riders who have, for their whole careers, been climbers, took a couple of turns on the front to try and shed some people. Vanendert won a MTF last year in the Tour and came 2nd in AGR. He is clearly a man who has some talent when the road goes upwards. Richie Porte and Mick Rogers do not fit the same profile as Jelle Vanendert.

 

[UlleGigo]

So you are saying Lotto peaked just for the Tour hence they must be doping? I see...

You don't see a thing. I was being sarcastic. Sometimes I wonder if a million 's are needed as a workaround for some of the denser members of this forum.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Cancellara passed Mollema like a rocket. Mollema being a complete d-bag and drafting.

Cancellara says good-bye.

 

[sniper]

It's quite hard to find links right now because his name has exploded all over the internet with all the TeamSky criticisms over the last few days. He was team doctor at Rabobank from 1996 to 2007.

There's a few things I can find;

Leinders leaves Rabobank
English
He was apparently dissatisfied with the new team policies - the article slightly euphemistically refers to him as accompanying Boogerd and Dekker.

Rabobank tolerated doping from 1996-2007
English

A long article on all that happened at Rabobank, alleging that Leinders was given "carte blanche"
English

interesting, thanks.

But it can't be all Leinders responsible for Sky's glory.
He never achieved with Rabo anything close to what Sky has achieved/is achieving, even though Boogerd was seen as a hugh talent destined to become a TdF contender.
Rabo's Tour history while Leinders was there is one filled with disappointments and unfulfilled expectations.
And Rasmussen in 2007 seems to have juiced largely outside of the team doping program.

 

[mastersracer]

Sigh.

The problem is not Wiggins. It's not Froome. It's not Porte. It's not Rogers. It's none of them in isolation (well, Rogers...). It's the combination of all of them.

and that's why the inference of doping is a poorly reasoned one. The fact that a team is dominant is not evidence in itself of doping because team dominance simply indicates relative performance. If the performance of riders considered individually is not 'the problem,' then the charge of doping is vacuous. I have no idea if Sky is doping, but if this thread were a school project in critical reasoning, it would get an F. At least speculation should be well-reasoned and based on the absolute performance of individual riders (e.g., someone stated that there is evidence that Rogers' performance is better now than when he was considered doping, but so far no one has produced a meaningful metric to support this claim).

 

[Franklin]

interesting, thanks.

But it can't be all Leinders responsible for Sky's glory.
He never achieved with Rabo anything close to what Sky has achieved/is achieving, even though Boogerd was seen as a hugh talent destined to become a TdF contender.

I beg your pardon?????

It seems you didn't watch 2007 when Menchov, Dekker and Boogerd motored the peloton through the Pyrenees with Rasmussen (and the postals) in their backocket.

 

[UlleGigo]

someone stated that there is evidence that Rogers' performance is better now than when he was considered doping, but so far no one has produced a meaningful metric to support this claim).

Except the man himself. But yeah apart from that nobody.

 

[Franklin]

and that's why the inference of doping is a poorly reasoned one. The fact that a team is dominant is not evidence in itself of doping because team dominance simply indicates relative performance. If the performance of riders considered individually is not 'the problem,' then the charge of doping is vacuous. I have no idea if Sky is doping, but if this thread were a school project in critical reasoning, it would get an F. At least speculation should be well-reasoned and based on the absolute performance of individual riders (e.g., someone stated that there is evidence that Rogers' performance is better now than when he was considered doping, but so far no one has produced a meaningful metric to support this claim).

Oh for fark sake... another one. Never mind the whole team structure that is very surprising for a clean team.

Masterracer, why did Sky hire this particular medical staff? *104 pages and still deafening silence on this simple question*

=> FFS sniper did you read De Rooy's statements where he put the responsibility for Rasmussen squarely on the medical team? even if Leinders didn't play a part (highly debatable considering other testimonies), he certainly saw it and allowed it through their own monitoring.

 

[sniper]

I beg your pardon?????

It seems you didn't watch 2007 when Menchov, Dekker and Boogerd motored the peloton through the Pyrenees with Rasmussen (and the postals) in their backocket.

But Rasmussen I assume largely 'operated' outside of the Rabo team doping program.
It was Rasmussen who had found some magic potion somewhere, not Leinders.

And as you say, Boogerd, Menchov, doing tasks they weren't destined to do. They were destined to win the tour, but never really came close.

 

[Ripper]

and that's why the inference of doping is a poorly reasoned one. The fact that a team is dominant is not evidence in itself of doping because team dominance simply indicates relative performance. If the performance of riders considered individually is not 'the problem,' then the charge of doping is vacuous. I have no idea if Sky is doping, but if this thread were a school project in critical reasoning, it would get an F. At least speculation should be well-reasoned and based on the absolute performance of individual riders (e.g., someone stated that there is evidence that Rogers' performance is better now than when he was considered doping, but so far no one has produced a meaningful metric to support this claim).

Phooooooom!

That's the sound of many posts flying right over your head. HAGD!

 

[Franklin]

Except the man himself. But yeah apart from that nobody.

It's getting silly really. People simply don't read the thread and just say "but this one thing in isolation, that sure could be real, right?". If then you point out there are a long list of strange things which need explanation it's deafening silence. And two pages on they start all over again.

- It's the performance (admitted by them selves when quoting their wattages)
- It's the structure of the medical team. <= really the marker in doping as is shown by cyclings history.
- It's the oddity that only two guys with links to Ferrari manage to keep up.
- It's the amazing form and maintaining this form through a year.
- It's a DS who learn the trade by USPS
- It's the ranking on the infamous suspicion list of certain riders.
- It's the history with VERY dirty teams by certain riders.

Yet we are ****ers/whiners when we refuse to go with this on faith alone.

It's truly the world backwards.

 

[UlleGigo]

It's getting silly really. People simply don't read the thread and just say "but this one thing in isolation, that sure could be real, right?". If then you point out there are a long list of strange things which need explanation it's deafening silence. And two pages on they start all over again.

- It's the performance (admitted by them selves when quoting their wattages)
- It's the structure of the medical team. <= really the marker in doping as is shown by cyclings history.
- It's the oddity that only two guys with links to Ferrari manage to keep up.
- It's the amazing form and maintaining this form through a year.
- It's a DS who learn the trade by USPS
- It's the ranking on the infamous suspicion list of certain riders.
- It's the history with VERY dirty teams by certain riders.

Yet we are ****ers/whiners when we refuse to go with this on faith alone.

It's truly the world backwards.

Pretty accurate. At times its akin to attempting to explain how gravity works to a room of cavemen.

 

[Bala Verde]

But Rasmussen I assume largely 'operated' outside of the Rabo team doping program.
It was Rasmussen who had found some magic potion somewhere, not Leinders.

And as you say, Boogerd, Menchov, doing tasks they weren't destined to do. They were destined to win the tour, but never really came close.

You misread the links.

They deny their was an 'official team doping regimen' (plausible deniability). Riders themselves were responsible for the products etc, but the doctors helped them use it properly, i.e. so that they 1) wouldn't kill themselves and 2) they wouldn't get caught. Medical staff would read the values and adjust those accordingly (perhaps even provide them with tips and techniques?).

Rasmussen's magic potion wasn't really magic at all. The only thing he needed to do was to administer it so that he didn't get caught. And Rasmussen was also said to push the envelope more than others. If Menchov only wanted to charge to x, Rasmussen might want to charge to y.

If other riders set an upper limit for themselves, doctors could ensure their personal preference would be achieved. If someone wanted to push his levels to more critical levels, doctors could ensure that would work as well. The articles never accuse or allege the medical staff charged riders to certain levels to enhance performance; it was the riders' personal choice to do it, and at what levels. It's like a rider who risks it all when he bombs down a mountain, and other riders who take it easier.

As far as I know, none of Leinders' riders at RAB ever tested positive, which means he is probably pretty good at masking doping, and to get your riders to pass the tests.

Dekker maybe? But that was due to a backdated EPO test?

There was also talk (from Rasmussen) that Leinders (and the Rooij) knew about his whereabouts (Mexico, instead of Italy or something).

 

[Fergoose]

They spent a huge amount of time on the front all day, on a rolling stage, of course they didn't have many left at the end of the race. Lotto didn't have exactly the same effect, nor did they do what they did in the same manner. Two riders who have, for their whole careers, been climbers, took a couple of turns on the front to try and shed some people. Vanendert won a MTF last year in the Tour and came 2nd in AGR. He is clearly a man who has some talent when the road goes upwards. Richie Porte and Mick Rogers do not fit the same profile as Jelle Vanendert.

So in turn:

Sky expended a lot of energy due to a failure to control breakaways. Their domestiques were non-factors in the closing stages as a result. Both those facts indicate one seriously inadequate team-wide doping programme right there.

Lotto broke the field down to I think 7 or 8 riders (they picked up one Leopard Trek from the breakaway and I am being generous as three of the lead group were riders who actually rejoined at the summit) and Sky broke it down to 5. So yes, if you are splitting hairs, it wasn’t the same effect – but Jelle’s effort (a fine one and not one I’m casting doubts on) was greater than any of the individual Sky riders on the preceding stage, as they spread the workload throughout the team.

Masterracer, why did Sky hire this particular medical staff? *104 pages and still deafening silence on this simple question*

Sorry, this was answered almost immediately by a poster a couple of days ago, which is why I've been ignoring it since then. They answered it better than I can, but it was words to the effect that the cycling world is a small one and any team is liable to have people with chequered pasts in their ranks given the extent to which doping was systemic in the 1990s & 2000s.

I’d add to that that dubious medical staff are in several teams since 2008, yet since 2008 individual performances in GTs (with some notable exceptions e.g. Contador, two folk in the 2011 Vuelta etc) have been considerably slower, less aggressive and less powerful than they were in preceding years. With all these bad pennies still in circulation as medical staff, some are clearly either reformed characters or are unable to have the same influence on their rider’s performance than was previously the case. Therefore, although it is disappointing that teams that claim to be squeaky clean (e.g. Garmin, Sky, Saxo) employ individuals who have likely facilitated doping in the past, it isn’t a smoking gun.

 

[Ferminal]

Wasn't the recent update on Rabo that Humanplasma was not just an individual thing?