Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Dear Wiggo]

Was overlooking Freiburg and Ferrari when hiring Mick Rogers a similar c*ck-up? Or overlooking Yates' and de Jongh's histories? That's an awful lot of oversight for a team that prides itself on attention to detail.

I am curious which detail they overlooked when their riders had to pull out of the Vuelta with a viral infection.

Was it a cyclist-specific infection that their (non-cycling) doctor at the time had never seen?

It was in the first week of the Vuelta, so not like something you'd only encounter after 3000 km and 3 weeks of top level racing.

They had managed to complete 2 GTs by the time they hit the Vuelta: the Giro and the Tour de France. And the riders themselves had countless other GT experiences between them.

 

[Wiggo Warrior]

I am curious which detail they overlooked when their riders had to pull out of the Vuelta with a viral infection.

Was it a cyclist-specific infection that their (non-cycling) doctor at the time had never seen?

It was in the first week of the Vuelta, so not like something you'd only encounter after 3000 km and 3 weeks of top level racing.

They had managed to complete 2 GTs by the time they hit the Vuelta: the Giro and the Tour de France. And the riders themselves had countless other GT experiences between them.

I haven't found anything definitive about the viral infection, but this may be where the hand shaking ban during races and training came from as mentioned by many members of the press this year and last.

I imagine most sport doctors are more used to treating injuries rather than serious viral infections. In football a sufferer of such a virus would be unlikely to be allowed anywhere near another member of the team but that is easier to achieve when you are talking a 90 minute game not a three week race in another country.

Maybe they should have employed Test cricket experienced doctors instead.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I haven't found anything definitive about the viral infection, but this may be where the hand shaking ban during races and training came from as mentioned by many members of the press this year and last.

I imagine most sport doctors are more used to treating injuries rather than serious viral infections. In football a sufferer of such a virus would be unlikely to be allowed anywhere near another member of the team but that is easier to achieve when you are talking a 90 minute game not a three week race in another country.

Maybe they should have employed Test cricket experienced doctors instead.

I also read something about washing your hands properly. But the problem (for me at least) remains - 2 GTs already in the bag as a team, countless others for riders on the team, and yet a very painful lesson.

 

[Joachim]

Was overlooking Freiburg and Ferrari when hiring Mick Rogers a similar c*ck-up? Or overlooking Yates' and de Jongh's histories? That's an awful lot of oversight for a team that prides itself on attention to detail.

Sorry, remind me, when were any of those three sanctioned for doping offences? You really don't understand the distinction, do you? Now, David Millar will never get a ride with Sky. Wiggins openly said he didn't want him on the GB road team this year.

Don't let facts get in the way of things.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Sorry, remind me, when were any of those three sanctioned for doping offences? You really don't understand the distinction, do you? Now, David Millar will never get a ride with Sky. Wiggins openly said he didn't want him on the GB road team this year.

Don't let facts get in the way of things.

Sky, at the very beginning, said nobody who had any connection to doping. Not nobody who had been sanctioned for doping.

Personally, I consider having trained with Michele Ferrari and having been attested as going to the Freiburg clinic along with a bunch of blood dopers on a Tour de France rest day to be a connection to doping. Do you not?

Here is a discussion with Brailsford from February 2011 where he points out that Team Sky are having to soften their stance as they started out wanting to omit anybody with any association with doping (his words, not mine). Even then, the article writers drew attention to the fact that Michael Barry probably didn't meet the criteria when he was signed in 2009 when that policy was still in place. He also admits that the hype and bluster they introduced themselves with was a mistake.

There is a difference between not employing anybody who has served a doping suspension, and not employing anybody who has been associated with doping. That's why, if Brailsford were true to his word, Mick Rogers should have had no place on Team Sky, and neither should Sean Yates or Michael Barry. But that policy was increasingly unworkable, and hard to reconcile with some of the targets the team had set, and they had to re-assess.

So don't let facts get in the way of your blithely attacking others for not knowing the facts, when the facts don't actually support your argument, because as Team Sky's original stated policy ran, there should have been no distinction to be made between Mick Rogers and David Millar - both should have been no-nos.

 

[Joachim]

One persons 'connection' is another persons rumour. How do you know that Yates had anything to do with the doping at USPS? The USADA dossier has only just come out...I don't recall any citations of Yates in there. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, Sky did soften their stance. Doesn't mean they are softer on the use of doping within their team, just means that they realised that pretty much everyone has some sort of connection, however tenuous.

Even Brailsford....arrested as part of David Millar investigation. Doesn't mean anything, just means he happened to be there at the time but you can spin it to make it look bad if if suits your stance.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Even Brailsford....arrested as part of David Millar investigation. Doesn't mean anything, just means he happened to be there at the time but you can spin it to make it look bad if if suits your stance.

Wasn't Brailsford talking to Millar at the time (early summer 2004) about the upcoming Olympic Games? As DB was the GB performance director and DM the leading GB endurance cyclist at the time, it would have been decidedly odd had they not had some communications in Olympic year. The fact that DB was there when the Gendarmes arrived seems like a genuine coincidence, though I know the Clinic doesn't believe in coincidences!

The key questions (if there was something suspicious about Brailsford being there at the time) are what exactly was his role in Millar's doping and why would he be there at the time of Millar's arrest?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

There are hundreds of World Tour riders making a 100K plus, and they are just domestiques. Why the hell would any of them waste their time on the track?

To win an Olympic gold medal. For riders from most countries, an Olympic gold medal would be worth far more than their contract as a domestique.

If the talent pool on the track is so limited, it would presumably have been an absolute breeze in 2004 for any one of the roadies to which you refer to rock up to their local velodrome, churn out a few 4:10 IPs and then win the OGs without breaking sweat.

But they didn't even try. Not one of them. They either couldn't be bothered - understandable, as who would risk their career as a domestique for anything as trivial as an Olympic gold? - or they knew they weren't fast enough.

 

[Froome19]

Apologies.

What I meant was if he did turn up to races we'd know about it. I wasn't trying to be smart.

It was on Cyclingnews own website;



http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/leinders-not-renewed-after-team-sky-investigation

You'll find similar on Sky's own website for other races. He was used in a sattalite consultive type role.

The Tour is one race. Sky have more than one doctor. The chances that the doctor for the Tour will be Leinders is probably less than 50%.

That certainly does not bear proof of any sort that he acted as a behind the scenes doping doctor. I appreciate you toning down your posting style, but the proofs and claims are still rather far fetched..

I'm not following. Just says he was the Doctor. Was he there or not? Can't see any verification of such.

Besides doesn't really matter. Wasn't at the Tour or the Vuelta but working behind the scenes as I early stated.

Sorry. Not buying it.

You do not need to buy it, but generally if he was the doctor for a race then he would be at the race.

I do not see why you would think otherwise?

Also just because he was not at the Tour and Vuelta does not mean he was working behind the scenes. Please stop jumping to assumptions.

 

[Benotti69]

To win an Olympic gold medal. For riders from most countries, an Olympic gold medal would be worth far more than their contract as a domestique.

If the talent pool on the track is so limited, it would presumably have been an absolute breeze in 2004 for any one of the roadies to which you refer to rock up to their local velodrome, churn out a few 4:10 IPs and then win the OGs without breaking sweat.

But they didn't even try. Not one of them. They either couldn't be bothered - understandable, as who would risk their career as a domestique for anything as trivial as an Olympic gold? - or they knew they weren't fast enough.

Olympic golds dont pay the mortgage. Simple.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

One persons 'connection' is another persons rumour. How do you know that Yates had anything to do with the doping at USPS? The USADA dossier has only just come out...I don't recall any citations of Yates in there. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, Sky did soften their stance. Doesn't mean they are softer on the use of doping within their team, just means that they realised that pretty much everyone has some sort of connection, however tenuous.

Even Brailsford....arrested as part of David Millar investigation. Doesn't mean anything, just means he happened to be there at the time but you can spin it to make it look bad if if suits your stance.

Yates failed a test as a rider. He was exonerated for some reason however, so they may have considered that safe distance enough.

The problem is that when Sky softened their stance, it was done quietly, whereas when they came into the sport with their super-clean statements, it was done all-guns-blazing, which makes a rod for their back when they're then sheepishly dropping DSes and riders into the night hoping we won't spot them.

I wouldn't call Mick Rogers' or Geert Leinders' connections to doping "tenuous", but they were both signed before that interview. Leinders' appointment was even kept quiet.

However, another problem for Sky is that an 'association with doping' does not specify what that entails. The 'nobody who's tested positive' that you posited when attacking my previous post would be a far more workable system, however as we know only a fraction of those who dope test positive (as confirmed by Puerto, the Reasoned Decision and others). But in the world of trial-by-PR, it is very lax of a team priding itself on its attention to detail to leave that interpretation unspecified, because it invites people to second-guess them. How does a team that specifies nobody with an association with doping then justify hiring a doctor who is named as having been in on Rasmussen's deceit, and a rider who has long been a known Ferrari client and who was named by another rider as being involved in the T-Mobile Freiburg clinic investigation - that Andreas Klöden paid to make go away? Maybe Bradley Wiggins has Andreas Klöden to thank, indirectly of course, for his Tour de France win, because without that, maybe Rogers would have been a no-no for Sky, and then they might have had a less experienced, successful road captain to keep cool heads prevailing when attacks came.

 

[Joachim]

Olympic golds dont pay the mortgage. Simple.

That would depend on the size of your mortgage.(and your sport)

Chris Hoy is a multi-millionaire

 

[Benotti69]

That would depend on the size of your mortgage.(and your sport)

Chris Hoy is a multi-millionaire

Never heard that Hoy is a multi millionaire.

Wiggins made no money from his Olumpic golds.

 

[dolophonic]

Based at Manchester Velodrome
Brailsford is also BC performance director
Majority of riders are British

Yes i know this.. but 6 of their 9 riders a the tour were not form the UK..
They also have Service Course in Belgium and Italy.

In this day and age of mulit national corporations the concept of "a National teams" is just another exercise in "spinn" ( ) and shows how the PR machine cranks out hype that people believe in .. like winning the Tour clean...just saying.

 

[Joachim]

Yates failed a test as a rider. He was exonerated for some reason however, so they may have considered that safe distance enough.

TUE iirc.

Where I am totally with you is that Sky's initial stance was handled in a totally inept way. PR disaster for Sky. To be fair to Brailsford, he didn't need to take that stance anyway....nobody else is, and nobody was asking.

Naievety or cynicism? I'm not ruling out either, yet. I have an open mind on it.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Wasn't Brailsford talking to Millar at the time (early summer 2004) about the upcoming Olympic Games? As DB was the GB performance director and DM the leading GB endurance cyclist at the time, it would have been decidedly odd had they not had some communications in Olympic year. The fact that DB was there when the Gendarmes arrived seems like a genuine coincidence, though I know the Clinic doesn't believe in coincidences!

The key questions (if there was something suspicious about Brailsford being there at the time) are what exactly was his role in Millar's doping and why would he be there at the time of Millar's arrest?

I would be surprised to find out Brailsford had any involvement in Millar's doping back then. At Cofidis it was pretty open, and riders discussed what they were doing and with who fairly openly. They knew who was doing it and who wasn't (apparently Tombak and Moncoutié, and that's all). We can be pretty sure from other sources that many of the drugs were acquired in Eastern Europe and brought in by soigneur Boguslaw Madejak. Marek Rutkiewicz was stopped in possession of EPO and HGH, and Robert Sassone was caught with EPO and testosterone, naming Gaumont as his source. As Millar was caught up in the Cofidis affair, it is only reasonable to assume that he either had no need for external sources of the drugs, or that others within the team would have been aware of any external sources that he had, as both Gaumont and Millar have attested that riders talked pretty openly about the doping, what they had, what they were using and so on, and used to mock and deride Moncoutié for not joining in.

Therefore, at worst I can imagine Brailsford was aware that Millar had used doping products, I can't really see any reason to suspect that he was involved in the actual doping procedures.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Olympic golds dont pay the mortgage. Simple.

For a rider from a country with no tradition of road riding or winning Olympic golds, an IP gold would be highly valuable if carefully marketed. It's not like winning the IP would involve much effort for any half decent roadie if Bro is to believed, so it could be fitted in between pro team commitments, much as the Olympic rr and tt are.

You're not saying a domestique wouldn't fancy being on the top step of the podium for once, are you, even if it's not lucrative in its own right?y

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

You're not saying a domestique wouldn't fancy being on the top step of the podium for once, are you, even if it's not lucrative in its own right?y

Please ask Wiggo.

 

[BroDeal]

To win an Olympic gold medal. For riders from most countries, an Olympic gold medal would be worth far more than their contract as a domestique.

If the talent pool on the track is so limited, it would presumably have been an absolute breeze in 2004 for any one of the roadies to which you refer to rock up to their local velodrome, churn out a few 4:10 IPs and then win the OGs without breaking sweat.

But they didn't even try. Not one of them. They either couldn't be bothered - understandable, as who would risk their career as a domestique for anything as trivial as an Olympic gold? - or they knew they weren't fast enough.

Ridiculous misunderstanding of the basic economics of the situation.

If you are a young promising cyclist then what are you going to do? Go to the track where a handful of people at the top make money from endorsements and everyone else subsists on the scraps that their national fed and national Olympic funding hands out, likely scraping by like that for years and years before reaching your physical peak, or go to the road where you can turn pro at nineteeen or twenty and be one of hundreds upon hundreds of riders making good money with the possibility of making a lot more if you can reach a status of a cut above the average domestique? The decision is a no brainer. The best riders fight it out on the road.

People have urged Cancellara to race on the track because they know he would dominate just like he does on the road. He has not. It is just not worth his time.

 

[Joachim]

Yep the big money is on the road. However, that doesn't equate to them being superior sportsmen to track riders. There are a number of current top pros who gravitated to road from the track. Cavendish being just one of them. He road the boards in Beijing 2008 and was the only member of the GB track squad to return without a medal. A bit of a simplistic point, I know, but illustrative nonetheless.

 

[Franklin]

How is a court decision that the management team of rabo is accomplish of whereabouts fraud a "rumour" or "tenuous?

The denial in here is amazing.

Quite simply: They were fully aware of Leinders past.

The idea that you hire a doctor and somehow don't know he was part of the management team of one of the most successful teams is ridiculous. And you certainly look into doping cases a doctor was involved with. It's beyond belief you simply hire a doctor no questions asked.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Yep the big money is on the road. However, that doesn't equate to them being superior sportsmen to track riders. There are a number of current top pros who gravitated to road from the track. Cavendish being just one of them. He road the boards in Beijing 2008 and was the only member of the GB track squad to return without a medal. A bit of a simplistic point, I know, but illustrative nonetheless.

It illustrates your depth of knowledge. The reason Cavendish didn't medal is because Wiggins rode like a C grader in their event, the madison.

 

[xcleigh]

It illustrates your depth of knowledge. The reason Cavendish didn't medal is because Wiggins rode like a C grader in their event, the madison.

Unfortunately for Cavendish, Wiggins had the IP and Team Pursuit as his focus. Hence the 'C grade' performance in the Madison one could suppose.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Unfortunately for Cavendish, Wiggins had the IP and Team Pursuit as his focus. Hence the 'C grade' performance in the Madison one could suppose.

I knew someone would pipe up with this. Joachim's point was Cavendish rode the track but did no good coz even though he's a top roadie sprinter, track riders are as or more elite. Did you miss that?

But both points are missing the point: it was a team race, and you're very much dependent on the other rider as a team. Cavendish missed out because Wiggins rode poorly, NOT because trackies are as good as or better than roadies.

I also think you'll find it's more Wiggins partied hard post-medal winning IP rides. I don't think Cavendish is that dumb that he'd be upset at Wiggins if it was justifiable to ride a couple of IPs and then have nothing left in the tank.

Makes even more of a mockery for Wiggins' 2012 season if that really was the reason.

 

[martinvickers]

I knew someone would pipe up with this. Jokequim's point was Cavendish rode the track but did no good coz even though he's a top roadie sprinter, track riders are as or more elite. Did you miss that?

But both points are missing the point: it was a team race, and you're very much dependent on the other rider as a team. Cavendish missed out because Wiggins rode poorly, NOT because trackies are as good as or better than roadies.

I also think you'll find it's more Wiggins partied hard post-medal winning IP rides. I don't think Cavendish is that dumb that he'd be upset at Wiggins if it was justifiable to ride a couple of IPs and then have nothing left in the tank.

Makes even more of a mockery for Wiggins' 2012 season if that really was the reason.

Hold on, Wiggo. The basic point is whether or not 'track cyclists' are some lesser breed than roadies - presumably so that Wiggins IP domination can be dismissed as evidence of future road potential.

After all, why would anyone with any talent ride track, when all the money is on the road, right?

Except, aside from the olympics, Cavendish was a two time track world champion - 2005,2008 - he won a commonwealth games track scratch, and a European track scratch (u-23?) in between - Cavendish rode track as his main thing for years - and can we accept that Cav is pretty good at his road job?

The question is then, what are talents like cavendish, and Matt Goss and Taylor Phinney doing wasting their time and earning potential on the track?