Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Dazed and Confused]

Do you have first knowledge of this or is it either gossip or merely wild speculation?

Standard procedure when firing key personnel involving payoffs. Sky would want to make sure these fired people keep the marginal gains program information confidential.

Note: Not necessarily saying the marginals gains program is dirty.

 

[martinvickers]

Saxo missing out on the points from Rogers has really stuck in my craw.

But a recent article outlining riders moving to teams bringing their own salary has finally come to roost.

I wonder if Rogers' "leaving Sky deal" included paying his salary to Saxo.

Saxo don't get his points (?) but they do get a competent road captain (can't think off the top of my head who their Tour captain is and it ain't l'Espanol) and good rider who knows the ropes and the ins and outs of training programs and altitude camps.

It would be the easiest way to compensate Rogers (by paying someone else entirely) with the least amount of polemic wrt him leaving for doping-association reasons.

Entirely plausible.

Of course Rogers' was part of the 'clear out', like Yates, whatever Sky say, want to say or contractually have to say.

But Rogers' strengths as a captain are undeniable. Sky will lose out on the road, but if the clearout was in anyway genuine (and it was a significant clearout, to be fair), that was inevitable - everything else is just managing the story to avoid lawsuits and media. Not noble, but sensible, if you know what i mean. Saxo v Sky looks like being THE 'on the road' story of the year to come - off the road? anyone's guess, but Bruyneel looks like a man with nowt to lose....

 

[martinvickers]

It also poo poos 'marginal gains'; when you won clean then its ok just to give up your road captain and strongest mid stage GT domestique and say nothing about him leaving.

Doesn't add up.

Sky lost their DS and road captain after a stellar year with Tour and Gold Medal victories and it was treated like a junior mechanic leaving.

The one thing Brailsford hates is 'drama' - see the Pendleton fiasco for that - indeed, his aversion to the kind of mountain attacks many of us fans enjoy is a sign of that too - he has an endless bucket of money, of course he's going to use it to avoid 'blow-ups' in the press. He'd be mad not to, frankly! Sky like to give the impression of 'remorseless progression' both when it's the truth, and when it's not. They are the Borg, it's just what they do.

 

[Froome19]

Standard procedure when firing key personnel involving payoffs. Sky would want to make sure these fired people keep the marginal gains program information confidential.

Note: Not necessarily saying the marginals gains program is dirty.

He asked whether you have information? Not what is "Standard procedure"..?
And anyway..
What about Michael Rogers then?

 

[Joachim]

The one thing Brailsford hates is 'drama' - see the Pendleton fiasco for that - indeed, his aversion to the kind of mountain attacks many of us fans enjoy is a sign of that too - he has an endless bucket of money, of course he's going to use it to avoid 'blow-ups' in the press. He'd be mad not to, frankly!

There were a lot of those 'mountain attacks we all enjoy' in the full on EPO era, weren't there. Can't think why. Curiously, Wiggins can't launch those attacks, he has to let them go and then grind his way up at a consistent pace, staying out of the red and limiting his losses. For this, he is condemned as having no panache and being boring and yet apparently this is also the style of the archetypal doper.

You couldn't make it up if you tried

 

[martinvickers]

There were a lot of those 'mountain attacks we all enjoy' in the full on EPO era, weren't there. Can't think why. Curiously, Wiggins can't launch those attacks, he has to let them go and then grind his way up at a consistent pace, staying out of the red and limiting his losses. For this, he is condemned as having no panache and being boring and yet apparently this is also the style of the archetypal doper.

You couldn't make it up if you tried

I'd say this is the problem with comparing everything with Armstrong - he did it all.

Boring, relentless team ploughing uphill to fend off attacks (very wiggins)- check
Time trial domination (very wiggins) - check
Speaks english (very wiggins) - check

yet

Dominated Le Tour for nearly a decade (wiggo's not even close) - check
Zipping up mountains, altering acceleration, attacking at the drop of a hat when the mood/necessity took him (absolutely not wiggins) - check

and finally

functioning sociopath (jury's out on wiggo!!) - check

No-one wants to see a re-run of that b*stard, screwing the sport from behind. But "just like lance" is becoming the "godwin's law" of the forum - a comparison that is inevitable as the thread lengthens, univerally invoked, relevant or not. And it doesn't move the process, discussion, investigation on any further...

 

[Joachim]

It is indeed. The problem with this forum is it is about doping, purely. Therefore it is most attractive to people who want to talk about doping, and naturally that revolves around accusations. In essence, it is self-referential, and it has already developed its own set of truisms that people accept unquestioningly.

Which is ironic, given that anyone who points out that paradigms are being built upon shakey assumptions is immediately labelled as unquestioning (or just labelled 'troll', 'fanboy', or whatever puerile epithet they can come up with to stop you from questioning their view).

 

[martinvickers]

It is indeed. The problem with this forum is it is about doping, purely. Therefore it is most attractive to people who want to talk about doping, and naturally that revolves around accusations. In essence, it is self-referential, and it has already developed its own set of truisms that people accept unquestioningly.

That doesn't bother me so much. It's not like cycling doesn't deserve it

Which is ironic, given that anyone who points out that paradigms are being built upon shakey assumptions is immediately labelled as unquestioning (or just labelled 'troll', 'fanboy', or whatever puerile epithet they can come up with to stop you from questioning their view).

I could live without this, and the sarcasm as the height of humour, but still, different strokes...

 

[Parrulo]

oh the good old "only doped riders are able to attack on the mountains" argument. . .

is like saying "i like to act like some sort of cycling expert but actually i have no idea how cycling was like pre-1990"

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

It is indeed. The problem with this forum is it is about doping, purely.

Wow, you didn't know the clinic was on dope?

We are the dopest guys on the internet!

Gewiss - Carrera - Festina - US Postal - Rabo - Sky. All the same stuff, seen it before. Since you have been watching cycling for 30 years you should be able to see the fraud.

 

[Joachim]

I see you just edited your post, adding Gewiss and Carerra. Google-expert

 

[martinvickers]

oh the good old "only doped riders are able to attack on the mountains" argument. . .

is like saying "i like to act like some sort of cycling expert but actually i have no idea how cycling was like pre-1990"

1. cycling pre-1990 was regularly doped - Coppi doped, Anquetil doped, mercx doped. Kelly and Roche doped. And none of those guys did it for their complexion -well, maybe coppi.

2. Many of the mountain attacks of the era were 'superhuman', both in power and frankly quantity.

3. don't assume what other posters know. you'll invariably make a fool of yourself (a lesson learned the hard way).

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I see you just edited your post, adding Gewiss and Carerra. Google-expert

What do you want me to add? Mapei? Ariostea? Once? Saunier Duval? PDM?

Just ask. My eyes have been open the last 30 years. Yours?

And that was not meant as an insult, to be sure.

Patriottism is so boring.

 

[Joachim]

What do you want me to add?

Something of value would be nice. Certainly better than petty attempts at point-scoring.

Sorry, but don't bother responding to my posts anymore. I really can't be bothered with wasting time.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Something of value would be nice. Certainly better than petty attempts at point-scoring.

Sorry, but don't bother responding to my posts anymore. I really can't be bothered with wasting time.

I repeat: patriottism is boring.

But, you have been a keen follower of cycling for 30 years and you yet are not able to see the fraud at Sky.

It is the other way around, people should not respond to your postings and waste their time on people who do have an open mind.

 

[Franklin]

There were a lot of those 'mountain attacks we all enjoy' in the full on EPO era, weren't there. Can't think why. Curiously, Wiggins can't launch those attacks, he has to let them go and then grind his way up at a consistent pace, staying out of the red and limiting his losses. For this, he is condemned as having no panache and being boring and yet apparently this is also the style of the archetypal doper.

You couldn't make it up if you tried

Miguel Indurain is clean since he didn't attack in the mountains.
Menchov is clean since he doesn't attack in the mountains.

Laurent Fignon was full on Epo in 1984 and 1989

doesn't work this way.

But let me be very clear about one thng as you obviously didn;t watch cycling back then: In the 80's there were a ton more attacks in the mountains. What you saw in the Epo era was a completely different ball game.

1. cycling pre-1990 was regularly doped - Coppi doped, Anquetil doped, mercx doped. Kelly and Roche doped. And none of those guys did it for their complexion -well, maybe coppi.

2. Many of the mountain attacks of the era were 'superhuman', both in power and frankly quantity.

3. don't assume what other posters know. you'll invariably make a fool of yourself (a lesson learned the hard way).

Considering a lot of that was Amphetamines it's extremely and utterly questionable how that would have helped. The most effective drug might have been cortico-steroids, but that has it's limited use (recovery!).

Cycling isn't an explosive sport, which is why steroids don't do what they did for other sports. Epo was the first drug that had an impact on the cardiovascular system, which affects endurance.

 

[will10]

It is indeed. The problem with this forum is it is about doping, purely. Therefore it is most attractive to people who want to talk about doping, and naturally that revolves around accusations. In essence, it is self-referential, and it has already developed its own set of truisms that people accept unquestioningly.

Which is ironic, given that anyone who points out that paradigms are being built upon shakey assumptions is immediately labelled as unquestioning (or just labelled 'troll', 'fanboy', or whatever puerile epithet they can come up with to stop you from questioning their view).

And yet almost all of your posts on this forum have been in the Clinic. C'mon man, this has gone on too long, we know you've been here before, can't you put us out of our misery?

 

[sideshadow]

Summary

Is there a summary of points for/against SKY doping? There’s certainly no evidence but I’ll try to arrange from strong to weak points. I can think of the following, feel free to add.

For doping:
1) Dr. Geert Leinders and Dr. Fabio Bartalucci. We know the story, both dope doctors hired after SKY’s abysmal 2010 performance.
2) Their dismissal. If SKY had nothing to hide, why fire them AFTER they won the tour?
3) Their performance. This seems like a major point in some people’s arguments, it’s sad in a way that our sport has come to this, questioning performance. We all saw it, dominant in the mountains, dominant in the time trials. People say Wiggins never attacked like a doper, but certainly he didn’t need to. Froome TTing faster than Cancellara was weird for me.
4) Undedectable AICAR. No one can argue that SKY had the skinniest riders, personally I can’t think of any riders with lower BMI’s.
5) Team policy, more importantly changes of policy. Not hiring from outside UK, not hiring personnel with known doping past, certainly changed quickly.

Neither here nor there:
1) Froome’s ‘incurable’ bilharzia, making his blood passport useless. Praziquantel cures more than 85 percent of individuals, retreatment of patients with residual infections results in cure in more than 80 percent.
2) Wiggins’s behaviour also seems a big issue for some. Eg. Calling trolls the C word, ‘never raced against Armstrong’, trying to pay less taxes etc.

Against doping:
1) Everything else.
2) No evidence.
3) British riders don’t dope.

 

[Joachim]

@Will. You don't know anything about me, nor will you ever. Besides, what has where I post got anything to do with anything?

Attacking the poster. Yes, we all know why people resort to that.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Attacking the poster. Yes, we all know why people resort to that.

Semantics.

Something of value would be nice. Certainly better than petty attempts at point-scoring.

Sorry, but don't bother responding to my posts anymore. I really can't be bothered with wasting time

Please keep trolling.

 

[Franklin]

SNIP

Pretty much sums it up.

But there's a tangent that disappears in this black and white dope/not doped discussion.

I simply do not accept Sky's policies on hiring. Be they clean or not, a team hiring a person as Geert Leinders needs to have it's management scourged from the sport. And yes, smaller teams hiring the like of Dr. Menuet should get the same treatment.

I can grudgingly accept letting riders with a murky past behind the wheel of the cars, but doctors and higher management... hell no. One strike, out.

And yes, I'm the powerless don quichotte, but as long as more people feell like me, chances are we get heard. Ad yes, this forum does carry a tiny bit of weight.

 

[sideshadow]

@Franklin. I agree. We should look to the past, after LA won his first tours there was no evidence and less speculation, but when Lemond and Walsh found out he was working with Ferrari, this was enough for them. They were right.

I love this quote:

“What could a doctor, completely unknown to the organization, offer that I can’t or won’t? Doping is the fairly obvious answer.” - Prentice Steffen, after he was let go by USPS.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Wild speculation= Clinic 'fact'.

quoted for truth

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

oh the good old "only doped riders are able to attack on the mountains" argument. . .

is like saying "i like to act like some sort of cycling expert but actually i have no idea how cycling was like pre-1990"

that's even more stupid. pre 1990 riders rode entire seasons. gt riders all had bmi's that are now impossible to win gt's with except evans. the 90s not only gave doping, it also gave specalisation for certain races. now riders select the races they want to win and build around that. you can't compare the 80s to now in anything except that both era's are relatively clean

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

@Franklin. I agree. We should look to the past, after LA won his first tours there was no evidence and less speculation, but when Lemond and Walsh found out he was working with Ferrari, this was enough for them. They were right.

I love this quote:

“What could a doctor, completely unknown to the organization, offer that I can’t or won’t? Doping is the fairly obvious answer.” - Prentice Steffen, after he was let go by USPS.

what? where are you from? speculation was everywhere, insiders and outsiders a like.