Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Hugh Januss]

This same argument started mid 1999 and we know how that eventually played out. The only difference is now we know for a fact that this sort of thing can and does happen in the UCI world. It is not just wild conspiracy theory speculation to think that there is something more than meets the eye when a team is that dominant, and the fact that all the same catch phrases are present and accounted for does nothing to reduce the suspicions.

 

[taiwan]

You can also have someone who doesn't dope.

Not on the top step the Tour podium.

 

[Benotti69]

Lance never tested positive.

His cheating came out through other means, and started before his first win was cold.

What you suggest is betting the house, the car and the kids on one thing.

You might be right, but I dont think an organisation like ASO would like those odds. Remember, the Armstrong stuff came out. It's still coming.

Armstrong tested positive in 99 for steroids and the UCI broke their own rules by accepting a backdated TUE.

ASO and UCI did bet everythig on Armstrong so much so that they enabled him to win 7 in a row.

 

[Joachim]

Joachim, you're not getting it, though you're getting close:
indeed, Lance never tested positive, he singlehandedly made anti-doping testing look like a joke.
So tell me, with that knowledge, how the hell can prudhomme and pat be so darn confident about Sky being clean?

I understand the point you are making and it is a good point, they can't be certain. I'm not certain. How can anyone be certain?

If I've understood you correctly you are suggesting that they feel able to say Sky are not doping because they are going to rig the testing procedures somehow to ensure that Sky never test positive.

However, that strategy, if such a one existed, did not work for Armstrong, the UCI and by implication the ASO. It didn't matter that he never tested positive, the truth came out in ways beyond the UCI/ASO's control.

* slight point of order: I was using the phrase 'Armstrong never tested positive' to illustrate the above point, and how his ability, with the UCI's help, to cheat tests didn't keep him safe. He did test positive. Also , he didn't make a mockery of the tests singlehandly, he had the help of pretty much the entire peloton.


Not trying to score points here, and would genuinely be interested in if I've understood your point correctly and if so, whether you can accept mine.

@Benotti, read the above, I think it answers your post.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Pat and Hein aren't that stupid, they won't help anybody win 7 ever again, no matter how much money they might stand to get out of it.

 

[Joachim]

Not on the top step the Tour podium.

That would only be likely true if everyone underneath the podium was doping. Historically true for a couple of decades in the history of the Tour, but for the last three we don't know yet.


Remember we are talking about possibilities here.

 

[taiwan]

Considering that vested interests are ALWAYS going to say "cycling is cleaner now", I'll disregard that and consider that you still can't do it on bread and water. The landscape of cycling hasn't changed enough recently for that to believeable. Also you're talking about a period during which Contador won, who is OLD SCHOOL without doubt. Contador FFS.

 

[Joachim]

Change is possible. We just don't know if or by much it has changed, so far. Remember, certainly by the mid 90's everybody was doping for one reason only, because everyone else was.

 

[sniper]

I understand the point you are making and it is a good point, they can't be certain. I'm not certain. How can anyone be certain?

If I've understood you correctly you are suggesting that they feel able to say Sky are not doping because they are going to rig the testing procedures somehow to ensure that Sky never test positive.

However, that strategy, if such a one existed, did not work for Armstrong, the UCI and by implication the ASO. It didn't matter that he never tested positive, the truth came out in ways beyond the UCI/ASO's control.

* slight point of order: I was using the phrase 'Armstrong never tested positive' to illustrate the above point, and how his ability, with the UCI's help, to cheat tests didn't keep him safe. He did test positive. Also , he didn't make a mockery of the tests singlehandly, he had the help of pretty much the entire peloton.


Not trying to score points here, and would genuinely be interested in if I've understood your point correctly and if so, whether you can accept mine.

@Benotti, read the above, I think it answers your post.

yeah, we understand each other.

So tell me why UCI is pronouncing Sky clean and are screaming it off the rooftops. I have an explanation. You don't.

 

[Joachim]

yeah, we understand each other.

So tell me why UCI is pronouncing Sky clean and are screaming it off the rooftops.

What else can they do? They are in a corner.

I have an explanation. You don't.

No you have a theory. Now can you address the third paragraph in my post, please.

 

[red_flanders]

What else can they do?

They could say nothing or say that they have no reason at all to believe Sky aren't clean.

They are in a corner.

Why are they in a corner?

 

[Joachim]

Why are they in a corner?

Have you been under a rock these past few months? McQ is under attack from all angles over complicity in doping cover ups, and not fighting the fight. He has to say that things are cleaner otherwise he is acceding to his critics.

What he says is neither here nor there, but the one thing he knows is that is not within his power to cover up doping. The Armstrong Saga demonstrates that.

 

[taiwan]

Change is possible. We just don't know if or by much it has changed, so far. Remember, certainly by the mid 90's everybody was doping for one reason only, because everyone else was.

Well in the mid 90s some were trying to gain advantage, doping to win, also. But what's your point? At that time they worked to the 50% limit, nowadays they have the BP, but the same people are operating under the new system - the landsape hasn't changed. I'm pretty much satisfied that significant advantage can be gained by doping under the BP and the "not since 2006" is bullshhit too. Otherwise cycling would look radically different.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Armstrong tested positive in 99 for steroids and the UCI broke their own rules by accepting a backdated TUE.

ASO and UCI did bet everythig on Armstrong so much so that they enabled him to win 7 in a row.

To be fair, Armstrong had cortico's in his body that were below 'the positive' number. Ergo, I believe he had 4 wereas 6 was allowed, with a tue of course. But hell, everyone had a tue for saddledicksore back then. Except Superlance, he was so clean.

Is there an overview on tues for Team Sky or would that be too transparent?

 

[Benotti69]

To be fair, Armstrong had cortico's in his body that were below 'the positive' number. Ergo, I believe he had 4 wereas 6 was allowed, with a tue of course. But hell, everyone had a tue for saddledicksore back then. Except Superlance, he was so clean.

Is there an overview on tues for Team Sky or would that be too transparent?

The funny thing about the cortico's was he was asked before the cortico postive about doping and he replied he would never put anything in his body after having had cancer...

I wonder when Wiggins will make a similar faux pas....

 

[taiwan]

To be fair, Armstrong had cortico's in his body that were below 'the positive' number. Ergo, I believe he had 4 wereas 6 was allowed, with a tue of course. But hell, everyone had a tue for saddledicksore back then. Except Superlance, he was so clean.

Is there an overview on tues for Team Sky or would that be too transparent?

A list of TUEs for Sky would be really interesting. Considering they have guys on their books with rare tropical blood diseases and such.

 

[red_flanders]

Why are they in a corner?

Have you been under a rock these past few months? McQ is under attack from all angles over complicity in doping cover ups, and not fighting the fight. He has to say that things are cleaner otherwise he is acceding to his critics.

What he says is neither here nor there, but the one thing he knows is that is not within his power to cover up doping. The Armstrong Saga demonstrates that.

So saying unequivocally that Sky are clean when anyone can see that knowing this is impossible combats that? Reads to me like more coverup, and digging the hole deeper. If they're in a corner it's from actions and statements just like this. Really easy to get out of the corner. Stop lying.

I'm confused how the Armstrong saga demonstrates that it's not within his power to cover up doping. I thought the Armstrong saga detailed it pretty clearly how it was not only in his power, but quite likely that he did cover up doping.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

The funny thing about the cortico's was he was asked before the cortico postive about doping and he replied he would never put anything in his body after having had cancer...

I wonder when Wiggins will make a similar faux pas....

I know, but still, he was within the bandwith doping at that time, sounds like the bio-pass?

Dope to the limits and you will be fine. Who ever invented the 133 points rule in the bio? Specialists concider 95-100 very suspicious of doping...

 

[del1962]

So saying unequivocally that Sky are clean when anyone can see that knowing this is impossible combats that? Reads to me like more coverup, and digging the hole deeper. If they're in a corner it's from actions and statements just like this. Really easy to get out of the corner. Stop lying.

I'm confused how the Armstrong saga demonstrates that it's not within his power to cover up doping. I thought the Armstrong saga detailed it pretty clearly how it was not only in his power, but quite likely that he did cover up doping.

While I agree that they certainly can't know it for certain, the assuption that it is then a coverup is a complete logical fallacy.

it can be that they stongly believe that Sky is clean and thus they are happy to make a strong point about it, especially in the wake of LA, they would hardly want to get their fingers burned again if they have suspicions.

 

[King Of The Wolds]

So tell me why UCI is pronouncing Sky clean and are screaming it off the rooftops. I have an explanation. You don't.

I have an explanation too. The UCI have no idea whether they are or they aren't, like the rest of us, but saying that they are is very good for business.

 

[King Of The Wolds]

The funny thing about the cortico's was he was asked before the cortico postive about doping and he replied he would never put anything in his body after having had cancer...

I wonder when Wiggins will make a similar faux pas....

A similar faux pas? What, like getting cancer?

 

[Joachim]

So saying unequivocally that Sky are clean when anyone can see that knowing this is impossible combats that? Reads to me like more coverup, and digging the hole deeper. If they're in a corner it's from actions and statements just like this. Really easy to get out of the corner. Stop lying.

He isn't just talking to the participants in The Clinic.

He is under attack for doing nothing to combat doping in cycling. He is defending himself by saying he has done something (in fact he is saying it is the only thing he does). Therefore he has to say that cycling is cleaner now, otherwise he will be giving in to his critics.....and that in turn means saying that he thinks the TdF champion is clean.

I'm confused how the Armstrong saga demonstrates that it's not within his power to cover up doping. I thought the Armstrong saga detailed it pretty clearly how it was not only in his power, but quite likely that he did cover up doping.

No he (possibly) tried to cover up doping. If he did try, he failed. It came out in ways he had no power to stop, despite trying.

 

[taiwan]

A similar faux pas? What, like getting cancer?

No, like making an unequivocal statement such as "I know exactly why I wouldn't dope. To start with, I come to professional road-racing from a different background to a lot of guys. There is a different culture in British cycling. Britain is a country where doping is not morally acceptable."
Before someone else from BC goes positive. Would be a hypothetical example.

 

[taiwan]

No he (possibly) tried to cover up doping. If he did try, he failed. It came out in ways he had no power to stop, despite trying.

It shows it was outwith his control to cover up years and years of big time doping, which lots of people knew about, for years after the offences were committed.

Doping now is not on the superhuman scale and lessons may have been learnt.

 

[Joachim]

Doping is doping.

Dope bigtime, dope smalltime. You are still a doper.

What you are suggesting would be like a murderer saying to a jury:

"Yes, ok, I murdered him"

"But only a little bit"