Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Tom375]

Bit of background for those like me who've not heard of AICAR..

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/11395/Doping-AICAR-Telmisartan-and-the-need-for-vigilance.aspx

 

[thehog]

Bit of background for those like me who've not heard of AICAR..

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/11395/Doping-AICAR-Telmisartan-and-the-need-for-vigilance.aspx

Looks to be expensive. Only used by “high budget” teams and riders. Hence why only Wiggins and Froome look unnaturally thin without loss of power.

From an anti-doping point of view, there is one positive thing about AICAR: it’s very expensive to buy. The experiments Professor Evans ran involved a dose of 500mg per kilo body weight for four weeks. That’s the time the experiment with mice took. A gram costs between $80 and $100 so, theoretically doses for humans would costs several hundred dollars. The French paper Libération quotes figures of half a million euro for a treatment with AICAR in a lab in Vienna. But again, there is no research whatsoever to show how much and how long you need to take it to get an effect, so figures are hard to determine.

 

[Tom375]

Looks to be expensive. Only used by “high budget” teams and riders. Hence why only Wiggins and Froome look unnaturally thin without loss of power.

Indeed expensive and virtually undetectable at the moment due to there being the unknown natural amount in various athletes... Haven't we been here before? - the arm's race continues!
Think I'm going to call it a day - I'm dizzy, it's all a swirl..

 

[sniper]

Looks to be expensive. Only used by “high budget” teams and riders. Hence why only Wiggins and Froome look unnaturally thin without loss of power.

I don't think money for PEDs is the reason why Sky are so far ahead.
I don't see how any PED would ever become so expensive as to be unaffordable to the average pro-cyclist.
Your quote speaks of several hundreds of dollars for one dosis. That's not that much for an average pro-cyclist, not if it wins you races.
(I might be wrong though)

Money does buy Sky a couple of other things that other teams can't afford, such as the medical know-how to apply programs in the most effective way while staying under the radar.

 

[D-Queued]

I don't think money for PEDs is the reason why Sky are so far ahead.
I don't see how any PED would ever become so expensive as to be unaffordable to the average pro-cyclist.
Your quote speaks of several hundreds of dollars for one dosis. That's not that much for an average pro-cyclist, not if it wins you races.
(I might be wrong though)

Money does buy Sky a couple of other things that other teams can't afford, such as the medical know-how to apply programs in the most effective way while staying under the radar.

You could be right. It is quite possible that no single PED is out of reach for the average pro cyclist.

But, what about the costs for the expertise to administer and monitor them properly?

What about the costs of transportation and concealment?

Dave.

 

[Tom375]

I don't think money for PEDs is the reason why Sky are so far ahead.
I don't see how any PED would ever become so expensive as to be unaffordable to the average pro-cyclist.
Your quote speaks of several hundreds of dollars for one dosis. That's not that much for an average pro-cyclist, not if it wins you races.
(I might be wrong though)

Money does buy Sky a couple of other things that other teams can't afford, such as the medical know-how to apply programs in the most effective way while staying under the radar.

Bold agreed - it also goes on to say that the formula is known so you can apparently rock up at a pharmacist's (I'm guessing not your average Boots) with the formula and get a big batch made up cheaper.

 

[mastersracer]

There was something obviously up with Sky and the way they looked at the Tour. AICAR is an obvious conclusion. Froome looked sickly in the face but was still able to generate power in the ITT’s like never before. Wiggins was 68kg and was producing Ferrari’s magic number. Be interesting to see what the clearance times are on the new test to see if Sky stop using it.

It’s a dangerous drug. Not something I’d want to be playing around with. Worse than EPO in terms of side effects.

sheer nonsense. The clinical data on humans has found no activation of AMPK by AICAR on humans, a chronic effect would be most likely catabolic and have negative effects on athletic performance in healthy subjects.

You know nothing about the drug's dangers. The limited human data shows it is well-tolerated and has no side effects. The leading experts on it in humans believes it would have no performance benefits.

 

[sniper]

But, what about the costs for the expertise to administer and monitor them properly?

What about the costs of transportation and concealment?

Money does buy Sky a couple of other things that other teams can't afford, such as the medical know-how to apply programs in the most effective way while staying under the radar.

indeed, effective transportation, concealment, proper supervision, and the annual UCI donation, all included.

 

[Tom375]

You could be right. It is quite possible that no single PED is out of reach for the average pro cyclist.

But, what about the costs for the expertise to administer and monitor them properly?

What about the costs of transportation and concealment?

Dave.

Would guess the costs for the first come under the usual medical one's - just need to have the right doctor (looking at what Ferrari got paid sounds expensive)

The 2nd I was thinking back to recent cases would they still get a soigneur to do it? - probably not - too close to the team. Maybe someone like Motoman / The Stig although a little more subtle. Someone that would take the wrap if caught and not be traceable to the team(s) he serviced. I would say that would come at a price too. As suggested earlier though a price I'm sure some would be happy to pay in return for victory. Same old..

 

[maltiv]

This has probably been discussed before (cba to check all the pages), but a bit interesting to look back to how high most of Sky's TDF squad this year were on this list: Wiggins (5), Eisel (4), Knees (6), Rogers (7) and two other Sky riders very high with G (5) and Hunt (7). Only riders from this years TDF squad who were low rated were EBH (0) and Cavendish (2).

Perhaps the most interesting part is that Sky signed most of these riders for 2011 or 2012 - it's almost as if they consistently went for the riders with high numbers! I mean, they say they look at the blood pass of the riders they sign, but if a guy like Hunt is given a 7 by the UCI, that's apparently not suspicious enough to avoid signing a guy...

 

[Froome19]

Sorry that list has Thomas at 6 and Lance 4. That just makes the whole thing null in my eyes.

 

[zbranko]

Sorry that list has Thomas at 6 and Lance 4. That just makes the whole thing null in my eyes.

You're not the first british person I see saying this. What that argument essentially boils down to is

But Geraint is young and british so clearly he's clean

Why is Thomas above suspicion, exactly?

This has probably been discussed before (cba to check all the pages), but a bit interesting to look back to how high most of Sky's TDF squad this year were on this list: Wiggins (5), Eisel (4), Knees (6), Rogers (7) and two other Sky riders very high with G (5) and Hunt (7). Only riders from this years TDF squad who were low rated were EBH (0) and Cavendish (2).

Siutsou (8)

 

[maltiv]

Sorry that list has Thomas at 6 and Lance 4. That just makes the whole thing null in my eyes.

I agree there are some names on that list that are clearly ill-placed, such as Horner (0) and Lance (4), but that doesn't make the entire list worthless. It's not like they just made it up...People who are high rated most likely have unstable blood values, but of course some of them might have plausible, non-doping related explanations.

 

[will10]

hog you should really put your google away. It's embarrassing.

 

[maltiv]

Siutsou (8)

Ahh, yeah missed him. It's really baffling how a guy UCI can rate as "highly suspicious" passed Sky's allegedly thorough blood value check...

So basically everyone Sky hired for 2011 who did the TDF that year were rated at least 6, with an average score of no less than 7. That is ****ed up.

 

[JRanton]

This has probably been discussed before (cba to check all the pages), but a bit interesting to look back to how high most of Sky's TDF squad this year were on this list: Wiggins (5), Eisel (4), Knees (6), Rogers (7) and two other Sky riders very high with G (5) and Hunt (7). Only riders from this years TDF squad who were low rated were EBH (0) and Cavendish (2).

Perhaps the most interesting part is that Sky signed most of these riders for 2011 or 2012 - it's almost as if they consistently went for the riders with high numbers! I mean, they say they look at the blood pass of the riders they sign, but if a guy like Hunt is given a 7 by the UCI, that's apparently not suspicious enough to avoid signing a guy...

You missed Siutsou who scored an 8. So that's four out of the six Tenerife gang who scored 5 or higher. Froome and Porte of course didn't ride the Tour in 2010 but they're both suspicious as hell as it is (Froome would score an 11!).

 

[JRanton]

Ahh, yeah missed him. It's really baffling how a guy UCI can rate as "highly suspicious" passed Sky's allegedly thorough blood value check...

So basically everyone Sky hired for 2011 who did the TDF that year were rated at least 6, with an average score of no less than 7. That is ****ed up.

Indeed.

Like you say, it's as if Sky targeted these guys because they knew they'd be ''down for it'' as Lance would say.

 

[thehog]

Sorry that list has Thomas at 6 and Lance 4. That just makes the whole thing null in my eyes.

Null like the bio-passport you mean?

Cycling is cleaner. They're catching the cheats....

 

[sniper]

This has probably been discussed before (cba to check all the pages), but a bit interesting to look back to how high most of Sky's TDF squad this year were on this list: Wiggins (5), Eisel (4), Knees (6), Rogers (7) and two other Sky riders very high with G (5) and Hunt (7). Only riders from this years TDF squad who were low rated were EBH (0) and Cavendish (2).

Perhaps the most interesting part is that Sky signed most of these riders for 2011 or 2012 - it's almost as if they consistently went for the riders with high numbers! I mean, they say they look at the blood pass of the riders they sign, but if a guy like Hunt is given a 7 by the UCI, that's apparently not suspicious enough to avoid signing a guy...

compelling analysis, maltiv.

I agree there are some names on that list that are clearly ill-placed, such as Horner (0) and Lance (4), but that doesn't make the entire list worthless. It's not like they just made it up...

and an excellent rebuttal of froom19's mute point.

Null like the bio-passport you mean?

 

[The Hitch]

Sorry that list has Thomas at 6 and Lance 4. That just makes the whole thing null in my eyes.

Sorry I missed this, why is Thomas being made into some sort of Moncoutie now?

I get that you may think he is clean but what major anti doping feather does Geraint Thomas have in his cap that we should start using him as a refference point for cleanliness in scientific studies?

Afterall this is the guy who on hearing that USADA was investigating lance said "its bad for the sport"

 

[peloton]

Imagine if it was a Spanish, or an Italian team having a season like Sky had...
Just sayin'

I actually liked liked Sky, until the ridiculous dominance last year, and then firing all the people with a dope past. Can't have it both ways.

 

[richtea]

I agree there are some names on that list that are clearly ill-placed, such as Horner (0) and Lance (4), but that doesn't make the entire list worthless. It's not like they just made it up...People who are high rated most likely have unstable blood values, but of course some of them might have plausible, non-doping related explanations.

Don't forget that the scores were not just based on blood values, but also on results. I also seem to remember Quick Step or OPL saying something about their suspiscion indexes being higher simply because no OOC tests were taken for their riders over a certain period (hence greater targeting of tests). So it has never really been 100% clear what the scores are actually based on, and difficult to compare riders sensibly because you don't know where the individual scores came from.

In the context of the USADA report, and comments from the likes of Ashenden afterwards, it does make you wonder how good the scale is (and whether they are targeting their resources in the right places). Would be interesting at least to examine whether those getting higher scores have had a higher probability of being caught now 2 years have gone by.

 

[ultimobici]

How come David Moncoutié is not anywhere on that list?

 

[maltiv]

How come David Moncoutié is not anywhere on that list?

He didn't ride the TDF that year.

 

[Tinman]

Sutton now "performance advisor", "stepping back from a day-to-day role within the team"...

http://www.teamsky.com/profile/0,27291,17543_8384263,00.html