Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Joachim]

Which part are lies? This has all been presented under oath and in court.

Yeah, just like Armstrong's depositions under oath

 

[hrotha]

Er, no sorry I can't accept that Coinneach, I think you're being remarkably soft on them, and the Nuremberg defence definitely can't be applied. They all know what they were doing was dangerous, illegal, and wholly against the tenets of their profession.

Sorry if I sounded a tad aggressive - nothing personal honest

It's probably true for many doctors who were firefighters, who had to make sure the riders didn't overdo it, rather than the equivalents of an Eufemiano Fuentes.

 

[thehog]

It's not my intention to stir up trouble.

But I'm surprised that so many are defending a known drug dealer, administer and pusher or EPO on young cyclists.

Thomas Dekker's story in particular was harrowing. Blood transfusions as well. Sick.

I'm also surprised after all that cycling has been through that people still defend a person, a Doctor no less, in pushing harmful and illegal drugs on cyclists.

At least one the is clear. Many here don't mind Sky using the nefarious doping Doctor Geert Leinders. They only care if Sky win.

Sad day day cycling again.

 

[Grandillusion]

It's probably true for many doctors who were firefighters, who had to make sure the riders didn't overdo it, rather than the equivalents of an Eufemiano Fuentes.

Point is they've all crossed the line knowingly. The only difference would be in the appropriate sanction, i.e. Thrown out of the profession and jailed for say 6 months, as opposed to thrown out and jailed for maybe 10 years.

 

[Joachim]

It's not my intention to stir up trouble.

But I'm surprised that so many are defending a known drug dealer, administer and pusher or EPO on young cyclists.

Thomas Dekker's story in particular was harrowing. Blood transfusions as well. Sick.

I'm also surprised after all that cycling has been through that people still defend a person, a Doctor no less, in pushing harmful and illegal drugs on cyclists.

At least one the is clear. Many here don't mind Sky using the nefarious doping Doctor Geert Leinders. They only care if Sky win.

Sad day doe cycling again.

Weasel words. Nobody is defending Leinders. Misrepresenting others words is a bit of a pointless tactic, hog. Doesn't add any value.

So, tell us, O Grand Cogniscenti. At what point did Leinders become known as 'nefarious' to you? Was it before or after he was first appointed to Sky?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

No point trying to elide this with Sky's appointment of him.

Elide? Or do you mean elude (ie we can not ignore his doping past)? or fuse/merge (conflate his doping past with his activities at Sky)?

 

[thehog]

Sky fans might need to look up "nefarious" in the dictionary. Whilst there they can look up "cheating" as well.

 

[Joachim]

Rather crass evasion of the question. Let me rephrase the question. When did you first become aware that Leinders was 'nefarious'?

 

[thehog]

Thomas Dekker tells the story that Lance did. Just like putting air in your tires.

“They should have told me to be patient and to stay clear of doping, but that wasn’t the case,” he said. “There was no dissenting voice. Doping was a way of life and a way of riding for many teammates, colleagues and me, too. Doping was part of the job – it’s hard, you train hard and you do everything for the bike.”

The person who administered this program to Dekker was Lienders.

Dekker was 21 years of age.

Sick.

This is the man Sky hired.

 

[Caruut]

Rather crass evasion of the question. Let me rephrase the question. When did you first become aware that Leinders was 'nefarious'?

Why does it matter when he first became aware? Even if he only learned about Leinders after he was hired by Sky that doesn't Leinders' past any cleaner, nor does it make his appointment any less questionable. All it is is a tiny factoid about Hog's knowledge of cycling doctors. It is not wholly unreasonable to suggest that exactly who Leinders was and exactly how nefarious he was became far more notable and relevant after he was hired by a team who shouted loudly to the rooftops how they were so clean and so free from the dirty past of cycling and then went on to totally dominate the Tour de France. In fact, I would ask you this: in what way is Leinders' nefariousness not more notable in 2012 than it was in 2009?

 

[Joachim]

This is the man Sky fired.

FTFY. (10c)

 

[the sceptic]

Rather crass evasion of the question. Let me rephrase the question. When did you first become aware that Leinders was 'nefarious'?

Thats like saying "when did you first become aware that there was a thread to shill for sky in" If sky didnt ride like USpostal then noone would care about Leinders.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Rather crass evasion of the question. Let me rephrase the question. When did you first become aware that Leinders was 'nefarious'?

When I first started watching this sport, I didn't think Lance Armstrong was doping, because I was naïve and didn't know him from Adam and didn't know much about bike racing.

Does that mean that since I wasn't aware of it until after the fact, I can't call him out for doping now?

Hog posts a lot of hogwash, silliness and fun, but this isn't a fair response.

I personally did not know Leinders was dodgy until he was already firmly entrenched at Sky. However, there did exist Dutch court documents confirming his connection to, knowledge of, and participation in, doping activities at Rabobank. I did not know about these. It's also highly possible that whoever interviewed him at Sky, Brailsford or whoever did not know about these either.

However, I'm not the one telling everybody all about my attention to detail or how clean my cycling team is. Leinders' presence makes one of those statements difficult to accept, because either they didn't do the full background checks, or they knowingly appointed a guy with a known doping history.

I don't think this investigation has anything to do with Sky, and he'll talk about the Rabobank days and that'll be that. But whether or not you believe he did anything wrong at Sky, the fact remains that this super-clean attention to detail team struggled, then did much better after the appointment of a doctor who is now under investigation for doping offences. Regardless of whether Leinders doped anybody at Sky, the reputational risk as Brailsford calls it is high and getting higher.

 

[Joachim]

Thats like saying "when did you first become aware that there was a thread to shill for sky in" If sky didnt ride like USpostal then noone would care about Leinders.

I think we are trying to deal in concrete absolutes here, rather than simplistic comments involving perception of what a team's riding style looked like.

 

[thehog]

Thomas Dekker tells the story that Lance did. Just like putting air in your tires.



The person who administered this program to Dekker was Lienders.

Dekker was 21 years of age.

Sick.

This is the man Sky hired.

The story Dekker describes is not far from Lance and USPS.

I'm sure Dekker would have lost his job if he didn't dope.

The man who was part of the pressure to dope was Lienders.

Dekker was 21 years old. Sky didn't hire Dekker they hired the Doctor who forced drugs upon him.

Defending Leinders is like defending Lance. Same pressure tactics, same drugs.

 

[sniper]

Weasel words. Nobody is defending Leinders. Misrepresenting others words is a bit of a pointless tactic, hog. Doesn't add any value.

So, tell us, O Grand Cogniscenti. At what point did Leinders become known as 'nefarious' to you? Was it before or after he was first appointed to Sky?

You yourself still haven't come out to state whether you think Sky are clean or not. If you're not defending Leinders, what's your position? Was Sky 2012 clean?

I'd love to see you take some position, make some claims, provide some arguments. Man up. Be concrete.

Instead, you're counterpunching with hollistic posts saying basically nothing, just asking questions in order to deflect.

 

[Cycle Chic]

Why does it matter when he first became aware? Even if he only learned about Leinders after he was hired by Sky that doesn't Leinders' past any cleaner, nor does it make his appointment any less questionable. All it is is a tiny factoid about Hog's knowledge of cycling doctors. It is not wholly unreasonable to suggest that exactly who Leinders was and exactly how nefarious he was became far more notable and relevant after he was hired by a team who shouted loudly to the rooftops how they were so clean and so free from the dirty past of cycling and then went on to totally dominate the Tour de France. In fact, I would ask you this: in what way is Leinders' nefariousness not more notable in 2012 than it was in 2009?

Joachim conveniently chose to ignore this post...which was directed at him

 

[Joachim]

When I first started watching this sport, I didn't think Lance Armstrong was doping, because I was naïve and didn't know him from Adam and didn't know much about bike racing.

Does that mean that since I wasn't aware of it until after the fact, I can't call him out for doping now?

Hog posts a lot of hogwash, silliness and fun, but this isn't a fair response.

If you have somebody who claims extraordinary insight, a response from him would have been useful. Note that this is one question he has carefully evaded.

I personally did not know Leinders was dodgy until he was already firmly entrenched at Sky. However, there did exist Dutch court documents confirming his connection to, knowledge of, and participation in, doping activities at Rabobank. I did not know about these. It's also highly possible that whoever interviewed him at Sky, Brailsford or whoever did not know about these either.

However, I'm not the one telling everybody all about my attention to detail or how clean my cycling team is. Leinders' presence makes one of those statements difficult to accept, because either they didn't do the full background checks, or they knowingly appointed a guy with a known doping history.

I don't think this investigation has anything to do with Sky, and he'll talk about the Rabobank days and that'll be that. But whether or not you believe he did anything wrong at Sky, the fact remains that this super-clean attention to detail team struggled, then did much better after the appointment of a doctor who is now under investigation for doping offences. Regardless of whether Leinders doped anybody at Sky, the reputational risk as Brailsford calls it is high and getting higher.

This morning I farted and my car stalled. Coincidence? I think not

Being flippant, but you get the point. I'm largely in agreement with you, bar thinking that you've possibly been taken in by Sky bull**** but not in the way you think. The Sky PR machine churns it out. Famed attention to detail? Brailsford bigging himself up.

There is a paradox to thinking that Sky knew about Leinders doping past, because of their attention to detail, whilst hiring him to dope. If they knew, because it was already in the public domain via court documents, then so would the public. Hardly a very good basis for the commencement of a conspiracy.

Anyway, who knows. You don't, I don't, the hog certainly doesn't. I remain agnostic on this, whilst accepting that it doesn't help Sky's reputation. People are asking for Sky to explain, but I really can't envisage how that can take place. If Leinders was employed for doping prowess, they'll say nothing. If he wasn't, what can they say?

Frankly, if Sky have a team wide doping scheme I'd expect it to be run by somebody a little better than this goon.

 

[Joachim]

You yourself still haven't come out to state whether you think Sky are clean or not. If you're not defending Leinders, what's your position? Was Sky 2012 clean?

I'd love to see you take some position, make some claims, provide some arguments. Man up. Be concrete.

Instead, you're counterpunching with hollistic posts saying basically nothing, just asking questions in order to deflect.

I don't know whether Sky were clean or dirty. Neither do you, or any other poster here. I'm taking issue with some very feeble arguments most of which are skewed by pressuppositions.

It's no biggie. Just bike riding. Can't really understand why you and others are prepared to be so vicious and personal about it. 60,000 people have died so far in the Syrian uprising. That's worth getting angry about. Not this.

 

[MatParker117]

When I first started watching this sport, I didn't think Lance Armstrong was doping, because I was naïve and didn't know him from Adam and didn't know much about bike racing.

Does that mean that since I wasn't aware of it until after the fact, I can't call him out for doping now?

Hog posts a lot of hogwash, silliness and fun, but this isn't a fair response.

I personally did not know Leinders was dodgy until he was already firmly entrenched at Sky. However, there did exist Dutch court documents confirming his connection to, knowledge of, and participation in, doping activities at Rabobank. I did not know about these. It's also highly possible that whoever interviewed him at Sky, Brailsford or whoever did not know about these either.

However, I'm not the one telling everybody all about my attention to detail or how clean my cycling team is. Leinders' presence makes one of those statements difficult to accept, because either they didn't do the full background checks, or they knowingly appointed a guy with a known doping history.

I don't think this investigation has anything to do with Sky, and he'll talk about the Rabobank days and that'll be that. But whether or not you believe he did anything wrong at Sky, the fact remains that this super-clean attention to detail team struggled, then did much better after the appointment of a doctor who is now under investigation for doping offences. Regardless of whether Leinders doped anybody at Sky, the reputational risk as Brailsford calls it is high and getting higher.

Contractors aren't as thoroughly background checked as full time employees, Leinders was interviewed by Sky's medical director Steve Peters prior to being to being taken on though.

 

[ebandit]

not at all

The person who administered this program to Dekker was Lienders.
Dekker was 21 years of age.

Sick.

This is the man Sky hired.

stir away hoggie...........it's your every intention

sick? another emotive term............21.......is an Adult

doping is nothing to be proud of ..............but sick?

 

[ebandit]

Defending Leinders is like defending Lance. Same pressure tactics, same drugs.

point to one post where leinders is defended..................members have asked............what is the truth?

and objected to your flaming

we still don't know leinders role / duties at team sky

 

[Libertine Seguros]

If you have somebody who claims extraordinary insight, a response from him would have been useful. Note that this is one question he has carefully evaded.



This morning I farted and my car stalled. Coincidence? I think not

Being flippant, but you get the point. I'm largely in agreement with you, bar thinking that you've possibly been taken in by Sky bull**** but not in the way you think. The Sky PR machine churns it out. Famed attention to detail? Brailsford bigging himself up.

There is a paradox to thinking that Sky knew about Leinders doping past, because of their attention to detail, whilst hiring him to dope. If they knew, because it was already in the public domain via court documents, then so would the public. Hardly a very good basis for the commencement of a conspiracy.

Anyway, who knows. You don't, I don't, the hog certainly doesn't. I remain agnostic on this, whilst accepting that it doesn't help Sky's reputation. People are asking for Sky to explain, but I really can't envisage how that can take place. If Leinders was employed for doping prowess, they'll say nothing. If he wasn't, what can they say?

Frankly, if Sky have a team wide doping scheme I'd expect it to be run by somebody a little better than this goon.

The public don't need to take it upon themselves to read court documents. Somebody who is considering employing a doctor who was working at a team who ended up involved in court judgements because of doping practices and who is basing his public persona on his attention to detail and opposition to doping, however, might want to, lest he look bad at some point in the future.

If I'm being duped by Sky's PR because of remembering vague propaganda statements they've put out with no intention of adhering to or have no capability of adhering to, then who's their PR agency? Some kind of cross between the SED and the Keystone Cops?

It just seems odd to have employed him if they had been aware of his history, simply because of the reputational risk that Brailsford mentioned when pressured. While employing riders who may or may not have shady history is one thing, doctors are another because a rider who has to get jettisoned can be explained away as a bad egg, whereas a doctor has hands on every rider in the team, which has worse implications. Still, at least admitting the reputational risk is better than literally running away from the questions like he did at the Worlds, hey?

 

[Joachim]

Joachim conveniently chose to ignore this post...which was directed at him

It was, but I gave up after trying to unravel the awkward syntax.

Still, at least you are managing to be polite this time. If you can maintain that, Ill engage in discussion with you. Your revolting behaviour yesterday didn't help anybody, least of all yourself. Man up, and apologise whilst you are here.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I have to put my hand up and say as more information starts to emerge, obviously unofficial and at the 'he said she said' stage, about Leinders role at Rabobank you have to say questions need to be answered, as Kimmage has said about. I tweeted Daniel Freibe about, who usually replies but got a stoney silence. I find Wiggins reaction to the LA affair puzzling, and the way he is dealing with Kimmage. I can see how people view it as evasive and suspicious.

As patron he needs to accept the responsibility it brings, by not doing so and giving these lazy comments, and the way he counter-attacks Kimmage, he opens himself up to more accusations.

It's clear something was rotten in Denmark oops the Netherlands involving Leinders and the Rabobank team, it may be Brailsford was naive or had the wool pulled over his eyes by Leinders but they should have done better background checks. This is why employers ask for references. You need a good doctor, ask his previous employers about him, simple. It's how Sky pretend the whistle was blown and had him shipped out the back door.

A massive, massive own goal for me. Sky are hoisting themselves by their own petard.

You can argue the toss if you like, like how nothing is confirmed with Leinders, nothing had stuck so far, but reading about riders talking about him adminstering EPO is enough for me, they have no reason to make it up. Leinders is as dirty as they come, and he worked for Sky.

You're a fool if you deny that. And I know I have in the past, because I did not know the extent he was involved in Rabobank's doping (and lets face it, no-one really did, just knew he was implicated. He's even escaped a mention on Dopeology).

Until I know more about Leinder's role at the team I will find it hard to follow them with any conviction.

So OPQS It is then. Oops