Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Joachim]

With Contador, there's a trail of evidence since day 1 of his career. With Leinders and Sky, it's a matter of speculation. By all means be suspicious, but there's no smoking gun here.

As suspiciousness goes, Leinders in Sky has far more potential than Yates and Sutton. And more again than people claiming that their perception of Sky's excellent team work in the Tour was definitive proof of doping. At least all that crap seems to have died down.

I'm all in favour of Sky being pressed for clarification on Leinders role at Sky. What I don't get is how you will be able to distinguish whether they are telling the truth or not. Doping or not doping, the answers they give will be the same.

 

[Parker]

To be brought in front of an employment tribunal you would have to be an employee.
Like almost everyone on TSky/BC Peters is a contractor, and still retained.

So it's breach of contract instead then. And hasn't Steve Peters moved to athletics as his main role with a side line in football? Publically sacking him for one mistake would be a real scumbag way to treat someone after a decade of good service, don't you think.
Or do you want him tarred and feathered for making a wrong descision. If you're an employer you must be a nightmare to work for, with staff unable to operate for fear.

 

[Joachim]

Not sure your wording is quite right, but I think you are saying the Rabo boys would have told other team mates?

Problem is, to tell anyone means they then face the same sacking; the have to fall on their sword, to slay the evil Doctor Leinders.

That's the big fail with this zero policy lark. Instead of destroying Omerta, it actually enforces it.

Quite. I made the same point yesterday and because of that it is not a given that Sky knew of Leinders involvement in doping.

I dont believe for a second that in the current climate riders go about shouting about what drugs they've done on other teams.

 

[Joachim]

What I learnt today;

* Young men make a choice. When a Doctor of their employer “influences” them to dope and injects them with EPO it’s the cyclists fault. Because they made a choice.

* When a team Doctor masterminds a sophisticated team-wide doping program for 9-years which includes EPO, blood transfusions and HGH he is instantly reformed if he joins another team shortly after this 9 year Frankenstein period.

* The Doctor also becomes a specialist in saddle sores when he spent the majority of his career injecting EPO into young men.

* Also if the Doctor doesn’t appear at races is because he is offering “consultancy” on saddle sores and heat and not what defined his career - doping.

* Despite cycling having a 20+ year history of doping, just because one team hires a notorious doping doctor it doesn’t mean they are doping. Even when they completely dominate an entire season from start to finish it just means they’re clean because doping stopped in 2006 (according to Lance).

I don't believe for one minute that you had even heard of Leinders, prior to his working at Sky, and now, all of a sudden you are claiming that he is 'notorious' and 'his career has been defined by doping'. Hindsight is a great thing.

 

[thehog]

Floyd told the story how Michael Boogerd (rabobank rider) talked about the marks on Boogerd's arm.

It was a casual conversation.

But sure no one knew. Doping was so minor from 2000-2009

Landis said that he had a blood transfusion done during the Tour, and it resulted in a bruise on his arm. “The next day I rode alongside Michael Boogerd and he pointed to my arm. Then he pointed to his arm and he made a gesture of: I have the exact same thing."

 

[coinneach]

Then surely that person would be publicly removed, and BC would have nothing more to do with them.

Another, perhaps simpler explanation - is that the person whose job it was to interview the Doctor, did a very good job and got the candidate that they were looking for.

As I posted earlier in this thread (maybe only a day ago...its all becoming an angry blur: can we tone it down a bit without a Mod needing to tell us?)
Brailsford said that Steve Peters was responsible for hiring Leinders. Peters has recently moved on to British Athletics, a move I found strange at the time, but now makes more sence.
Peters had a guru status in BC: it was thought he could do no wrong. Several gold medal winners praised him to the sky (especially Pendelton). When Sky were doing their re-interviews for Sky mark 3 2013 ZTPversion, it was Peters they trusted to see though the lies.
But, as I said, doctors have a habit of applying double standards with other doctors, and if it was a mistake and not a cunning doping plan, Peters is the one left holding the baby.
If it was a cunning doping plan, it has failed miserably, and unless they come up with a full explanation and apology, Wiggins win will be forever tainted in many peoples minds.

 

[blackcat]

dont worry Brownie, no one would believe you doped, cos the only win was the most dangerous man on wheels in the peloton.

 

[Parker]

Brailsford said that Steve Peters was responsible for hiring Leinders. Peters has recently moved on to British Athletics, a move I found strange at the time, but now makes more sence.

It wasn't strange at all to those who know about him. Athletics is his first love. He still competes in age group meetings as a sprinter.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So it's breach of contract instead then. And hasn't Steve Peters moved to Athletics as his main role? Publically sacking him for one mistake would be a real scumbag way to treat someone after a decade of good service, don't you think.

He is still retained by BC.

Or do you want him tarred and feathered for making a wrong descision. If you're an employer you must be a nightmare to work for, with staff unable to operate for fear.

Just to put a match in your straw - it is you, not I, that believes he made a wrong decision.
I would be of the opinion that he hired the candidate that they requested.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

So it's breach of contract instead then. And hasn't Steve Peters moved to Athletics as his main role? Publically sacking him for one mistake would be a real scumbag way to treat someone after a decade of good service, don't you think.
Or do you want him tarred and feathered for making a wrong descision. If you're an employer you must be a nightmare to work for, with staff unable to operate for fear.

The problem is how critical that mistake may have turned out to be.

While I still maintain that there was enough on Leinders to know he didn't belong at Sky if the ZTP was to be taken seriously prior to his appointment, the complete extent of his dubiousness has only come to light subsequently. If we accept that the appointment of Leinders/the failures of the background checks were a mistake on Peters' part, it will seem all the more significant an error the more dirt is unearthed on Leinders, the more fundamental the error will seem, and then it will seem less like trusting the wrong person and more like leading the wolf to the door. Because every time Leinders gets mentioned in the sports media, he becomes more and more of an incongruity with Sky's stated policy.

 

[Parker]

The problem is how critical that mistake may have turned out to be.

Not very. Sod all people have heard of him or actually care (unless they were actually doping).

 

[coinneach]

The problem is how critical that mistake may have turned out to be....
. Because every time Leinders gets mentioned in the sports media, he becomes more and more of an incongruity with Sky's stated policy.

I wish he WAS being mentioned in the sports media!
But he seems to have drifted off the scene and the media are asleep/complicit.

 

[richtea]

The problem is how critical that mistake may have turned out to be.

While I still maintain that there was enough on Leinders to know he didn't belong at Sky if the ZTP was to be taken seriously prior to his appointment, the complete extent of his dubiousness has only come to light subsequently. If we accept that the appointment of Leinders/the failures of the background checks were a mistake on Peters' part, it will seem all the more significant an error the more dirt is unearthed on Leinders, the more fundamental the error will seem, and then it will seem less like trusting the wrong person and more like leading the wolf to the door. Because every time Leinders gets mentioned in the sports media, he becomes more and more of an incongruity with Sky's stated policy.

Isn't adherance to the policy becoming more important than reality of whether sky doped in this line of thinking? If Leinders didn't dope anyone and Sky wanted to be clean there is in fact no problem - I don't think some bad publicity counts as a critical error in this scenario. If they recruited him to dope the riders, it will only really be an error if this attention exposes real evidence of doping. The possibility that Sky wanted to be clean, but were duped by Leinders who covertly put in place a doping programme, could be classed as an error - but seems far fetched.

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

Isn't adherance to the policy becoming more important than reality of whether sky doped in this line of thinking? If Leinders didn't dope anyone and Sky wanted to be clean there is in fact no problem - I don't think some bad publicity counts as a critical error in this scenario. If they recruited him to dope the riders, it will only really be an error if this attention exposes real evidence of doping. The possibility that Sky wanted to be clean, but were duped by Leinders who covertly put in place a doping programme, could be classed as an error - but seems far fetched.

This is the best summary of the Leinders/Sky issue so far.

 

[pmcg76]

Not sure your wording is quite right, but I think you are saying the Rabo boys would have told other team mates?

Problem is, to tell anyone means they then face the same sacking; the have to fall on their sword, to slay the evil Doctor Leinders.

That's the big fail with this zero policy lark. Instead of destroying Omerta, it actually enforces it.

Nice of a SKY fan to automatically think that two of their riders were doping at Rabo.

I pointed this out yesterday and it was ignored so here goes again. The Rabo guys at SKY could have been clean at Rabo but chances are they would have still known what Leinders was doing at Rabo(Hayman was there a long time). They could easily have informed on Leinders without implicating themselves.

Or perhaps they did dope at Rabo and lied to SKY about it but if SKY were genuine about being clean, surely they would have still said Leinders was not the guy for SKY whilst being two faced, back-stabbing ****ers.

Alternatively they told lies themselves about their own doping and said that Leinders was above board as well which means there is very little chance of Leinders not being employed for doping reasons.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Isn't adherance to the policy becoming more important than reality of whether sky doped in this line of thinking? If Leinders didn't dope anyone and Sky wanted to be clean there is in fact no problem - I don't think some bad publicity counts as a critical error in this scenario. If they recruited him to dope the riders, it will only really be an error if this attention exposes real evidence of doping. The possibility that Sky wanted to be clean, but were duped by Leinders who covertly put in place a doping programme, could be classed as an error - but seems far fetched.

Basically, yes. The PR of Geert Leinders being at Sky at the time they were making everybody else look like amateurs trumps the question of whether or not Sky doped, because the very team that goes round telling everybody how they did it clean had a guy like that on them. A rider, you can explain away, as long as it's only one. He was a bad egg. He did his own thing, was desperate to make the Tour team. You know the drill. But a doctor? That has implications for the whole set-up. Whether or not Leinders doped anybody at Sky or really was there to treat saddle sores does not affect that he is now an issue for Sky, because while the case has nothing to do with them, articles with headings like "former Sky doctor under doping investigation" are possible and are technically accurate (though misleading). I'm sure they can sell most of the story to a complicit press, but the more we learn the harder it will be for them to sell the 'just here to treat saddle sores, and by God people were dying' story to us, and by us I mean cycling fans in general.

Because they haven't been very transparent, Sky's perception as a clean team has been predicated on fans' ability to draw that conclusion. The presence of a known doping doctor makes that hard. Because they haven't gone out of their way to show themselves as being clean other than jumping up and down stamping their feet and telling us to believe them, a lot of fans' belief in them is based on faith. Faith can be more easily shaken in the absence of justification for it, and the presence of a doping doctor can shake a fan's faith without the need for hard evidence that he was actually plying his doping trade.

 

[Wiggo Warrior]

As suspiciousness goes, Leinders in Sky has far more potential than Yates and Sutton. And more again than people claiming that their perception of Sky's excellent team work in the Tour was definitive proof of doping. At least all that crap seems to have died down.

I'm all in favour of Sky being pressed for clarification on Leinders role at Sky. What I don't get is how you will be able to distinguish whether they are telling the truth or not. Doping or not doping, the answers they give will be the same.

Bold point above taken as read, but there is actually quite a lot of info on the Sky website in relation to his role as a race doctor at Sky. Enough in my opinion to at least signal that if his employment/race program on there is a legend it is a masterfully created one, very internally consistent but not too perfect

If it is a complete fake, as I am sure many people on here will believe, then I am quite sure everyone in the team will be well drilled (with the possible exception of Brad who does seem to be rather prone to foot in mouth and resistant to 'party lines') to back it up and we will be no further on if there are any pressing questions, particularly since the interview of DB by David Walsh on that very subject resulted in a tweet from him stating that he believed DB was committed to a clean program, which has certainly not changed any clinicians minds as far as I have seen about Sky's perceived guilt.

We have all seen that DB references the Vuelta sickness cases as the reason for his decision to employ an experienced cycling doctor on an 80 day contract to supplement his less experienced non-cycling doctors.

DB failed completely to announce this U-turn at the time and admitted to David Walsh in his four hour long interview that that was a mistake. (By the way, I was extremely disappointed in that article in the Sunday Times. It seemed disjointed and like it was very short on column inches for what should have been an in depth interview like that although that may have been because of the unusual pressure on space in the supplement given the record defeat of the All Blacks in the international the day before.)

So Sky took on Leinders, probably in late 2010 and in 2011 we have evidence in race reports on the website that he attended the Scheldeprijs and the Vuelta because there were direct quotes regarding riders with injuries in the race reports.

Then in 2012 Sky start announcing in the Race Guides who all the support staff was to be for each race from the coach driver to the team doctors. Leinders attended, according to the race guides and in chronological order, Paris - Nice, Dwars door Vlaanderen, E3 Prijs Vlaanderen, Gent Wevelgem, Scheldeprijs, Paris - Roubaix,Tour de Romandie (with new signing and Sky's first full time doctor Farrell shadowing) and the Dauphine. According to a rough totting up of race days and an estimate of pre-post/travelling days and adding in the Vuelta as a probable intended repeat for 2012 before the de Rooj quotes, USADA and the press starting asking awkward questions and the 'investigation', that is 65 ish days of his 80.

The remaining 15 days wouldn't have been long enough to do the Tour anyway and besides we know he wasn't at the Tour in 2011 because it was Richard Freeman who treated Brad when he bust his collarbone.

15 days may be just enough time for him to have been at one of the two altitude camps (maybe pre-Dauphine, pre-Romandie looks a little busy with other races) but I haven't seen any mention about any team doctors presence there and between the multiple documentaries and Sky inviting what seemed like the whole printed press corps and Sky News to show off their 'new' training discovery surely there would have been?

I am not sure what other races lie between the Dauphine and the Vuelta that would have filled the race program in 2011/2012, but this is already a lot of detail for a team with 'transparency' problems.

So anyway, not proof one way or the other about whether he was involved in doping at Sky, all four of the stage races listed above in 2011/2012 were successful for Sky although only the Dauphine was remotely dominant, if sub Tour, but I found it interesting to read/research. I have less knowledge about the non-stage races listed 2012 editions as none of them involved Brad, and all of them occured before I discovered how fascinating this sport is.

As to whether Sky management knew anything about the Rabo carte blanche and Leinders involvement in doping there, from the evidence that would have been available to them in 2010 I would say they didn't, but that's just me. Hiring Leinders was clearly a huge mistake with the benefit of twenty twenty hindsight, but mistakes are made every day. I certainly never bought into the 'attention to detail' mantra to the extent that maybe some people have. I mean, getting in a few sleep therapists and yoga trainers is one thing, and quite consistent with what BC have been doing for years. Professional background checks of the level that would have been required in 2010 to unearth the Dutch news stories which named Leinders don't appear to be in anyones claimed skill set.

I've done timelines for Bartalucci, Riley, Usher, Freeman and the new guy Farrell as well (for 2012 anyway, from the race guides) if anyone is interested, the 2011 links for the Vuelta and Scheldeprijs I got from earlier in this thread.

 

[Ferminal]

dont worry Brownie, no one would believe you doped, cos the only win was the most dangerous man on wheels in the peloton.

Post of the Thread

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Alternatively they told lies themselves about their own doping and said that Leinders was above board as well which means there is very little chance of Leinders not being employed for doping reasons.

Maybe too many double negatives for me to handle but would not the above case indicate he was not likely to have been brought in for doping reason?

 

[The Hitch]

particularly since the interview of DB by David Walsh on that very subject resulted in a tweet from him stating that he believed DB was committed to a clean program, which has certainly not changed any clinicians minds as far as I have seen about Sky's perceived guilt.
.

Why would it. Its a factor to.consider but Walsh hasn't given us any arguments. He says he wants to believe sky are clean and that after talking to bailsford he believes sky are clean. I have massive respect.for.the man but- Walsh says they are clean, isn't an actual argument, anymore.than " because the president said so" would serve in a political debate.


I need.to.hear actual.arguments before.i begin to drop my suspicion at mick 2 previous doping programmes rogers finding his best form ever upon joining sky.

 

[Joachim]

Would you believe them anyway?. Whatever Brailsford says, he can always be accused of lying. Whatever he has said already has just been sneered at, misconstrued and discounted, rightly or wrongly. I really don't see how it is possible to present a compelling argument that you are a clean team. What would such an argument look like?

 

[Franklin]

Not sure your wording is quite right, but I think you are saying the Rabo boys would have told other team mates?

Problem is, to tell anyone means they then face the same sacking; the have to fall on their sword, to slay the evil Doctor Leinders.

That's the big fail with this zero policy lark. Instead of destroying Omerta, it actually enforces it.

Oh come now.... you hire the Team doctor and Management team member of Rabo.

You hire him to accompany your biggest assets (the riders). And you don't ask about the headline splattering events of Rasmussen? And you don't do a simple background check where both the internal Rabo reports as the Lawsuit won by Michael Rasmussen implicates Leinders?

This is beyond belief. Is Sky the most professional innovative team or is it a bumbling bunch of idiots?

 

[Franklin]

Quite. I made the same point yesterday and because of that it is not a given that Sky knew of Leinders involvement in doping.

I dont believe for a second that in the current climate riders go about shouting about what drugs they've done on other teams.

Yeah man, because hiring a doctor to monitor your riders health does not require background checks. It's not like Dave Brailsford was present when Millar and a Doctor ruined a team. I mean, who would even think of looking back 4 years to that guy... what his name? Hum... that thin guy.... ah yes, Michael Rasmussen.

You desperate trying to handwave is amusing.

It is almost 100% certain that Sky new of his involvement in Rasmussen's case. It's a small world, it had hit newspapers already, there were reports and there was a lost lawsuit. It was just a few years before his hiring.

Saying Sky doesn't do the tiniest background check for the team doctor is preposterous. Absolute nonsense.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Geraint Thomas showed the kind of ability that would have been useful for Wiggins to display in his early career today. If that's natural and clean, it's a good start for a Tour contender down the line.

 

[Joachim]

Do you think Walsh asked him this?