Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Joachim]

Brailsford: "We need a Doctor to dope our riders. Who do you know who's already embroiled in a public drugs scandal?"

Ex-Rabo guys: "Leinders. There are even court documents naming him"

Brailsford:"Perfect. We'll take him"

 

[Franklin]

Brailsford: "We need a Doctor to dope our riders. Who do you know who's already embroiled in a public drugs scandal?"

Ex-Rabo guys: "Leinders. There are even court documents naming him"

Brailsford:"Perfect. We'll take him"

Then it's clear that they are a bunch of bumbling idiots. Marginal gains, stringent bring measures and professionalism won the day didn't they?

What was it? Magical fairy dust? Or do you hereby agree that the whole front of how Sky was so special is just absolutely false?

Take your pick


-> And note that beyond the Rasmussen screw-up he was very good in keeping them test negative. Had the MR case not been screwed up by de Rooij (horrible PR actions) he would have been regarded squeaky clean by the masses. If you want a doctor winning GT's and not letting people test positive, yeah, he's your man.

A question, why do teams hire Ibarguen? Is that guy so suspicious that it becomes okay?

 

[will10]

Brailsford: "We need a Doctor to dope our riders. Who do you know who's already embroiled in a public drugs scandal?"

Ex-Rabo guys: "Leinders. There are even court documents naming him"

Brailsford:"Perfect. We'll take him"

Brailsford: "I think we're going to hire Geert, he seems to fit the bill. We gotta get someone who can sort these damn saddle sore problems. Did he do a decent job at Rababank?"

Ex-Rabo guys: "Uhh yeah" *look away uneasily*

 

[Joachim]

The problem with you guys is you attribute everything to doping. Everything. You can't see beyond it.

Marginal gains? Total bolloc*s, but not necessarily anything to do with doping.

 

[coinneach]

Excellent investigative work, DW
Makes me think, if they were using Leinders to mastermind their doping programme, they would have employed him full time, or more than those days. We shouldn't NEED to do this sort of investigation: Sky should be clarifying and apologising.
Whats the stats on Bartalucci?

 

[Mellow Velo]

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?

In fairness to you, you were the only person to provide links to said evidence, from 2008.

My post was only a possible explanation as to why internal rider chat might not have been forthcoming with these details, as one might expect.

 

[Bexon30]

The problem with you guys is you attribute everything to doping. Everything. You can't see beyond it.

Marginal gains? Total bolloc*s, but not necessarily anything to do with doping.

Rasmussen transformed into a dominant all round rider and weighed the same as my left leg. If you don't see the doping in that then there's no helping you.

 

[Franklin]

In fairness to you, you were the only person to provide links to said evidence, from 2008.

Thanks

But really, I posted major newspaper links, I didn't have to play Sherlock.

My post was only a possible explanation as to why internal rider chat might not have been forthcoming with these details, as one might expect.

I certainly have to agree there. But that doesn't make it any less unbelievable. Even the most glowing recommendation of de Jongh will lead to no more than shortlisting the guy, he still would have to go through the hiring procedure. Nobody in cycling is so naive not to check the background of a doctor.

As I seem to have to say this again and again: I have no idea if Leinders is involved in doping at Sky. I can swallow the story : We know of his past, but hired him because he knows how a team works, knows the rigours and we needed him fast. I still say it's a hire which should be forbidden, but that story is at least somewhat plausible and would largely give a pass to the riders.

But the "we didn't check/someone else hired him", no way. That's so unbelievable that it becomes a caricature. We are talking Dave Brailsford, who saw Millar ruin a team in front of his eyes. And yet somehow with his largest pet project ever he takes the biggest risk on whim? Even worse, he and his MT don't even get involved?

Not possible.

A mechanic, sure, but the team doctor is an extremely important choice. In fact, I would call it the most important staff position in a team (for legitimate reasons!).

Besides, the profile of Leinders with his career and position as part of the MT at Rabo shows this was a big (almost certainly expensive) hire. That's a big decision.

 

[Franklin]

Whatever Brailsford says, he can always be accused of lying.

The problem is that almost beyond any reasonable doubt he is/has been lying.

Even if he now starts to explain his actions he carries that weight. And that is his own fault.

And you also know exactly what the best way to go forward is: Transparency, zero tolerance for medical personnel. Both have been sorely lacking. And I add a third one: Don't tell lies.

 

[JRanton]

If Sky hired Leinders to do doping then they would have known about what he did at Rabobank. So they would have known at the time of hiring that Rabo were facing a couple of investigations and court cases and he would almost certainly be exposed.
So why of all the doctors available pick the one they knew was the most likely to be exposed?

And knowing this why make sure he was widely mentioned on their website and quoted in the press.

And after all that they didn't even take him to the Grand Tours where on site doping is needed most.

If they were hiring him for doping they did everything wrong. Stupidly and recklessly. It doesn't make sense.

Somebody screwing up the background check is far easier to understand.

Leinders was Sky's race doctor at the 2011 Vuelta when De Jongh was the DS.

Cosy eh?

Join. The. Dots.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Leinders was Sky's race doctor at the 2011 Vuelta when De Jongh was the DS.

Cosy eh?

Join. The. Dots.

So the argument is either:

i) Why wasn't he at the races? He must have been brought in to dope riders behind the scenes.
ii) Ah, so he was at the races. That just proves that he was doping the riders behind the scenes.

Is that a fair summation?

 

[Franklin]

So the argument is either:

i) Why wasn't he at the races? He must have been brought in to dope riders behind the scenes.
ii) Ah, so he was at the races. That just proves that he was doping the riders behind the scenes.

Is that a fair summation?

In this I certainly agree. We can build theories all around his presence/lack of presence and create cases against and pro Sky.

The only thing we have is that after he joined Sky started to perform, but that also is no proof at all, at worst it calls up a question mark. Personally (neither fact nor build on expertise) I'd say it's silly to think that hiring a doctor immediately pays of. You'd need time to get results.

But otoh it's also not impossible that there already was a structure and that Leinders just was the finishing touch. The differences at the top are small.

I still lean towards "Sky is clean" (we have no evidence that it's dirty) and that it's only guilty of severe misdirection. I just don't think it's acceptable to play loose and fast with these things, so it's still a major issue.

The questions are valid and remain. And Sky's management is to blame, not the clinic, not Kimmage, not the critics.

 

[JimmyFingers]

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.

He did look rather good, didn't he? He does come from the same 'small pond' as Wiggo though

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

In this I certainly agree. We can build theories all around his presence/lack of presence and create cases against and pro Sky.

The only thing we have is that after he joined Sky started to perform, but that also is no proof at all, at worst it calls up a question mark. Personally (neither fact nor build on expertise) I'd say it's silly to think that hiring a doctor immediately pays of. You'd need time to get results.

But otoh it's also not impossible that there already was a structure and that Leinders just was the finishing touch. The differences at the top are small.

I still lean towards "Sky is clean" (we have no evidence that it's dirty) and that it's only guilty of severe misdirection. I just don't think it's acceptable to play loose and fast with these things, so it's still a major issue.

The questions are valid and remain. And Sky's management is to blame, not the clinic, not Kimmage, not the critics.

I think one of the points that Hitch (and others) consistently repeat (and is a very good point) is they want the tag of 'The Zero Tolerance to Drugs team' but aren't willing to earn it. If you credit yourself with this title then you have to prove it and be willing to accept people are going to question you. I personally don't believe one outburst from Wiggins proves anything but the general lack of communication e.g. No doping questions; is not exactly helping them their mantra.

We are still waiting for DB to have this QA session where anyone would be able to turn up and question them. Would like to see Kimmage in the front seat for that one.

Until they address the Leinders issue and, arguably, others issues then the problem will just follow them around. This year will be very interesting just to see how they compare to the other teams. I am especially looking forward to the times posted up Alpe d'huez.

 

[zalacain]

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.

The main reason Sky contract out is to avoid tax and national insurance employers contributions

 

[Joachim]

Rasmussen transformed into a dominant all round rider and weighed the same as my left leg. If you don't see the doping in that then there's no helping you.

There's no helping you if you can't read and interpret a post.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Brailsford: "We need a Doctor to dope our riders. Who do you know who's already embroiled in a public drugs scandal?"

Ex-Rabo guys: "Leinders. There are even court documents naming him"

Brailsford:"Perfect. We'll take him"

exactly. end of discussion.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Rasmussen transformed into a dominant all round rider and weighed the same as my left leg. If you don't see the doping in that then there's no helping you.

rasmussen was obvious yes. but there are no rasmussens in the current peloton.

 

[Bexon30]

There's no helping you if you can't read and interpret a post.

The doctor who worked along side Micheal was present at Sky during the emergence of Froome. While Rogers improved more than marginally as with Porte.
In that I can make an interpretation. And my mind can be just as open as anyone's.
if it doesn't look right it generally isn't.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

The doctor who worked along side Micheal was present at Sky during the emergence of Froome. While Rogers improved more than marginally as with Porte.
In that I can make an interpretation. And my mind can be just as open as anyone's.
if it doesn't look right it generally isn't.

rasmussen did all on himself. he was already a loose cannon in csc.

also it's downright hilarious to think they would only dope porte, rogers and froome and not the rest, who didn't gain much, if anything at all. also porte was always a huge talent. he comes as no surprise and rogers used to be a lot better 10 years ago

 

[hrotha]

It's hilarious that they'd only dope Porte, Rogers and Froome and not the rest? But just the other day you were saying US Postal only doped Livingston and Hamilton with EPO in 1999. You know, the mountain squad.

 

[Bexon30]

rasmussen was obvious yes. but there are no rasmussens in the current peloton.

And thankfully no Leindeers anymore. But it still makes the last 2 years relevant. The whole Geert thing needs investigation. The lack of noise in the UK press is disappointing.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

rasmussen did all on himself. he was already a loose cannon in csc.

also it's downright hilarious to think they would only dope porte, rogers and froome and not the rest, who didn't gain much, if anything at all. also porte was always a huge talent. he comes as no surprise and rogers used to be a lot better 10 years ago

We know that Cav, Eisel and EBH were clean at the Tour and we know that Froome and Rogers weren't. The other four are debatable imo. The less who dope the better, makes it much easier to keep it all a secret. I think it's possible that Knees and Sioutsou were clean, they didn't need to be doped up to ride as they did last year.

 

[Benotti69]

And thankfully no Leindeers anymore. But it still makes the last 2 years relevant. The whole Geert thing needs investigation. The lack of noise in the UK press is disappointing.

Everybody forgetting about Ibarguren! Everyone forgetting how Ferarri got banned but it did not stop the Italian riders.

You think Leinders is going to throw his income away because some anti-doping agency says so?

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

We know that Cav, Eisel and EBH were clean at the Tour and we know that Froome and Rogers weren't. The other four are debatable imo. The less who dope the better, makes it much easier to keep it all a secret. I think it's possible that Knees and Sioutsou were clean, they didn't need to be doped up to ride as they did last year.

Evidence or links? I'm sure the MSM would be interested. Or did you in fact mean "think".