Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Ferminal]

Do any teams do proper internal testing?

Most talk it up as a PR game and you hear nothing more. "Internal testing" is the mandatory quarterly health check or whatever it is.

 

[ToreBear]

Do any teams do proper internal testing?

Most talk it up as a PR game and you hear nothing more. "Internal testing" is the mandatory quarterly health check or whatever it is.

I think internal testing is discouraged by wada these days. Remember it can be abused, and independence is a problem. Ideally all testing should be carried out by the federation.

 

[Benotti69]

Do any teams do proper internal testing?

Most talk it up as a PR game and you hear nothing more. "Internal testing" is the mandatory quarterly health check or whatever it is.

I would think most have an internal testing regime for their 'marginal gained' A team.

 

[Ferminal]

I think internal testing is discouraged by wada these days. Remember it can be abused, and independence is a problem. Ideally all testing should be carried out by the federation.

Agreed.

If you want private internal testing it should be through an organisation with proven independence not someone you're paying to deliver negative results. Even then you probably need full public disclosure to make sure the tester isn't getting too close.

Had it lasted more than a month, Lance and Catlin probably had it right.

 

[martinvickers]

He has a Facebook page. You could ask him personally.

Actually, I don't. This is not me. Sorry.

Odd that I'm a person of interest!

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I think internal testing is discouraged by wada these days. Remember it can be abused, and independence is a problem. Ideally all testing should be carried out by the federation.

Wasn't Roger part of the federation, as in British Cycling. Or did you mean another federation?

Had it lasted more than a month, Lance and Catlin probably had it right.

Good one.

 

[ToreBear]

Wasn't Roger part of the federation, as in British Cycling. Or did you mean another federation?

Federation, as in the UCI and it's anti doping division.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Federation, as in the UCI and it's anti doping division.

Okay, thanks, forgot the UCI has one, my bad.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Agreed.

If you want private internal testing it should be through an organisation with proven independence not someone you're paying to deliver negative results. Even then you probably need full public disclosure to make sure the tester isn't getting too close.

Had it lasted more than a month, Lance and Catlin probably had it right.

This seems sensical

 

[ToreBear]

Okay, thanks, forgot the UCI has one, my bad.

Easy mistake to make.

 

[oldcrank]

So talking of narrative, I may have got this wrong, but it appears that now it's not Wiggins, but the Hog who is the working class boy done good. . .

Starting on the mean streets of Cambridge, the Hog spent his summers as a teenager punting tourists and students around the river Cam, smiling politely for them, while deep down a burning resentment smouldered. But then, by dint of his bravery and persistence in going to school, passing A levels and applying through the UCAS system, he won a place at the dreaming spires of his dreams. Putting up with the condescension of his new peers, and living in a one bedroom flat with his mum, he passed his English and Philosophy bachelors degree, and even paid the £10 admin fee to claim his masters.

From there, he tread an unusual and perilous past, cynically 'playing' his Cambridge connections to score a job working in PR in London, all the while restlessly moving between the suburbs of Clapham (but near the Brixton borders!), Crouch End (but on the Archway end!), and Finsbury Park (well, OK then, Highbury) before settling in the little known suburb of Notting Hill - which, a little over 50 years earlier, had been the scenes of race riots.

It's a great story, which I'm sure you could get at least three books from.

That said, it's not really very street is it?

And all the while struggling with secret desires to be
a woman, or a horse. That could be another book.

 

[RownhamHill]

It's funny, because you're obviously quite anti-Sky, and the Palfreeman departure - as I seem to remember - has been explained in some detail. . . .
I'm pretty sure this has been a matter of public record since 2010 (I think I read about in 'Skys the limit' - that book about Sky - some of the story at least, it's been a while).

To bring the football metaphor back, you're missing an open goal here I think.

Then you would have no problems sharing that/those detail/s.

Still waiting RownhamHill, put your money where...

Check it, aight:

UCI done tol' ol' Sky they don't need no extra testing yo. Fo' shizzle they be down wit da testin' by UCI and WADA, and dat be all she done wrote.

Word.

To wit: (Sky's the limit).

UCI: YOU DON'T NEED TO BE THAT RIGOROUS. IT WILL COST $$. We should know, we slashed testing this year that you started as a pro team. And it won't pick up any more data. 2 urine OOC tests/year is heaps.

Oh wait, there was no rider vote either, where they decided not to adopt it. That didn't happen, no. It was the UCI alone that quashed it.

Sorry, been away for a few days, and missed this little exchange.

Thanks Dear Wiggo for supplying the source - interesting (to me, at least, if not FearlessGregLemond) that you found it in exactly the place I said it would be in my original post. (And out of interest, how did you do that image? Is it online somewhere, or have you scanned the actual book?)

FearlessGregLemond. Have you seen the wood for the trees here yet?

 

[DirtyWorks]

OK, the Ashenden vs UCI thread confirms the UCI selectively enforced the bio-passport to keep Wonderboy in the peloton.

So, 2011/2012 rolls around, someone at Sky's does the same buy-in Wonderboy/Wiesel did and gets the UCI's same special handling for the Sky grand tour squad that Armstrong got for his comeback.

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling...shandling-armstrong-tests-20130213-2edfq.html

What happens in 2013? I don't know. But 2012 now makes perfect sense.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

FearlessGregLemond. Have you seen the wood for the trees here yet?

Yes, Rownam, I have seen the light. Roger was perfectly happy the UCI took over the internal testing on SKY. Subsequently he left British Cycling and went on speeching on stuff like this:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...ljbGluZy1zY2llbmNlfGd4OjY0M2U0NWQ3ZDRhYjhjZTc

I have seen the light.

 

[RownhamHill]

I'm going to be honest, I don't understand the point you are tying to make in your reply. Probably my fault.

But that's OK, because I'm pretty sure you haven't understood a word I've posted. So, I will spell out my meaning.

You are missing an open goal in your criticism of Sky when discussing Roger Palfreeman's departure because given that:

1 The Dr was employed specifically to develop a robust anti-doping internal programme, in a blaze of PR
2 The robust anti-doping programme the Dr developed was then quietly shelved by the team at a later date
3 The Dr subsequently left

Then, from my point of view the very obvious 'dot' to connect here is not that his departure is 'unexplained' (because it very clearly has been explained, in published books), but rather the explanation reveals team behaviour that sounds really very dodgy, and really very similar to the approach of a certain banned Texan when he made his comeback. So much so that there really should be the possibility of a very fruitful conversation where you suggest this is prima-facie evidence of Sky being dodgy, and anyone who wants to defend Sky on this point frankly has some work to do.

Instead you keep insisting the departure is unexplained, and rejecting the explanations you're given. So much so that you are comically missing the point entirely, and hence missing a golden opportunity to really stick the boot into Sky on what is obviously a point of criticism which is based on some substance. (Why was the UCI testing suddenly good enough, why did the need for internal testing suddenly disappear?)

And that, to me, is really very funny.

 

[coinneach]

I don't have much faith in internal testing regimes: smack too much of teams just keeping riders under the horizon. (Wasn't that Leinders job at Rabbo?)

Anyone reading about Pantani (and more recently Hesjedal when a MTB'er) will know they tested themselves all to time to keep just within limits.

I think in this case Sky would have been dammed if they did, so lets not damm them when they didn't

(Oh sorry, I forgot, this is the Clinic)

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I don't have much faith in internal testing regimes: smack too much of teams just keeping riders under the horizon. (Wasn't that Leinders job at Rabbo?)

Anyone reading about Pantani (and more recently Hesjedal when a MTB'er) will know they tested themselves all to time to keep just within limits.

I think in this case Sky would have been dammed if they did, so lets not damm them when they didn't

(Oh sorry, I forgot, this is the Clinic)

How about JV introducing the "ACE system" in 2007, a year before the BP? Do you have faith in that internal testing regime? He's still running it today.

 

[thehog]

How about JV introducing the "ACE system" in 2007, a year before the BP? Do you have faith in that internal testing regime? He's still running it today.

Is he?

I think you might find that it has been dropped long ago...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Is he?

I think you might find that it has been dropped long ago...

I think you'll find JV is spending 5x the anti-doping ABP contribution to the UCI for his own internal testing program.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I think you'll find JV is spending 5x the anti-doping ABP contribution to the UCI for his own internal testing program.

So no one goes positive????

I'm half-kidding. Do you see how that can be interpreted either way?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So no one goes positive????

I'm half-kidding. Do you see how that can be interpreted either way?

Me? Do I see how it can be interpreted either way? Are you being serious or is your tongue firmly planted in your cheek?

The utter hilarity of the article I read where CSC and Garmin and one other team were all lauded for their internal testing regime, and in the same breath, a company from Spain or somewhere offering similar services being mocked for being anti-anti-doping. Mainly because they were from a dodgy country, by the sounds of things.

A farce of a report if you ask me.

Yes, I can see it. Riders do what they can to avoid JV detection, JV does all he can to avoid team riders being caught. If the 5x figure is right, he's spending more on internal testing than most of the riders are being paid.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Instead you keep insisting the departure is unexplained, and rejecting the explanations you're given. So much so that you are comically missing the point entirely, and hence missing a golden opportunity to really stick the boot into Sky on what is obviously a point of criticism which is based on some substance. (Why was the UCI testing suddenly good enough, why did the need for internal testing suddenly disappear?)

And that, to me, is really very funny.

I am glad to see my questions have led you to this insight. A votre service.

 

[The Hitch]

.

My guess is they will have a bad season GC wise, blame it on Froome's Bilharzia and the Giro being too difficult for Wiggins, get Walsh to write glowing articles about them, get some good PR, and then revert back to UK Postal in 2014.

Looks like they wont bother with the year off

 

[JimmyFingers]

Looks like they wont bother with the year off

Sorta looks that way, doesn't it?

 

[RownhamHill]

I am glad to see my questions have led you to this insight. A votre service.

I'd love to give you credit, but I had that insight a year or so ago when I did some reading on the matter.

Your questions have been a great service though, as they have kept me thoroughly entertained!