Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Wallace and Gromit]

No you're wrong, DNA matches are simply more suspicions

I couldn't find much detail as to exactly how Ullrich was nailed. Can you enlighten me? (Genuine question.) The DNA match seemed to play a key role, but it's not clear how.

 

[JimmyFingers]

'Reds under the beds'

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

He was removed from the Tour based on suspicion alone. His team suspended him on suspicion alone.

Teams can do what they like subject to employment law. I guess either German or Swiss law would apply to Ullrich, so he would have had a lot of protection in this respect.

As far as I can determine, Ullrich stated he didn't like the way he was ultimately sacked but didn't launch any legal action, so his team's actions seem as legit as USADA in nailing Lance, who chose not to contest USADA's findings.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

What I simply meant is that Contador is a more popular rider than Wiggins, so is likely to have an easier ride.

To be fair to Contador, he has 'some' road credentials, it is not like he came out of nothing.

Nevertheless some of his accomplishments are a bit 'funny', like the TT in 2009 where he beat up Cancellara. Comedy gold.

Thus, the official process for determine doper status is the only one of any relevance.

And we know how succesfull that official process has been and still is? Followed the CAS vs Contador ruling?

When Maxim Iglinsky follows the Tenerife path of his countryman Alexandre the Great and without breathing wins la Doyenne you would also raise an eyebrow I guess? Chips, that happened just last year

 

[JimmyFingers]

It was suspicions that got Katusha excluded from world-tour status, wasn't it? CAS gave that pretty short thrift

To be fair to Contador, he has 'some' road credentials, it is not like he came out of nothing.

Except he has had a positive test, been banned and stripped of titles. Surely a 'suspicion index' would place him higher than Wiggins as most likely to be doping right now

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

And we know how succesfull that official process has been and still is? Followed the CAS vs Contador ruling?

I never said it was an unflawed process; just that it's the only one of relevance! If it operated as intended it would be a help.

 

[thehog]

Teams can do what they like subject to employment law. I guess either German or Swiss law would apply to Ullrich, so he would have had a lot of protection in this respect.

As far as I can determine, Ullrich stated he didn't like the way he was ultimately sacked but didn't launch any legal action, so his team's actions seem as legit as USADA in nailing Lance, who chose not to contest USADA's findings.

It was ASO who suspended him from the race. They threatened to remove the entire team if he wasn't removed.

Nothing to do with employment law.

Workers counsel withstanding.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

It was ASO who suspended him from the race.

Fine. Except you post this a short while ago.

His team suspended him on suspicion alone.

These posts do not mean the same thing. This might not be important to you, but it is a significant flaw in your reasoning.

 

[sittingbison]

I understood thehogs meaning Wallace, but then I also knew he was talking about ASO in the first sentence and team in the second. So I can understand your confusion given your previous question.

On a general level, I'm not sure anybody is suggesting riders should be convicted and sanctioned merely because performances look implausible or even impossible (thanks for the medieval trial by ordeal analogy acoggan that was a good one lol). I think the consensus of doubters is #extraterrestrial performances should be used as indicators of potential doping that warrant further scrutiny such as extra targeted tests, increased OOC and possible surveillance etc.

What was that observation about good men doing nothing?

 

[mastersracer]

I understood thehogs meaning Wallace, but then I also knew he was talking about ASO in the first sentence and team in the second. So I can understand your confusion given your previous question.

On a general level, I'm not sure anybody is suggesting riders should be convicted and sanctioned merely because performances look implausible or even impossible (thanks for the medieval trial by ordeal analogy acoggan good one lol). I think the consensus of doubters is #extraterrestrial performances should be used as indicators of potential doping that warrant further scrutiny such as extra targeted tests, increased OOC and possible surveillance etc.

What was that observation about good men doing nothing?

Sounded like the Hog was pining for the old ways of East Germany and would be happy if the children of athletes could report their parents to anti-doping agencies for seditious comments they may have overheard...

The bigger issue is that wrt Sky and Wiggins, so far the anti-doping KGB here have offered no objective evidence of "extraterrestrial" performances, ignore evidence that shows the lack of such performances, and instead retreat to facile observations about 'just knowing' someone is doping...

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I think the consensus of doubters is #extraterrestrial performances should be used as indicators of potential doping that warrant further scrutiny such as extra targeted tests, increased OOC and possible surveillance etc.

What was that observation about good men doing nothing?

I would agree with this 100%. Test them until they cry!

 

[acoggan]

Well, then I must have misinterpreted your posts.

Clearly.

Well, the 'we do not see anything humanly impossible' approach is working just fine, too bad scientists can not point out what is humanly possible. Nice little paradox if you ask me.

Such are the facts: I suggest that you learn to deal with them.

 

[acoggan]

I think the consensus of doubters is #extraterrestrial performances should be used as indicators of potential doping that warrant further scrutiny such as extra targeted tests, increased OOC and possible surveillance etc.

So just who are these individuals that are producing such performances yet aren't already under the most powerful microscope the anti-doping authorities have at their disposal?

Or to put it another way: where are anti-doping resources being wasted that could be better directed at such "extraterrestrials"?

 

[Netserk]

So just who are these individuals that are producing such performances yet aren't already under the most powerful microscope the anti-doping authorities have at their disposal?

Or to put it another way: where are anti-doping resources being wasted that could be better directed at such "extraterrestrials"?

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=20059

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Such are the facts: I suggest that you learn to deal with them.

I for one have done that a long time ago, I do not take the gross of physicians/scientists serious when it comes to spotting doped up performances. And, when they do, they will stay silent, silenced perhaps.

The 'humanly possible' is a red herring, thanks for that.

So just who are these individuals that are producing such performances yet aren't already under the most powerful microscope the anti-doping authorities have at their disposal?

You haven't heard it yet? The anti - doping authorities - read UCI - are not so keen on catching the villains.

When CAS even comes to the 'conclusion' Contador must have had a contaminated supplement because they can't prove he had a bloodbag on the rest day, what is anti - doping then? Still a rat race where the villains are smarter than the 'cops'.

The bigger issue is that wrt Sky and Wiggins, so far the anti-doping KGB here have offered no objective evidence of "extraterrestrial" performances, ignore evidence that shows the lack of such performances, and instead retreat to facile observations about 'just knowing' someone is doping..

I just read scientists also do not know. Do you know something new? Much obliged if you would share that info masterracer.

 

[thehog]

Fine. Except you post this a short while ago.



These posts do not mean the same thing. This might not be important to you, but it is a significant flaw in your reasoning.

Not at all. ASO suspend teams not riders. They threatened to suspend the team if Ullrich was included in the race.

Simple. Even you can understand that.

Common theme here is suspicion.

Which you seem to think humans should not be suspicions of anything!

We should only have positive tests!

If you're looking for a flaw. A mirror would be a good start.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I think the consensus of doubters is #extraterrestrial performances should be used as indicators of potential doping that warrant further scrutiny such as extra targeted tests, increased OOC and possible surveillance etc.

What was that observation about good men doing nothing?

Consensus is a difficult thing to achieve, as this place proves. Also isn't supposedly such policing already in place? The BP, the suspicion index? What we need is competent, trustworthy governance that triggering such susp[icion isn't dealt with a tap on the shoulder, followed by 'now don't do it again, or at least do it better'-type rebuke.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

ASO suspend teams not riders.

So Telekom suspended Ullrich to avoid the whole team being univited from the Tour.

Fine. That brings us back to my original point re Ullrich that what happened to him was entirely between him and his employer, and actually had nothing to do with official sanctions. (They came later at CAS though as yet, no-one's posted details of the case that came before CAS.)

 

[hiero2]

Consensus is a difficult thing to achieve, as this place proves. Also isn't supposedly such policing already in place? The BP, the suspicion index? What we need is competent, trustworthy governance that triggering such susp[icion isn't dealt with a tap on the shoulder, followed by 'now don't do it again, or at least do it better'-type rebuke.

+1



9 samurai + 1 wing chun fighter = 10 characters

 

[thehog]

So Telekom suspended Ullrich to avoid the whole team being univited from the Tour.

Fine. That brings us back to my original point re Ullrich that what happened to him was entirely between him and his employer, and actually had nothing to do with official sanctions. (They came later at CAS though as yet, no-one's posted details of the case that came before CAS.)

Correct. But at that point there was no way he, basso or anyone named in OP could race. Well some did.

But the actions of ASO, the UCI and the teams was all based on suspicion.

There was no blood bag DNA at that point. Just dog names.

If the name of a dog is enough to stop someone from racing.... well maybe the Froome-dawg can be questioned, yes?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

But the actions of ASO, the UCI and the teams was all based on suspicion.

Obviously, the ASO and the teams can do this, as they are taking commercial and team-selection decisions. There are various legal means for the appropriateness of their actions to be tested.

Just remind me what the UCI did based on suspicion only? Thanks.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Obviously, the ASO and the teams can do this, as they are taking commercial and team-selection decisions. There are various legal means for the appropriateness of their actions to be tested.

Just remind me what the UCI did based on suspicion only? Thanks.

So, that suspicion was good but in case of calling out dopers as we see them suspicion is not good?

Just to be clear.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Correct. But at that point there was no way he, basso or anyone named in OP could race. Well some did.

But the actions of ASO, the UCI and the teams was all based on suspicion.

There was no blood bag DNA at that point. Just dog names.

If the name of a dog is enough to stop someone from racing.... well maybe the Froome-dawg can be questioned, yes?

You really shouldn't talk about Cound in that manner

But Puerto was/is huge, and far more than mere suspicion. Clearly much more was known before the bust, through the collation of evidence leading up to it, and it is sensible to assume information made known to the powers that be before it was made public, and they acted on it.

So more than mere suspicion, internet rumour, body-shape change or extra-terrestrial performance

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

So, that suspicion was good but in case of calling out dopers as we see them suspicion is not good?

Just to be clear.

It was bad - Basso vs Ullrich vs the youthful Berto would have been a belter!

It was not sufficiently unjustified to warrant anyone doing anything to contest it though.

Suspicion re calling out dopers anonymously on the internet is irrelevant as such anonymous calling out is just ego-massaging and achieves nothing of significance.

Calling out dopers in the real world, under your own name based only on suspicion is a very dangerous legal game to play, particularly in the UK.

There's absolutely nothing wrong in targetted testing based on suspicion. The "OK I tested positive, but you only tested me based on suspicion" defence probably wouldn't work!

 

[acoggan]

The 'humanly possible' is a red herring, thanks for that.

And here I'd come to believe that you were incapable of learning...