Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[thehog]

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

Just to be clear.

Rasmussen wasn't positive.

Suspicion only.

He was seen by a journalist. Suspicion only.

That's enough apparently.

Suspicion very effective in these cases.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Also isn't supposedly such policing already in place? The BP, the suspicion index?

The bio-passport is, on paper, a good system. The UCI has total control over who is being tested, what tests are run, and now even routing suspicous samples. So, in practice, doping is okay as long as the UCI is willing to suppress your suspicious samples, provided they tested for drugs a cyclist would actually use. Prior to 2012, I believe Saugy was in charge of routing suspicious samples. That pretty much speaks for itself.

What we need is competent, trustworthy governance that triggering such susp[icion isn't dealt with a tap on the shoulder, followed by 'you are doing it wrong and here is how to do it better', lecture given by the WADA lab manager Saugy.

Fixed that for you. I agree. Let WADA have total authority over the test process keeping sample anonymous until they request a name for a sample from the UCI while opening a case. Until then, it's game-on for doping as long as the UCI is interested in supressing your suspicious samples. In Armstrong's case, that was years and years.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...irst-nine-of-Armstrongs-38-blood-results.aspx

 

[northstar]

What do mean finally? I never said that I think Wiggins was clean. Not once. In fact months and months ago I said I give it roughly a 30% chance he is doping.

That's your problem though, you keep ignoring this fact but instead make believe that I do think Wiggins is totally clean because I pull you up on your dodgy ar$e evidence and cycling performance analysis which you use as your "proof" of doping. It's not proof, its just crap.

After months of reading Krebs’ posts, I find this interesting.

He claims there is roughly a 30% chance Wiggins is doping. Not 5% or 10%, but 30%.

For a zero tolerance team, that is a surprisingly high probability.

 

[Benotti69]

After months of reading Krebs’ posts, I find this interesting.

He claims there is roughly a 30% chance Wiggins is doping. Not 5% or 10%, but 30%.

For a zero tolerance team, that is a surprisingly high probability.

For Wiggins, who once wanted anyone with a 1% suspicion kicked out, it is huge probability.

Wonder why he didn't kick himself off the tour

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Wonder why he didn't kick himself off the tour

He would assess his own probability of being a doper somewhat differently, I suspect!

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Rasmussen wasn't positive.

There's much more to the Rasmussen story than your tabloid-style headlines.

He was sacked by his team during the Tour, for lying to management about his "whereabouts".

He was subsequently (summer 2008) awarded approx £500k by a Dutch court, as Rabobank had not followed the correct procedures. (Rasmussen had brought a case for wrongful dismissal claiming £4.4m, but the court ruled that they had the right to sack him, but just didn't do it the right way). The £500k was two months salary (to cover the two months that Rabo knew about his "whereabouts" issues before sacking him) and the Tour bonus he would have won!

Round the same time, the Monaco Federation, with whom Rassa held his licence, banned him for two years from the date of his Tour expulsion, for lying to the UCI re his "whereabouts". Despite admitting this, Rassa appealed to CAS, but was unsuccessful.

 

[thehog]

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!

IP addresses are not anonymous. You know that.

Lance would still be riding today if it was for the suspicion which rumbled through the Internet.

The Clinic was pivotal for the change in perceptions in regards to him.

If some think Froome Dog is going bannnas on gear – we should say nothing? Just shrug the shoulders and state that he is clean because of the Passport?

WG! Really?

 

[thehog]

There's much more to the Rasmussen story than your tabloid-style headlines.

He was sacked by his team during the Tour, for lying to management about his "whereabouts".

He was subsequently (summer 2008) awarded approx £500k by a Dutch court, as Rabobank had not followed the correct procedures. (Rasmussen had brought a case for wrongful dismissal claiming £4.4m, but the court ruled that they had the right to sack him, but just didn't do it the right way). The £500k was two months salary (to cover the two months that Rabo knew about his "whereabouts" issues before sacking him) and the Tour bonus he would have won!

Round the same time, the Monaco Federation, with whom Rassa held his licence, banned him for two years from the date of his Tour expulsion, for lying to the UCI re his "whereabouts". Despite admitting this, Rassa appealed to CAS, but was unsuccessful.

He was ejected from the Tour in the yellow jersey.

Without trial. Without a positive test.

Did the UCI support to keep him in the Tour? Even when they withheld his whereabouts violations to ASO.

The UCI knew everything prior to the Tour.

Suspicion is what got him ejected. And pressure from the fans of cycling. The ones on the Internet.

 

[blackcat]

IP addresses are not anonymous. You know that.

Lance would still be riding today if it was for the suspicion which rumbled through the Internet.

The Clinic was pivotal for the change in perceptions in regards to him.

If some think Froome Dog is going bannnas on gear – we should say nothing? Just shrug the shoulders and state that he is clean because of the Passport?

WG! Really?

nah, you're just a bone idle w@nker hog

 

[Benotti69]

He would assess his own probability of being a doper somewhat differently, I suspect!

and he'd be wrong.

 

[MatParker117]

He was ejected from the Tour in the yellow jersey.

Without trial. Without a positive test.

Did the UCI support to keep him in the Tour? Even when they withheld his whereabouts violations to ASO.

The UCI knew everything prior to the Tour.

Suspicion is what got him ejected. And pressure from the fans of cycling. The ones on the Internet.

Didn't Italian TV catch him red handed?

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Didn't Italian TV catch him read handed?

Cassani(RAI commentator) said he saw him training in the dolomites while he was supposed to be in Mexico.

 

[thehog]

Didn't Italian TV catch him read handed?

Read? Red.

No footage whatsoever.

David was drinking coffee and saw the Chicken ride by. True story.

He didn't make the correlation to much later until during the Tour when the UCI leaked the information to p** off ASO.

But at that time it was only suspicion. David raised some questions and then the Danish Fed confirmed the information (but were probably not aware).

There was actually no official violation. Just suspicion.

 

[thehog]

That suspicion proved correct. As with Armstrong. As with Di Luca. As with…..

 

[Zam_Olyas]

By the way this proves italians are anti doping now. Even UCI anti doping chief is Italian.

 

[thehog]

By the way this proves italians are anti doping now. Even UCI anti doping chief is Italian.

non che credo!

 

[blackcat]

Cassani(RAI commentator) said he saw him training in the dolomites while he was supposed to be in Mexico.

Chipotle had just opened stores in Italy and Dolomiti was where their flagship is.

burritos are damn good. they even have a few "italian" burritos.

 

[Avoriaz]

Lance would still be riding today if it was for the suspicion which rumbled through the Internet.

The Clinic was pivotal for the change in perceptions in regards to him.

It's quite possible you even believe that.

Pah to Walsh et al...

 

[thehog]

It's quite possible you even believe that.

Pah to Walsh et al...

Walsh and co did their bit.

But you'd be surprised the number or people who came to the Clinic for read-only access.

Many perceptions were changed. I'd put the number in the 100,000s.

Armstrong and his cronies were stalking this forum for a long time.

Ask CyclingNews to provide you some stats on "hits" around that time.

BroDeal got me on this site. He was instrumental in turning the Clinic in what it is today.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Incorrect: I said that he - or anyone - could at least theoretically achieve an 8% increase in power output without any increase in O2 delivery. That remains true regardless of what Armstrong actually did.

O2 delivery increase - you mean like using EPO to increase Hgb? Heads up, we call that doping around here.

I'm not defending anyone, I'm just stating facts (inconvenient to your or others' world view though they may be).

Actually, no. You are defending Wiggins. The 4 random variables you chose to assume for Wiggins Olympic TT victory is a classic example of said defense.

Exactly the same way you defended Ed Coyle's study ad infinitum, despite people pointing out Armstrong was doping - oh no, you say, he doesn't need to dope.

That's because I rely on reason, not emotion, to inform my opinions.

And yet get very personal - albeit not as personal as Krebs - against posters.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Krebs Cycle: you have stated categorically that Wiggins is doping with a 30% likelihood.

As a PhD with 10 years at AIS/NSWIS and 2 years lecturing at a college in physiology, I would like to know how you arrived at the value of 30%.

 

[acoggan]

O2 delivery increase - you mean like using EPO to increase Hgb? Heads up, we call that doping around here.

My point was that it is theoretically possible to increase power by 8% without any increase in O2 delivery/utilization - no more but no less.

Actually, no. You are defending Wiggins. The 4 random variables you chose to assume for Wiggins Olympic TT victory is a classic example of said defense.

Nope, just stating facts...but clearly that is lost on you.

Exactly the same way you defended Ed Coyle's study ad infinitum, despite people pointing out Armstrong was doping - oh no, you say, he doesn't need to dope.

To quote the Great Gipper: there you go again.

What I have defended are the conclusions drawn upon the data as presented, and by extension, the validity of the scientific review process that led to the paper's publication.

And yet get very personal - albeit not as personal as Krebs - against posters.

My reliance on reasoning to form my opinions extends to how I judge people like you.

 

[sittingbison]

as has been pointed out upthread by northsatr Sir Wiggo stated even a 1% chance of doping and teams using doper doctors (not to mention the old winning the Tour by winning a TT by 2mins over 5th) should be thrown out, plus Sky has a zero tolerance to doping (leaving alone the issue of employing a doper doctor, having a plethora of dopers on the books, and Dodger as road captain who was named in the Reasoned Decision)

So an estimated 30% chance of doping from a sports scientist (who recently stated almost all sports scientists knew Lance was doping all along) is truly remarkable.

...I never said that I think Wiggins was clean. Not once. In fact months and months ago I said I give it roughly a 30% chance he is doping...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Nope, just stating facts...but clearly that is lost on you.

No, Andrew, they were guesses as to the conditions and those conditions' impact on a single rider.

Nowhere near facts.

You need to school up on what a fact is, buddy, coz you're getting it wrong.

 

[mastersracer]

Read? Red.

No footage whatsoever.

David was drinking coffee and saw the Chicken ride by. True story.

He didn't make the correlation to much later until during the Tour when the UCI leaked the information to p** off ASO.

But at that time it was only suspicion. David raised some questions and then the Danish Fed confirmed the information (but were probably not aware).

There was actually no official violation. Just suspicion.

what a load of BS. Rasmussen admitted to his team manager that the accusation was correct, and that's when he got fired for violating team rules. He later denied that, but later recanted and said it was true that he confessed to his team. An admission is a lot different than 'suspicion.'

Strange how you pretend to be the lone voice of morality in this forum and yet stoop to such immoral twisting of the truth to suit your aims.