Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

If it's not banned it's racing clean. I quite like your opinion, but are you going to say they need to ban espresso as well? What about supplements like whey protein?

How about giving riders anti - anxiety/depressants drugs? Off course with a tue.

 

[B_Ugli]

But to me racing clean means doing just that, racing without the use of performance enhancing drugs. Not taking performance enhancing drugs as long as they aren't included on a list somewhere, or are undetectable or whatever.

To most of the general public racing clean should always be as you describe.

Racing clean to any professional cycling team is simply knowing where the line is and doing everything humanely possible within it but without crossing it. Certain teams go a step further and cross it, whilst simply mitigating the risks of getting caught. This is where Pro Cycling finds itself at this moment in time.

And this is what so many fans (and also riders) have a real problem with. Do Nibali & Contador have a problem with Sky using SRM's religiously? No their real beef is that rather than relying on a bit of talent and a whole heap of drugs for one team leader, Sky are turning up at races with 4-5 guys extremely well prepared with not only a plan (A) but a plan (B) and (C) waiting in the wings. Whatever you think of Sky, they do their homework on their rivals watch them burn all their fuses like Contador did and then make their move and make it count. Rewind a couple of years to when Contador used to attack and his rivals didnt see him for dust.

I am no fanboy but clean or otherwise they are simply the best outfit in town at the moment and guys like Contador and Nibali are the only options that Saxo and Astana have. Riis and Vinoukourov must be scratching their heads but to be fair it is beginning to show that they place far too much reliance on their No 1 riders, forgetting the importance the other riders in their teams.

Perhaps the Riis/Vino way is now old hat?

 

[sublimit]

Like everybody else involved in pro cycling is doping the whole time.

Doping in pro racing is endemic anyway, DB is learning fast.

He will be replaced soon, cannot poker this guy.

The way I see it is Brailsford will probably get hounded out of the sport leaving it in the safe hands of the people like Riis, Vinokourov, Michael Rassmussen, Vaughters et al

 

[Froome19]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brailsford-hits-back-at-accusations-and-criticism-of-team-sky



Well, Dave, how about this nice video that points out they did ride with SRM:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DSHAU27uIcA

averages:
245 Watts
116 heartrate
72RPM
37.5 kphr

They forgot to tell Lloyd it seems.
http://road.cc/content/news/78268-video-secrets-commentary-box…-chris-froomes-srm

I don't know if you are delibaretly being daft, or you just have not watched the video. But check what jersey Froome is wearing and then join the dots from there considering what Brailsford said.

 

[Robert21]

Racing clean to any professional cycling team is simply knowing where the line is and doing everything humanely possible within it but without crossing it.

Or...

"Racing clean to any professional cycling team simply means doing everything possible that they think they can get away with."

 

[notrolfsorensen]

Riis and Vinoukourov must be scratching their heads but to be fair it is beginning to show that they place far too much reliance on their No 1 riders, forgetting the importance the other riders in their teams.

Perhaps the Riis/Vino way is now old hat?

to be fair, that is only a recent development. Go back before the exodus of half the team in 2010 for saxo, and quite frankly the exodus of half the Astana team in 2009 and they had several high class riders. However those 2 half teams became radioshack-leopard-trek or whatever they're officially called these days. At the same time, at least until Oleg Tinkoff and this year, Saxo didn't have the money to buy new riders. we will se what that means in the rest of the season. But the Riis way of 2002-2006 was one of the most succesfull every year, and that was without winning GTs (barring basso giro2006). So claiming that he only "prepares" one rider is simply not true.

 

[Benotti69]

The way I see it is Brailsford will probably get hounded out of the sport leaving it in the safe hands of the people like Riis, Vinokourov, Michael Rassmussen, Vaughters et al

As opposed to his safe hands where his riders beat the doping teams of Riis, Eki, Anderson, Och and the rest?????

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I don't know if you are delibaretly being daft, or you just have not watched the video. But check what jersey Froome is wearing and then join the dots from there considering what Brailsford said.

Asked and answered skyborg:

I thought the same - but, the stage was the one JRod won, stage 5 - here are all the results for Froome.
Stage 1 TTT 16.9km 19m49s 51kph.
Stage 2 232k 5h48m41s 39.1kph.
Stage 3 190k 5h15m12s 36.1kph.
Stage 4 173k @ 4h41m31s 36.8 kph
Stage 5 230k @ 6h06m51s 37.6kph

Pleaso, do pay attention Froome19.

I am not saying that the Brits are morally superior we are just as corrupt if not more corrupt than anyone else but we have a different mindset to other countries when it comes to doping

 

[The Hitch]

I am not saying that the Brits are morally superior we are just as corrupt if not more corrupt than anyone else but we have a different mindset to other countries when it comes to doping

Did Bailsford say that?

 

[BYOP88]

Did Bailsford say that?

Yeah he said it on a Monday morning, changed it on Monday afternoon.

 

[MarkvW]

Seems to me that any kind of doping at Sky is not organized team doping and is probably not 'wink and a nod' Tinkoff-style doping, either.

That's because Brailsford trashed a whole bunch of former dopers who used to work for his team. If the team was promoting doping, then somebody in that group would have snitched--because Brailsford treated them so horribly. And none of the fired people have snitched.

That's not to say that individuals or groups of individuals within the team are not doping, or that the team does not have lax institutional controls, or that the team does not use internal controls as early warning systems for the riders, but it does seem to indicate that the team is not particularly organized along the lines of former doping teams, like Liberty Seguros, USPS/Discovery, or Festina.

 

[mattghg]

Did Bailsford say that?

No. Let me Google for you:

http://test.velorooms.com/index.php?topic=636.msg44786#msg44786

 

[SundayRider]

Asked and answered skyborg:


Pleaso, do pay attention Froome19.

I am not saying that the Brits are morally superior we are just as corrupt if not more corrupt than anyone else but we have a different mindset to other countries when it comes to doping

This is a myth IMO.

 

[DirtyWorks]

That's because Brailsford trashed a whole bunch of former dopers who used to work for his team. If the team was promoting doping, then somebody in that group would have snitched--because Brailsford treated them so horribly. And none of the fired people have snitched.

#1 how many of the people that have exited Sky's org are looking for, or still have a paying gig inside Pro cycling? Many. Like Armstrong's situation, we will probably have to wait years and years for some of these people to turn on Sky, like Landis eventually did.

#2 The other part of the doping puzzle is the UCI. IMHO, They gave Sky a free doping-ride in 2012. Even if they didn't, we know they didn't route positive samples to experts to open cases in 2010, so why should they start now? Look at all the page views this thread gets. That's good for Sky and cycling.

Maybe it's a Rabo-style program, maybe it's isolated to the Grand Tour squad, lots of maybes. Bottom line, Sky's doping program is good and exceedingly likely the UCI is assisting. The whole system is so good, I'd call it Froome-tastic.

 

[coinneach]

I do think there is a difference between a lie (which is intended to deceive) and a mistake (which just makes oneself look stupid).

Why would Brailsford lie about something so easily verified/disproved?

It was just a mistake (and yes, it does make him look stupid criticizing others for not doing their homework).

 

[thehog]

Seems to me that any kind of doping at Sky is not organized team doping and is probably not 'wink and a nod' Tinkoff-style doping, either.

That's because Brailsford trashed a whole bunch of former dopers who used to work for his team. If the team was promoting doping, then somebody in that group would have snitched--because Brailsford treated them so horribly. And none of the fired people have snitched.

That's not to say that individuals or groups of individuals within the team are not doping, or that the team does not have lax institutional controls, or that the team does not use internal controls as early warning systems for the riders, but it does seem to indicate that the team is not particularly organized along the lines of former doping teams, like Liberty Seguros, USPS/Discovery, or Festina.

It was confirmed all of them received a large pay out.

No doubt to get the money they had to sign a NDA.

Do you think Sky would have cut them loose and not secured the informazioni?

 

[mastersracer]

It was confirmed all of them received a large pay out.

No doubt to get the money they had to sign a NDA.

Do you think Sky would have cut them loose and not secured the informazioni?

some of your posts really are bottom feeding - former riders aren't providing information to anti-doping agencies, the press, etc. because of an NDA? unbelievable.

 

[Robert21]

Why would Brailsford lie about something so easily verified/disproved?

Because he thought no one would pick him up on it?

It was just a mistake (and yes, it does make him look stupid criticizing others for not doing their homework).

Interesting how so many defenders of Sky are so ready to argue that Bralisford, Wiggins and so on don't actually know their arse from their elbow or are simply as thick as a plank when they come out with things that are demonstrably wrong, contradictory, highly dubious and so forth.

 

[Froome19]

Asked and answered skyborg:

Precisely. Stage 5 was on Saturday.

 

[thehog]

some of your posts really are bottom feeding - former riders aren't providing information to anti-doping agencies, the press, etc. because of an NDA? unbelievable.

Its an employment contract is it not? Its standard. It was also mentioned by DB in regards to Yates.

You should try reading for once. You appear to pre-mature shoot off before understanding the facts.

Although I do agree with you that in addtion ex-employees don't talk because you never work again if you do.

 

[MarkvW]

It was confirmed all of them received a large pay out.

No doubt to get the money they had to sign a NDA.

Do you think Sky would have cut them loose and not secured the informazioni?

You make a very good point. That would be a VERY good question for the journalists to nail Brailsford with!

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

It was confirmed all of them received a large pay out.

No doubt to get the money they had to sign a NDA.

This does not sound too controversial.

Now here's a question for the lawyers...

If you have signed an NDA and then subsequently blab to an anti-doping agency, would you be in breach of the NDA? Blabbing to the anti-doping agencies is a good thing, but would this count for anything if the acts being highlighted to the agency weren't illegal in the UK, such as blood transfusions and EPO use. (I assume that if you blabbed about illegal activities, then you would have some sort of statutory protection.)

 

[The Hitch]

whoever questioned why the people let go by sky havent talked is a bit naive. How many of those people have actually confessed to doping themselves? How many have been banned from the sport or faced any kind of sanction?

Because if they havent confessed to doping themselves (or received any kind of sanction for it) then they have way way too much to lose and nothing to gain from speaking out, destroying their own career and life, and getting the Floyd Landis 2010 treatment in the press.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Did Bailsford say that?

No, his biggest fan did.

I do think there is a difference between a lie (which is intended to deceive) and a mistake (which just makes oneself look stupid).

Why would Brailsford lie about something so easily verified/disproved?

It was just a mistake (and yes, it does make him look stupid criticizing others for not doing their homework).

I agree somewhat,

this is a man not cut out for lying, at large media scale [larger picture:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/pho...-accusations-and-criticism-of-team-sky/249962 well, Picture One that is, I am quite a judge of charactar and that picture shows a very uncertain human being].

For that u need this face:

But, sir Dave should not be so stupid to do those kinda interviews. Keep the facts straight. He will leave SKY soon, he deserves a rest after 15 years of dominance.

 

[MarkvW]

This does not sound too controversial.

Now here's a question for the lawyers...

If you have signed an NDA and then subsequently blab to an anti-doping agency, would you be in breach of the NDA? Blabbing to the anti-doping agencies is a good thing, but would this count for anything if the acts being highlighted to the agency weren't illegal in the UK, such as blood transfusions and EPO use. (I assume that if you blabbed about illegal activities, then you would have some sort of statutory protection.)

A contract provision is just words, unless one of the parties tries to enforce the contract. If Sky tried to enforce an NDA to block somebody from snitching to the UCI, that (I would suspect) be a massive violation of both the UCI rules and the WADA code. Practically, such a provision might be unenforceable in the circumstances you describe, because Sky would be hindering a UCI/WADA investigation when it seeks to enforce the NDA.

As between the former employee and Sky, a deal's a deal unless some or all of the deal is illegal.