Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[taiwan]

I see. So three doctors are required for legit medicine, and one is needed for doping.

Is that a hard and fast rule?

YES.

Chars.

 

[bobbins]

As linked before, in particular, first nine words

and by the way, i think not having a criminal offence for doping, at least for professional athletes, is a national disgrace

Start a new thread then. It's only sport. If cheating was illegal there'd be some empty soccer courts most weekends!

 

[martinvickers]

Start a new thread then. It's only sport. If cheating was illegal there'd be some empty soccer courts most weekends!

Why, I merely wrote it as an aside.

individual acts of cheating are covered by the internal rules of the sport. Doping, like matchfixing is a fraud on the entire sport, not least a financial one.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Actually doping is not a criminal offence per se in the UK, although there a re a series of offences that could impinge on the issue.

Check here

Under Schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971), anabolic steroids and HGH are Class C controlled drugs in the UK. However it does not appear EPO and other blood boosting drugs are (I am not a scientist, so I cannot interpret the scientific language in Schedule 2).

Section 4 of that Act states,

4. Restriction of production and supply of controlled drugs.E+W+S+N.I..(1)Subject to any regulations under section 7 of this Act for the time being in force, it shall not be lawful for a person— .

(a)to produce a controlled drug; or .

(b)to supply or offer to supply a controlled drug to another.

The Act does not seem to define "supply"' but clearly if anyone injects a Class C drug to a person they are supplying that drug "to another" Or if anyone supplies another person a Class C drug who injects themself, that too would be supplying. What the Act does not do is criminalize the person who receives the drug. In this context the cyclist could not be charged unless you could prove a conspiracy to "supply" as USADA did with Armstrong in the context of their rules against doping.

However the penalties are pretty light. Up to 3 months in jail or a 2,500 pound fine or both. So doping of controlled C drugs is in fact a criminal offence in the UK. Doping in the classic sense of blood doping does not appear to be a crime.

 

[thehog]

Like everybody else involved in pro cycling tells the truth the whole time.

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

Ponzi Schemes Characteristics

•Victims typically have not saved enough for retirement so they’re desperate to believe

•Victims typically don’t understand the capital markets

•Ponzi schemes are usually, but not always, complex and involve strategies that few investors would grasp

•Many schemes involve privately traded investments with no transparency

•Black-Box strategies are common where no one is allowed to peer inside the magic box and see the secret formula

•Returns are usually steady but often not home runs, more like a steady string of doubles

•They need to appear safe so that victims will willingly invest 100% of their assets

•Ridiculously High Sharpe Ratios!

Sounds like what the Skybots believe in....

 

[MatParker117]

As linked before, in particular, first nine words

and by the way, i think not having a criminal offence for doping, at least for professional athletes, is a national disgrace

There's no historical need for one. There have been two high profile doping cases involving British athletes in the last decade.

 

[Catwhoorg]

There's no historical need for one. There have been two high profile doping cases involving British athletes in the last decade.

Still should be a criminal offense.
The police catch more criminals than doping agencies catch cheats.

 

[thehog]

There's no historical need for one. There have been two high profile doping cases involving British athletes in the last decade.

Which means their giving the British athletes a free pass.

Dope at will.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Like everybody else involved in pro cycling tells the truth the whole time.

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

DB has 15 years of Rob Hayles ar5e-covering Olympic glory lying experience to draw on.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

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.

Rogers and Sutton being 2 special cases where their "let go" was handled very delicately. Lots of thought and care taken in their release back into the wild.

 

[northstar]

There's no historical need for one. There have been two high profile doping cases involving British athletes in the last decade.

Not sure if kidding.

Lots of sanctioned athletes on UKAD’s website. 23 in 2012 alone.

Not high profile enough?

 

[MatParker117]

Not sure if kidding.

Lots of sanctioned athletes on UKAD’s website. 23 in 2012 alone.

Not high profile enough?

I severly doubt any of them are on the Dwain Chambers/David Millar level.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I severly doubt any of them are on the Dwain Chambers/David Millar level.

Does this sound unlikely?

Scenario A: lower level athletes with less $$ endorsements trying the doping thing to lift their game and getting caught

Scenario B: higher level athletes with more $$ managing to avoid doping positives

Scenario C: lower level athletes are doping, and getting caught. NO high level athletes are doping.

 

[MarkvW]

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.

If that's the case (and you may very well be right), then the pro peloton and its hangers-on are really pathetic. They're not paid very much, they're treated like crud, they're expected to participate in criminal acts, and yet they can be trusted to remain silent about it all--just because they "need" to be associated with professional cycling.

 

[northstar]

I severly doubt any of them are on the Dwain Chambers/David Millar level.

It doesn’t matter how much publicity or high profile the case is. If you dope, you are committing a “crime”.

The good news is U.K. cycling is super clean. Only 1 of the 23 sanctions was cycling related.
.

 

[bobbins]

It doesn’t matter how much publicity or high profile the case is. If you dope, you are committing a “crime”.

The good news is U.K. cycling is super clean. Only 1 of the 23 sanctions was cycling related.
.

Errrr, I think the point has been made that you aren't.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I severly doubt any of them are on the Dwain Chambers/David Millar level.

Ohuruogu? Ferdinand?

Whereabouts violations are sanctionable offences too. Just ask Michael Rasmussen.

 

[The Hitch]

If that's the case (and you may very well be right), then the pro peloton and its hangers-on are really pathetic. They're not paid very much, they're treated like crud, they're expected to participate in criminal acts, and yet they can be trusted to remain silent about it all--just because they "need" to be associated with professional cycling.

no. Once again. They can be trusted not to talk due to this simple thing called self preservation.

have you considered in what ways life can become more unpleasant for people if they confess that their entire career was a sham based on criminal acts, let alone what can happen if they get on the wrongside of the fanboys?

 

[martinvickers]

no. Once again. They can be trusted not to talk due to this simple thing called self preservation.

have you considered in what ways life can become more unpleasant for people if they confess that their entire career was a sham based on criminal acts, let alone what can happen if they get on the wrongside of the fanboys?

OK then, tell us, how would e.g. Michael Barry's life get demonstrably worse if he confessed to Sky doping? He's already an admitted doper elsewhere, retired, no payout, doesn't live in GB. Why not confess?

And seriously? Fear the Fanboys? you think some disappointed fans are any more dangerous or worrisome than the jihadists and cultists?

Sure. And I've got some prime property for you...

 

[lemoogle]

And seriously? Fear the Fanboys? you think some disappointed fans are any more dangerous or worrisome than the jihadists and cultists?

I won't defend his point but i do hope you realise that the jihadists and cultists have NOTHING to do with this. Don't think they would care for any doping revelations.
That's all I have to say.

Don't worry about this angry guy you ****ed off that's about to beat you up, worry about the jihadists

 

[MarkvW]

no. Once again. They can be trusted not to talk due to this simple thing called self preservation.

have you considered in what ways life can become more unpleasant for people if they confess that their entire career was a sham based on criminal acts, let alone what can happen if they get on the wrongside of the fanboys?

Sky is going to bet their whole enterprise on that kind of reasoning? I'm not buying it.

The only way Sky would be confident enough to take the approach that you describe would be if they have deniability for the doping going on at their team. If they have an organized team doping conspiracy going on, it just doesn't make sense to me that they'd risk it.

And again, I'm not saying that Sky isn't tolerating riders doping on their own, or doping confidentially with a team doc. I'm just saying that it doesn't seem likely that there is any team-coordinated doping effort like Liberty Seguros, Festina, or USPS/Discovery. And if they've got the Tinkoff "we don't care what you do, just don't get caught" attitude, then they're not being stupid enough to say it.

 

[martinvickers]

I won't defend his point but i do hope you realise that the jihadists and cultists have NOTHING to do with this. Don't think they would care for any doping revelations.
That's all I have to say.

My point is they care when they DON'T get the confessions; they've driven themselves into a frenzy.

and for the record, i don't think either is frankly a threat; but if we're simply considering nuttiness, it seemed bizarre in the extremem to suggest 'fanboys' are somehow more dangerous than the cultists, absolutely bizzare.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

no. Once again. They can be trusted not to talk due to this simple thing called self preservation.

have you considered in what ways life can become more unpleasant for people if they confess that their entire career was a sham based on criminal acts, let alone what can happen if they get on the wrongside of the fanboys?

Tyler Hamilton seems to be doing just fine. Millar is viewed as a hero in some quarters and could well go on to make a career after he retires as an anti doping ambassador. What has Sean Yates got to lose by speaking out? Everyone believes he was doping, he has no reputation to defend. He could do very well financially by telling all about what really went on during his career in cycling. Sounds a better option financially then being unemployed or working as a taxi driver.

 

[Wiggo Warrior]

Thanks. I checked out the website. It looks like there are currently 4 medical doctors, 1 psychiatrist, 2 physiotherapists and 1 nutritionist on staff.

2012 race guides are listed and for the most part confirm which doctor attended each race. Do you know what happened to Dr. Fabio Bartalucci? He was at February and March races and then disappeared. Did Dr. Farrell replace him?

2011 races guides are not listed. That’s too bad as there’s no way to find out Leinders’ schedule for that year now.

I haven't been able to track Fabio Bartalucci down apart from those early 2012 races either, he's the real invisible man here. I also haven't been able to find anywhere apart from Dopeology that reckons that FB started with Sky or worked with them at all in 2011. Does anyone know where this info originally came from?

Leinders' schedule in 2011 included the Vuelta and the Scheldeprijs based on quoting related to rider injuries in reports on those races on the site. It is possible that his 2012 program was originally intended to be similar to the previous years seeing as Scheldeprijs appears for both years.

Dr. Farrell appears to have joined GL at Romandie as his first introduction to the role of race doctor, presumably 'shadowing' him during the race as he is not listed as race doctor. He may well have been taken on as a replacement when FB left if this was March/April but I don't know for sure.

Interestingly, if you take the actual race days from GL's reported 2012 race program and add a day before/after/between them for travelling/prep/packing up (I am assuming that this is normal practice rather than staff travelling only on race days and thus not getting any sleep, I have seen it quoted that the riders get a day longer) you get 41 days worked in 2012. If this is an incorrect assumption, please let me know.

Using the same premise as above, Fabio Bartalucci worked for an estimated 35 days at Qatar, Oman, OHN, KBK, Tirenno Adriatico and Criterium International 2012.

 

[bobbins]

It is interesting seeing the recent twitter posts of both sky's former head of cycling and someone still working with the team. Sympathy towards Leinders and a departure from the party line on Sir Dave. A small shift but a shift none the less.

The problem may well be that the tentacles of Sir Dave go very, very far. Cross him and i expect life can very hard. Cycling is a small world so don't be surprised that no one speaks out.