Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[hrotha]

As I said in that thread, I don't believe the theory that the ranking took into account anything aside from blood values (or, to be less radical: I believe blood values were, by far, the most important factor in the ranking). The team averages line up too well with any classification of team dodginess anyone could come up with, and scores of Frenchmen had very low values.

 

[roundabout]

Barredo got in trouble for his values from around the same period, so he is a 10 because he is dodgy.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

JV talked about it last week in his thread. He said Barredo had a 10 because he literally had not been tested at all. That was what they were told in a meeting I assume with the UCI. Some of the numbers are high because the riders needed to be tested. Others because they were dodgy. JV's tone made the latter seem less emphasized.

So Horner having zero means little. Menchov's 9 however I don't think was down to little testing. Same with Rogers 8 and Thomas 6. I think they were iffy blood values. Same with Matt Lloyd. Had big contract issues around then...I think he was doing something Lotto didn't like. The Pope said that year he had either 45 or 60 tests both in and out of competition. Can't remember which but it was a lot. So scrap not having blood values for him. They'd have had a lot. JV did say though that Barredo having the highest number was down to no testing. For everyone else it could be one of three options. Testing, blood values OR both. Which leaves a lot of combinations. It's fair to say though that a lot of the guys who had been racing and more so winning, would have had a lot of samples over someone who hadn't been racing.

It was 42 tests for Menchov in the reference you're thinking of, but it was his published number of tests for 2009. 21 for blood, 21 for urine. At least 10 of the 42 will have come at the Giro since he led for 9 days and also won a stage when not leading, but that still leaves 32 tests elsewhere in the season.

 

[The Hitch]

JV talked about it last week in his thread. He said Barredo had a 10 because he literally had not been tested at all. That was what they were told in a meeting I assume with the UCI. Some of the numbers are high because the riders needed to be tested. Others because they were dodgy. JV's tone made the latter seem less emphasized.
.

If Barredo had 10 because he wasnt tested, why has he been run out of the sport?

 

[Galic Ho]

If Barredo had 10 because he wasnt tested, why has he been run out of the sport?

Because he is dirty. I'm not saying I don't think the high numbers on the suspicion index list were because they simply had not been tested. I am only saying what JV said. Though it is taking me a while to find it. Gone back almost 20 pages. When I find it I will quote it.

That's if I find it. I might have skipped it.

 

[Digger]

Because he is dirty. I'm not saying I don't think the high numbers on the suspicion index list were because they simply had not been tested. I am only saying what JV said. Though it is taking me a while to find it. Gone back almost 20 pages. When I find it I will quote it.

That's if I find it. I might have skipped it.

And people accept what JV says as gospel...it's extraordinary.

 

[Galic Ho]

It was 42 tests for Menchov in the reference you're thinking of, but it was his published number of tests for 2009. 21 for blood, 21 for urine. At least 10 of the 42 will have come at the Giro since he led for 9 days and also won a stage when not leading, but that still leaves 32 tests elsewhere in the season.

I mentioned this in a thread last week. I thought it was close to the 45 number I gave. I also said I wasn't sure it was in 2009 or 2010. Couldn't remember exactly. But I was impressed at the time with the number of tests he'd had. Makes sense it was 2009...he did have a very good year. Well apart from the start of the Tour when Cancellara overtook him in Monaco.

I always figured with Menchov it didn't matter. He beat Di Luca and Pellizotti in 2009 in a Giro that looked like it was raced on rocket fuel. Then in 2010 he was third in the Tour. When I heard he was a 9...well it made sense. Very good form suddenly turned sour post 2010 Tour. Throw in his frozen bank accounts and the Humanplasma deal...him being a 9 explained all his results before the 2010 Tour. As far as I could see when Dennis got on the sauce, he went red hot.

 

[gooner]

Because he is dirty. I'm not saying I don't think the high numbers on the suspicion index list were because they simply had not been tested. I am only saying what JV said. Though it is taking me a while to find it. Gone back almost 20 pages. When I find it I will quote it.

That's if I find it. I might have skipped it.

There you go.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1173201&postcount=3347

 

[Galic Ho]

And people accept what JV says as gospel...it's extraordinary.

I never excepted it. I simply provided another avenue to consider. Did you miss the part where I said I thought all the GC guys being 4-6 besides Menchov as a big tell? Well the pre favourites at least. So Wiggins, LA and Evans get included even though they all finished in the mid 20s that year. Put it this way...I think the list holds way more weight and truth to it than JV mentioned BUT I can't say he was lying. He could just be saying what he was told and given his position even if he thought it was wrong he isn't at liberty to say so. Take for example the banter about Phonak bosses and them not knowing about Floyd doping. Different construct of ideas, but same theme...this one he was willing to laugh at. Hence his tone was decipherable and thus his stance on the construct.

As I said in that thread, I don't believe the theory that the ranking took into account anything aside from blood values (or, to be less radical: I believe blood values were, by far, the most important factor in the ranking). The team averages line up too well with any classification of team dodginess anyone could come up with, and scores of Frenchmen had very low values.

Yeah that was my take on it as well. JV is blunt but withdrawn with what he says. For all I know he was being honest. Perhaps that is what the UCI told the team heads in the meeting, but if JV had no guys who were dodgy that year (which is a consideration given Garmin had two back to back bad GT's) he wouldn't exactly know better would he? Unlike someone like Riis or Bruyneel. They'd have known what their guys were on more or less.

Perhaps JV is too trusting Digger? Either way we know about Barredo...but what JV said could still hold true. He said the high number indicated TEST HIM ALL THE TIME. So they did...and surprise surprise he was dirty. Which is one of those combinations I alluded to. For all we know he was playing cat and mouse pre Tour with testers for a reason. Or someone was covering for him. Either way, he was dodgy. I know that. I was just floating the specifics of the mechanism and not whether he was actually clean.

 

[Galic Ho]

There you go.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1173201&postcount=3347

I did miss it. Was on page 345 myself and going backwards.

 

[gooner]

And people accept what JV says as gospel...it's extraordinary.

Well I am sure JV would of asked about how they came to those scores and to find out how Millar and Vandevelde were a 4 and why Zabriskie was a 0. If he didn't try to find out about the workings of that list, it would of been irresponsible on his part.

No one is saying his opinion is gospel but he is the one high profile cycling figure who engages on the forum so he is obviously going to be quoted quite of bit on what he says.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Did you miss the part where I said I thought all the GC guys being 4-6 besides Menchov as a big tell? Well the pre favourites at least. So Wiggins, LA and Evans get included even though they all finished in the mid 20s that year. Put it this way...I think the list holds way more weight and truth to it than JV mentioned

Galic Ho, this isn't a specific reply to you. I'm trying to highlight some factors. Again, there's an assumption with testing discussions that the entire process is legitimate. The often hidden assumption is every positive/suspicious gets passed to experts for analysis when we know with certainty that is not true.

IMHO, the Suspicion Index was probably straight from the APMU. So, the list itself is a big tell. BUT don't then make the false assumption that the UCI tested all on the list legitimately trying to catch any one of them. We know the UCI chases some athletes all over the globe never tiring of trying to kick them out while others get positives hidden.

I totally agree the 4-6 guys is a huge clue there's doping. I'd set the threshold for the tip-off that a rider is Grand Tour podium-level doping at 3-4. Is rider X doping more at score 10 than rider Y at score 4? We can't know with any confidence because the UCI does not process all positives among a number of other factors.

IMHO, JV's explanation of what he understands about the Index of Suspicion scores can be trusted. Specific to Gooner's last post, that's not his job. You can't demand that JV know about how the list was generated in great detail. It's an unrealistic demand.

 

[hrotha]

IMHO, the Suspicion Index was probably straight from the APMU. So, the list itself is a big tell. BUT don't then make the false assumption that the UCI tested all on the list legitimately trying to catch any one of them. We know the UCI chases some athletes all over the globe never tiring of trying to kick them out while others get positives hidden

Yep. According to the report of WADA's observers, there was a rider with a score of 10 in that list who was never tested during the Tour.

 

[D-Queued]

Why would Barry not be a 0?

Also wouldn't the method of getting frank schlecks score be different to everyone else because he crashed out at the start? Or were everyones scores based on pre tour values?

Barry is a zero. He should be a negative.

How many times was he approached about the truth? He could have been a hero. He is a zero.

Dave.

 

[gooner]

would people be claiming that he is clean?

I think it can go either way for Thomas. As of yet we haven't seen him drilling it on the front a la Lopez, Rodgers and Porte last year or Kennaugh doing his bit at T-A this year etc. His results from the past few years have been singled out earlier in the thread which shows a good performance tomorrow wouldn't be just one coming out of the middle of nowhere. Take Phinney's win as an u-23 P-R winner and who came 15th last year in P-R. Hincapie said after that performance he would be the first American to win the race. If he was to top 5/top 10 or in years down the line even win the race it would be seen by many around here as Phinney delivering on his early potential on the cobbles from that P-R win. Shouldn't the same logic apply to Thomas who won the junior version also? He has shown some good results this year but is still considered well below the bracket of Sagan and Cancellara and is not showing the Froome style dominance from next to nowhere or the Wiggins from gruppetto to GT winner material. Everything he has done so far shows that he may be delivering on the early promise from his win in the junior P-R. One thing I don't accept is a post a few pages back saying his transformation now is a Froome-like one.

Of course there are a couple of things that go against him and this has been pointed out up thread as well. The score of 6 in the UCI suspicion list is one and his comments on the Armstrong USADA affair certainly don't put him in great light either. I am more open minded on him than other Sky riders for sure.

 

[Galic Ho]

Galic Ho, this isn't a specific reply to you. I'm trying to highlight some factors. Again, there's an assumption with testing discussions that the entire process is legitimate. The often hidden assumption is every positive/suspicious gets passed to experts for analysis when we know with certainty that is not true.

IMHO, the Suspicion Index was probably straight from the APMU. So, the list itself is a big tell. BUT don't then make the false assumption that the UCI tested all on the list legitimately trying to catch any one of them. We know the UCI chases some athletes all over the globe never tiring of trying to kick them out while others get positives hidden.

I totally agree the 4-6 guys is a huge clue there's doping. I'd set the threshold for the tip-off that a rider is Grand Tour podium-level doping at 3-4. Is rider X doping more at score 10 than rider Y at score 4? We can't know with any confidence because the UCI does not process all positives among a number of other factors.

IMHO, JV's explanation of what he understands about the Index of Suspicion scores can be trusted. Specific to Gooner's last post, that's not his job. You can't demand that JV know about how the list was generated in great detail. It's an unrealistic demand.

Agree. From what I read in 2010 or whenever we heard about the list I always thought that anything above a 1 meant you had some anomalies. Anything over 4 and I figured, depending on the scaling and measurement system (they could have used any) that was not something you'd brag about to the press or even mention. Nothing wonderful being lumped in that section of riders.

Your point about JV is what I was trying to say. Cannot expect him to know or do more. I for one don't think many people even see half of the Bio Passport program is supposed to do. I think a lot of riders have dodgy values and they've been covered up. Which given we can count the number of riders sanctioned from the passport on two hands is scary. Two big names...Valjavec and Pellizotti. How absurdly far over the limits must they have gone given I don't trust the UCI to disclose or seek out abnormal values honestly and diligently with no bias?

I also don't like that team Sky have an absurdly large number of riders on their squad the last two years who were well over 2 on the index. Quite a few over 4. Worse, guys like Rogers who IMPROVED once they went to Sky. What would his ABP have looked like last year?

 

[gooner]

IMHO, JV's explanation of what he understands about the Index of Suspicion scores can be trusted. Specific to Gooner's last post, that's not his job. You can't demand that JV know about how the list was generated in great detail. It's an unrealistic demand.

I know it's not his job. I am just saying as head of a team he should at least be enquiring as to the workings of the score and why there were various differences in them for the riders on his team. After all he would want to know why Millar and Vandevelde were of more suspicion to the UCI than Zabriskie. I presume this is what he done and found out in the process why Barredo was a 10 in the end. My previous post about this was in response to a poster questioning the validity of what JV said in all this regarding Barredo and the Suspicion Index.

 

[MartinGT]

You know what. If Thomas did drop everyone tomorrow and ran away with it, the fan bois would all turn around and see nothing wrong with it and have the attitude of "I told you so, he's always had massive talent"

 

[ultimobici]

You know what. If Thomas did drop everyone tomorrow and ran away with it, the fan bois would all turn around and see nothing wrong with it and have the attitude of "I told you so, he's always had massive talent"

So his junior Paris Roubaix is no indication of future possibilities? Top 10 RVV & other higher placings in cobbled classics are similarly meaningless?

But of course, as soon as you don a sky jersey that's an immediate sign of doping. Do me a favour, he may be Welsh but he's still talented enough to win.

 

[BYOP88]

So his junior Paris Roubaix is no indication of future possibilities? Top 10 RVV & other higher placings in cobbled classics are similarly meaningless?

But of course, as soon as you don a sky jersey that's an immediate sign of doping. Do me a favour, he may be Welsh but he's still talented enough to win.

Eric Bauman says 'Hi!', pretty sure you could add many more, who've won the Junior or u23 edition of P-R and done nothing in the big boy race.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

So his junior Paris Roubaix is no indication of future possibilities? Top 10 RVV & other higher placings in cobbled classics are similarly meaningless?

But of course, as soon as you don a sky jersey that's an immediate sign of doping. Do me a favour, he may be Welsh but he's still talented enough to win.

The post wasn't about winning though, it was about running away with it.

If the race comes down to a select bunch of 5-10-15, and Thomas wins from that, either in the sprint or with a tactical move, or if conservative or neutralising racing behind means that many major contenders are in the wrong move and Thomas is in the right one, then there may be some who would keep this thread alive with their talk, but it wouldn't be the same as if he put the hammer down with 45km to go, dropped Cancellara and Sagan and soloed in by over a minute.

Put simply, if he wins in a 'normal' fashion for a peripheral contender, by being the smartest or by being the strongest on the day in a close-run thing, then there shouldn't be too much trouble. If he wins by putting the hammer down and riding everybody into the dust, then there will.

But hey, he's got to actually do the ride first, and to be honest I see Stannard as the bigger threat from Sky at the moment. That junior Roubaix win for Thomas was 9 years ago now, and he's had a patchy rate of success in the Classics to date; Stannard is a workhorse and I can readily believe that he could win the race if he follows or makes the right move.

 

[gooner]

You know what. If Thomas did drop everyone tomorrow and ran away with it, the fan bois would all turn around and see nothing wrong with it and have the attitude of "I told you so, he's always had massive talent"

I don't know where you came to conclusion from my posts that I'm a fanboy but anyway.

When I say he is a talented rider I don't mean he is talented enough to do anything near what you suggest above.

 

[hrotha]

So his junior Paris Roubaix is no indication of future possibilities? Top 10 RVV & other higher placings in cobbled classics are similarly meaningless?

But of course, as soon as you don a sky jersey that's an immediate sign of doping. Do me a favour, he may be Welsh but he's still talented enough to win.

They're not meaningless, but he still has a few steps to climb before getting to the top. If he does it overnight, it'll be suspicious.

 

[JimmyFingers]

The post wasn't about winning though, it was about running away with it.

If the race comes down to a select bunch of 5-10-15, and Thomas wins from that, either in the sprint or with a tactical move, or if conservative or neutralising racing behind means that many major contenders are in the wrong move and Thomas is in the right one, then there may be some who would keep this thread alive with their talk, but it wouldn't be the same as if he put the hammer down with 45km to go, dropped Cancellara and Sagan and soloed in by over a minute.

Put simply, if he wins in a 'normal' fashion for a peripheral contender, by being the smartest or by being the strongest on the day in a close-run thing, then there shouldn't be too much trouble. If he wins by putting the hammer down and riding everybody into the dust, then there will.

But hey, he's got to actually do the ride first, and to be honest I see Stannard as the bigger threat from Sky at the moment. That junior Roubaix win for Thomas was 9 years ago now, and he's had a patchy rate of success in the Classics to date; Stannard is a workhorse and I can readily believe that he could win the race if he follows or makes the right move.

Sturdy and admirable analysis, less partisan and more objective. Chapeau

Else it seems he is condemned even before turning a pedal.

 

[Netserk]

So he hasn't turned a pedal the last couple of years?