Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Franklin]

The problem is that until they are sanctioned they are innocent until proven guilty and are free to be employed.

And there's the rub. The management team of Rabo was accesory of whereabouts fraud but as this was a civilian court neither Breukink, de Rooij or Leinders were never banned

Aren't those NorthWestern European countries wonderfully superior?

And about the Dave Brailsford resignation act. To be honest I did a similar thing once and was rewarded with a much better position. I don't blame him for this act, but offering his resignation was a very, very smart tactic. He fully well knew they couldn't fire him. It's a perfect "get out of jail" card.

Again read what I wrote. I never said I was ok with anything Brailsford has done, but to disband his team and to be banned for life for telling a few porkies to the press? Bit draconian IMHO.

And thus the lieing will never stop. Sorry, if riders face bans, the Managers should be held to the same kinds of sanctions. And lieing about employing a doping doctor fits straight into that category. For the record, we are banning riders for working with doctors, so employing them is several grades worse.

 

[mattghg]

So the first steps to get a cleaner sport are:

- a one-strike ban on medical personel.
- hiring dirty medical staff is also a one-strike offense.
- making the medical staff responsible. They should do periodic checks. If a rider goes rogue they should show they did all they could to stop him.

In my opinion JV knows this and tries to act on it. And like him or not, JV is an insider who has a very good idea how these things work.

Interesting ... maybe deserves another thread? (If there isn't one already).

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

If there's one thing that has become clear it's that the real problem are the doctors.

- a rider takes a risk, he can get a ban.
- a doctor has no immediate risk.

This is a quite an important difference.

Also, there is a moral issue.

1. If a doctor decides to give doping because of his interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath it's clear he will do so again and again. I actually understand this reasoning, but it's a clear disqualifier. Just as I as a pacifist shouldn't join the army, a doctor who thinks doping rules are against his patients interests has no place in the sport.
2. If the Hippocratic Oath is no consideration in his decision the doctor is moraly bankrupt and really deserves a ban.

So the first steps to get a cleaner sport are:

- a one-strike ban on medical personel.
- hiring dirty medical staff is also a one-strike offense.
- making the medical staff responsible. They should do periodic checks. If a rider goes rogue they should show they did all they could to stop him.

In my opinion JV knows this and tries to act on it. And like him or not, JV is an insider who has a very good idea how these things work.

This would go a long way to solving the problem IMO. Fancy running for president of the UCI?

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

And thus the lieing will never stop. Sorry, if riders face bans, the Managers should be held to the same kinds of sanctions. And lieing about employing a doping doctor fits straight into that category. For the record, we are banning riders for working with doctors, so employing them is several grades worse.

I would agree with this if the doctor has been sanctioned and found guilty or if he is found to be doping within the team. However, I've got to an age now where I realise that the vast majority of sportsmen, politicians, actors, musicians and anybody remotely famous lie to one extent or another when they are talking to the press. I think it reflects more on the press than human nature in general but I cannot agree with banning somebody for lieing unless it is under oath in a court appearance.

 

[Franklin]

I would agree with this if the doctor has been sanctioned and found guilty or if he is found to be doping within the team. However, I've got to an age now where I realise that the vast majority of sportsmen, politicians, actors, musicians and anybody remotely famous lie to one extent or another when they are talking to the press. I think it reflects more on the press than human nature in general but I cannot agree with banning somebody for lieing unless it is under oath in a court appearance.

Again, the doctor had been found accomplice of whereabouts fraud in a court of law. Saying he wasn't sanctioned thus clean is really pushing the boundaries a few miles.

This would go a long way to solving the problem IMO. Fancy running for president of the UCI?

I'd like the pay, but I would absolutely be a disaster for the sport

 

[Dear Wiggo]

On Leinders Sir Dave seriously considered resigning over hiring him and according to the man himself would of done had the BC board asked him.

This seems a common tactic for DB - to show how sternly serious he is. He said exactly the same thing when Rob Hayles got pinged for 50+% Hct in 2008.

When someone does this sort of thing, it just looks wrong to me - duplicitous.

 

[Franklin]

This seems a common tactic for DB - to show how sternly serious he is. He said exactly the same thing when Rob Hayles got pinged for 50+% Hct in 2008.

When someone does this sort of thing, it just looks wrong to me - duplicitous.

Meh, it's business. This in itself is not morally objectionable. Not only do I understand the negotiation tactic, I fully understand the racking up of "get out of jail cards". I and my boss do the same (I work in a rather political environment). The board shouldn't have let it get that far. I can't blame DB for taking the ball when it's just there.

The objection is simply his continued lieing.

 

[DirtyWorks]

If there's one thing that has become clear it's that the real problem are the doctors.

No. There is a demand for doping, enabled by the UCI/IOC and a doctor of some kind fills the need.

- a one-strike ban on medical personel.
- hiring dirty medical staff is also a one-strike offense.
- making the medical staff responsible. They should do periodic checks. If a rider goes rogue they should show they did all they could to stop him.

How is the definition of a "dirty" doctor sorted out? Where is the funding to sort the clean doctors from the dirty ones?

The Fuentes trial being the perfect example of how this fails. Fuentes' claimed in court, "Being an athlete is not healthy. I provide services that make them healthier." The defense is simple and perfect.

 

[horsinabout]

sisyphus had to roll a boulder uphill in greek mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus

Oh I think I get it ...so sisyphus rolls the boulder up the hill, then it rolls back down - to vaughter territory? For ever and ever?

Would have been better to have used Jack and Jill, cos they went up the hill too, ony Jack fell down and broke his crown and she come tumberling after. And they landed on vaughters...

 

[RownhamHill]

Meh, it's business. This in itself is not morally objectionable. Not only do I understand the negotiation tactic, I fully understand the racking up of "get out of jail cards". I and my boss do the same (I work in a rather political environment). The board shouldn't have let it get that far. I can't blame DB for taking the ball when it's just there.

The objection is simply his continued lieing.

I'm losing the thread of your argument a little.

In your opinion his continued lying is that he knew that Leinders had been implicated in the Dutch court when he hired him, and he hasn't admitted that? And assuming that's true, and even though there was technically no reason under any existing rules why he shouldn't employ Leinders, because he said something untrue (in your opinion) to the press he should be banned from the sport by the UCI?

Is that right? And doesn't that kind of imply that anyone who has ever employed anyone else who has ever been implicated in wrong doing in the past should also be banned from the sport? And if not what are the criteria for banning people that you'd like to see?

 

[Franklin]

I'm losing the thread of your argument a little.

In your opinion his continued lying is that he knew that Leinders had been implicated in the Dutch court when he hired him, and he hasn't admitted that? And assuming that's true, and even though there was technically no reason under any existing rules why he shouldn't employ Leinders, because he said something untrue (in your opinion) to the press he should be banned from the sport by the UCI?

1. Yes he knew.
2. He kept on lying on this known doping doctor, for example the motivation to hire him and the continued lies about his tenure at Sky (it's a parody on the 500 tests mantra).

Someone who lies about these things has absolutely no place in this sport. Of course the UCI won't do anything and yes, I realize it's impossible to act under nonexistant rules. However the UCI and the UK union should indeed put some pressure on this continuing farce. An ethical warning?

Is that right? And doesn't that kind of imply that anyone who has ever employed anyone else who has ever been implicated in wrong doing in the past should also be banned from the sport? And if not what are the criteria for banning people that you'd like to see?

Not quite right, but close:

1. Consiously hiring dodgy medical personel => ban from the sport. I explained earlier why I think medical personel can't be given a second chance.
2. Hire a rider who has a doping past (or hire him as staff) => Be transparent about this from the start and it should be ok. Dopers who also acted as big time pusher of course should not be pardoned (bye David Millar).

Note that if your medical staff is clean chances of rogue doping should be very small. And if trouble happens, as long as your medical staff can show they truly went all the way (by showing monthly data on blood etc on the riders) you should be able to handle it.

=> The aim is to break the facilitating chain. Make it so that the staff has everything to lose if a rider is positive. It will really enforce more internal controls and better background checks. Currently the punishments go to the riders, which doesn't hurt the facilitators.

And yes the legality will be an issue, so here's my proposal (top of my hat)

Enforce the rules for 2013 (2014, ianal), so everyone can fire all the medical staff with even a whiff. => To soften the blow call a conference with all teams and major sponsors and explain why this will pay out in very positive exposure even though you might have to liquidate some contracts.

Force the national unions to do monthly audits of the medical data for new teams, sliding to three months after two years (to keep down cost). Again, explain to everyone involved that by cleaning the sport sponsors will return.

Note that I am absolutely convinced there are enough young doctors without a past who would love to serve on a team. Paramedical personel is even more available.

Oh and for sure, Dave can start afresh like everyone else when these rules are there, you can't arbitrarily enforce rules backdated. There's a difference in my opinion about him and what's legally possible

Meh, it's a bit from the hip, but something like this is imho the only thing that can work.

 

[blackcat]

Oh I think I get it ...so sisyphus rolls the boulder up the hill, then it rolls back down - to vaughter territory? For ever and ever?

Would have been better to have used Jack and Jill, cos they went up the hill too, ony Jack fell down and broke his crown and she come tumberling after. And they landed on vaughters...

no.

jv=boulder

 

[JRanton]

Yep, that is the interesting part of Wiggo 2009. Where did he train?

He didn't need a yearround Teide stay to end up fourth/third/second/first in that year's Tour de France.

And, as the Sky experts have told us numerous times, Wiggo won last years Tour because Andy and Alberto were not present at the Tour.

Nice article:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/436524/bradley-wiggins-the-transformation.html


Indeed, 6.6w/k would definitely give you a chance!

* 475 watts at 71.5 kilo = 6.64 w/k for 30 minutes
482 watts at 71.5 kilo = 6.74 w/k for 18 minutes

I tend to think the difference between 18 and 30 minutes should be bigger, this is 1.5%, should be around a 5% drop.

* Training without breakfast = is killing your muscles, and not your upper body ones.
When y read the following link it is obvious the Bradster feels the same way:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/11/bradley-wiggins-cycling-fitness-guide-olympics


* Shane Sutton/Nigel Mitchell/Matt Parker: where are the Garmin coaches at this?

Now, lets take a look at his 2009 BP:

* during Tour and Giro his hemaglobin rises
* he ends the Giro with an offscore of 65 and starts the Tour with an offscore of 95

How does one rise the hemaglobin levels during a Grand Tour? Did he have a meeting with sir Dave in Sion?
But he, we also have this one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/sports/cycling/16tour.html?_r=0
The ricecookie man always knows! Loose weight but do not loose power. Lim would know the trick to that.
Well well, Wiggo tha clown.

Wiggo Jan 2009:

What a fattie.
No, before Sky existed you didnt even know road cycling was a sport. Be a good sport.

Interesting read. It's little wonder that Wiggins didn't give Garmin any credit for his 4th (3rd) place. They had nothing to do with his transformation into a GC rider bar a few encouraging words from Vaughters.

 

[horsinabout]

no.

jv=boulder

Been a bit thick.....I think the boulder represents deception? It's a bit like a joke if the have to expalin it it looses it's edge.

Don't know who Sisyphus's boulder is in this one. But on UK radio Rob Hayles talking from the Giro - I quote "This is why we (the British people) love Wiggins because he has these little snippets", meaning tantrums. "Dave Brailsford really doesn't need this, but it's quite healthy this far out from the Tour, but could become massively damaging"

Hayles thinks that Wiggins is better suited to win the tour because it has less TT and more hills. I though Froome was the strongest rider in last years Tour - so Hayles is showing his bias yet again.

Three men, three egos, two riders, one race. Where have all the others gone?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Hayles thinks that Wiggins is better suited to win the tour because it has less TT and more hills. I though Froome was the strongest rider in last years Tour - so Hayles is showing his bias yet again.

To be fair, Hayles is a pundit these days, so doesn't need to be even handed. He's not selecting or coaching the team. Indeed, he's almost obliged to have an opinion as a pundit - a pundit who repeatedly says "I don't know" in response to the key questions isn't much use!

It's nigh on impossible that Froome and Wiggo are exactly matched in terms of ability and favoured terrain, so one or other of them will be best suited to a particular course. Hayles thinks this is Wiggins. You don't. One of you is right, but we don't know yet!

Re last year's Tour, Froome's supposed superiority is deduced from a couple of short attacks. Other than these, Wiggo matched Froome and demolished him in the TTs, so Froome's claim - or anyone else's on his behalf - to be the strongest rider last year are tenuous at best. He might well have been the best climber, but as he and Wiggo weren't allowed to race the climbs, we'll never know. He is certainly a more explosive climber than Wiggo, but whether he could make such explosiveness count against Wiggo's turbodiesel is another matter altogether.

 

[RownhamHill]

1. Yes he knew.
2. He kept on lieing on this known doping doctor, for example the motivation to hire him and the continued lies about his tenure at Sky (it's a parody on the 500 tests mantra).

Someone who lies about these things has absolutely no place in this sport. Of course the UCI won't do anything and yes, I realize it's impossible to act under nonexistant rules. However the UCI and the UK union should indeed put some pressure on this continuing farce. An ethical warning?




Not quite right, but close:

1. Consiously hiring dodgy medical personel => ban from the sport. I explained earlier why I think medical personel can't be given a second chance.
2. Hire a rider who has a doping past (or hire him as staff) => Be transparent about this from the start and it should be ok. Dopers who also acted as big time pusher of course should not be pardoned (bye David Millar).

Note that if your medical staff is clean chances of rogue doping should be very small. And if trouble happens, as long as your medical staff can show they truly went all the way (by showing monthly data on blood etc on the riders) you should be able to handle it.

=> The aim is to break the facilitating chain. Make it so that the staff has everything to loose if a rider is positive. It will really enforce more internal controls and better background checks. Currently the punishments go to the riders, which doesn't hurt the facilitators.

And yes the legality will be an issue, so here's my proposal (top of my hat)

Enforce the rules for 2013 (2014, ianal), so everyone can fire all the medical staff with even a whiff. => To soften the blow call a conference with all teams and major sponsors and explain why this will pay out in very positive exposure even though you might have to liquidate some contracts.

Force the national unions to do monthly audits of the medical data for new teams, sliding to three months after two years (to keep down cost). Again, explain to everyone involved that by cleaning the sport sponsors will return.

Note that I am absolutely convinced there are enough young doctors without a past who would love to serve on a team. Paramedical personel is even more available.

Oh and for sure, Dave can start afresh like everyone else when these rules are there, you can't arbitrarily enforce rules backdated. There's a difference in my opinion about him and what's legally possible

Meh, it's a bit from the hip, but something like this is imho the only thing that can work.

Fair enough, it makes sense, thanks for clarifying and I broadly agree with your suggestions as a sensible basis for a way forward in general terms for the sport. That said, by framing the argument around Brailsford I think you undermine yourself a bit.

First, because although I know you're convinced he 'knew', even some kind of ethical warning can't be handed out simply on the basis of 'some guy on the internet is convinced you must have been lying'. Can it? After all where would the ethics be in that?

But what confuses me more is that the process you'd like to see - for individual teams/managers to fire any dodgy doctors with a whiff of a dodgy past for 2014, and then get teams to start afresh - is essentially the process that Dave Brailsford went through last year. After all he did effectively fire Leinders last July, and bring in a young non-cycling doctor from outside cycling. So (and leaving the discussion of how he got to that place aside), it leaves me wondering why you're vociferously wanting to ban someone who's already done the thing you want to see happen, while simultaneously you seem to be quite happy to give an amnesty to all the other team managers, who are still employing doctors with a past right now? I find it a bit odd.

 

[Franklin]

First, because although I know you're convinced he 'knew', even some kind of ethical warning can't be handed out simply on the basis of 'some guy on the internet is convinced you must have been lying'. Can it? After all where would the ethics be in that?

He's the boss, he's responsible. And my opinion about him knowing about Leinders is just part of the lies. Verifiable lies are made about the tenure of Leinders. That's not my opinion, that's simply factual.

But what confuses me more is that the process you'd like to see - for individual teams/managers to fire any dodgy doctors with a whiff of a dodgy past for 2014, and then get teams to start afresh - is essentially the process that Dave Brailsford went through last year. After all he did effectively fire Leinders last July, and bring in a young non-cycling doctor from outside cycling. So (and leaving the discussion of how he got to that place aside), it leaves me wondering why you're vociferously wanting to ban someone who's already done the thing you want to see happen, while simultaneously you seem to be quite happy to give an amnesty to all the other team managers, who are still employing doctors with a past right now? I find it a bit odd.

Why do I despise Dave? (note I would amnesty him along with the lot)

1. The guy hiring the staff and medics is still there.
2. He acted against his own ethical mantra.
3. The doctor he hired really is bad news.
4. How he got to the decision is exactly the important point, not to be dismissed as you seem to do. Everyone could point out the rotten apples, yet he did hire them. He should have chosen different people or be open about it from the start.

So to sum it up: if you don't drum "we are zero-tolerance", I can't be mad at employing people with a past. But if you beat that drum and then apply crooks like Leinders and Yates... well, you deserve all the scorn you will recieve.

What's also important is that there is absolutely no control scheme in place. All I can do is believe Dave on blue eyes. the problem is that Dave is not in the habit of telling the truth. On a bizarre note... Dave himself denounced people who lie as they are used to lying. It was a rather surreal interview.

Lastly, you might only read the Sky threads, but I have a habit of pointing out rotten doctors (hello Doctor Menuet, hey Doctor Massimiliano Mantovani , hi there Marco Pallini).

 

[JimmyFingers]

He's the boss, he's responsible. And my opinion about him knowing about Leinders is just part of the lies. Verifiable lies are made about the tenure of Leinders. That's not my opinion, that's simply factual.



Why do I despise Dave? (note I would amnesty him along with the lot)

1. The guy hiring the staff and medics is still there.
2. He acted against his own ethical mantra.
3. The doctor he hired really is bad news.
4. How he got to the decision is exactly the important point, not to be dismissed as you seem to do. Everyone could point out the rotten apples, yet he did hire them. He should have chosen different people or be open about it from the start.

So to sum it up: if you don't drum "we are zero-tolerance", I can't be mad at employing people with a past. But if you beat that drum and then apply crooks like Leinders and Yates... well, you deserve all the scorn you will recieve.

What's also important is that there is absolutely no control scheme in place. All I can do is believe Dave on blue eyes. the problem is that Dave is not in the habit of telling the truth. On a bizarre note... Dave himself denounced people who lie as they are used to lieing. It was a rather surreal interview.

Lastly, you might only read the Sky threads, but I have a habit of pointing out rotten doctors (hello Doctor Menuet, hey Doctor Massimiliano Mantovani , hi there Marco Pallini).

Actually I think this is a really good post. Hog was asking where was the Jimmy angered by the hiring of Leinders and the subsequent discolosures about his time at Rabo (in a lot less words) and he's still here. At best it was a gross miscalculation, at worst, well, it was liking inviting the fox into the chicken coop.

Should Dave be made to pay? Probably. Interesting he's passed the buck on this one, bit of delegation when interviewing the doctors apparently. I'm loathe to pull the trigger on him but it was a terrible bit if management.

I work in sales, there a guy there who is hanging on by the skin of his teeth, despite loads of what would considered gross misconduct. Why? BECause he gets results, he gets sales and makes money. Same with Brailsford: his success keeps him where he is. If Sky had had a terrible 12 and all this came out he would have been long gone.

 

[Netserk]

Maybe he wouldn't have had such a great '12, if he hadn't hired Lienders....

 

[kingjr]

Maybe he wouldn't have had such a great '12, if he hadn't hired Lienders....

They don't have Leinders now and their '13 might become even better than their '12.

 

[The Hitch]

yeah that analogy is a bit off in that there isnt a link between the success and the scandal. With sky, if they hadn't had such a great 2012 leinders woulnt have mattered, no one would have cared. So bailsford gets off either way.

 

[Netserk]

Perhaps he established certain infrastructure.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Of course the UCI won't do anything and yes, I realize it's impossible to act under nonexistant rules. However the UCI and the UK union should indeed put some pressure on this continuing farce. An ethical warning?

All true. Just a gentle reminder that Sky has the same relationship with BC that USPS had with USAC. The head of the enforcement organization is directly involved with running Sky. Better than Wiesel ever did, the head of BC is on the UCI management committee.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Maybe he wouldn't have had such a great '12, if he hadn't hired Lienders....

As I said it was like letting the fox into the chicken coup (or coop? Hmm).

My basic position has always been I'm prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to any rider or team unless proven otherwise. This was a crass move, the hiring and firing of Leinders, and as Franklin puts so well, asks major questions of Brailsford's management.

Aslo Hitch I think you're wrong: if Sky had had a poor 12 there would have been an inquest. In a performance industry results matter. If further up the chain they thought the team would be improved with new management an excuse like Leinders would be a perfect out. They might even get away without paying compensation for termination.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Conjecture is kinda fun