Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[romnom]

I think you are vastly overestimating how many people give a toss about the data. It's only a section of the media and some internet obsessives. Most people - the 'home audience' and most of the 'road audience' aren't all that interested in doping at all and don't really think about it. The only way they will even notice the data is if someone uses it to make an accusation.

It's not that I think people are that interested in the data, but they are interested in what Sky does in general. So if they released the data I'm fairly certain it would get a good amount of attention outside the 'internet obsessives'. Anyway, my main point was that reasoning why they don't release the data based on how clinic regulars would react to it seems completely backwards.

Considering the history of the sport and the sort of attention the team gets I really can't see how there wouldn't be an upside for the data release. Actions speak louder than words and all that. But like I said before, I can think of reasons why they would rather avoid those discussions completely and still be completely clean. And they might be much more eager to release the data if they were in fact dirty. But if we assume them clean, which was suggested, I do think it's an interesting questions why they don't score the easy points by acting transparent. Seems like a much easier thing to do than the circus with the power data.

 

[sniper]

my main point was that reasoning why they don't release the data based on how clinic regulars would react to it seems completely backwards.

excellent point.

 

[Parker]

It's not that I think people are that interested in the data, but they are interested in what Sky does in general. So if they released the data I'm fairly certain it would get a good amount of attention outside the 'internet obsessives'. Anyway, my main point was that reasoning why they don't release the data based on how clinic regulars would react to it seems completely backwards.

Considering the history of the sport and the sort of attention the team gets I really can't see how there wouldn't be an upside for the data release. Actions speak louder than words and all that. But like I said before, I can think of reasons why they would rather avoid those discussions completely and still be completely clean. And they might be much more eager to release the data if they were in fact dirty. But if we assume them clean, which was suggested, I do think it's an interesting questions why they don't score the easy points by acting transparent. Seems like a much easier thing to do than the circus with the power data.

There will be an upside. But will be it be heavily outweighed by the downside? None of this data really proves anything - there's no peer reviewed guidelines as to how power can be used to show doping - so the 'truth' will be provided by the loudest and most persistent. And you know which side that will be.

 

[sniper]

There will be an upside. But will be it be heavily outweighed by the downside? None of this data really proves anything - there's no peer reviewed guidelines as to how power can be used to show doping - so the 'truth' will be provided by the loudest and most persistent. And you know which side that will be.

then why was the second batch disclosed at all? wouldn't the same have applied?

 

[Parker]

then why was the second batch disclosed at all? wouldn't the same have applied?

No, because they only gave the data to L'Equipe - who they clearly felt would be fair minded. They didn't release it to all and sundry.

 

[TheGame]

Well I said let's wait and see how Porte did in Beijing before we could judge his form.

He got dropped badly today and lost 12 minute+ on a stage won by that well known climber Nacer Bouhanni.

So I'd agree with others that it's very odd indeed how his level can drop quite this much. Ridiculous even.

It could of course be possible that Porte just doesn't care about Beijing and is just going through the motions. Last I looked, Sky have a man 3rd in the overall.

Judging by the squad Sky sent to Beijing its clear Sky don't care about it. Assumedly Porte was sent as its not far from him to travel in comparison with the Euro based riders.

 

[sniper]

No, because they only gave the data to L'Equipe - who they clearly felt would be fair minded. They didn't release it to all and sundry.

jeebus, parker.
so why don't they give the first batch only to L'Equipe as well.

look, if you wanna continue sticking your head in the sand and apoligizing for sky, I understand that, you know.
you're not alone.

 

[Parker]

jeebus, parker.
so why don't they give the first batch only to L'Equipe as well.

Maybe L'Equipe didn't ask for them. Maybe they were only interested in pertinent data, not data from him being a domestique.

And I'm not apologising for Sky. My point is that releasing data is pointless as it will everyone will maintain the opinion they had anyway. It is likely to do more harm than good. This applies to all riders. Nibali, Contador, Martin, Rodriguez - everyone. It did nothing for Horner, it will do nothing for them.

 

[Benotti69]

I think you are vastly overestimating how many people give a toss about the data. It's only a section of the media and some internet obsessives. Most people - the 'home audience' and most of the 'road audience' aren't all that interested in doping at all and don't really think about it. The only way they will even notice the data is if someone uses it to make an accusation.

So that begs the question, what are Sky scared of? release the data, the fans wont notice, the clinic will do its psuedo scientist thread and they'll still walk next years TdF!

Nope. Brailsford doesn't do transparency for real!

Pity some journalist hasn't manage to get Froome's data from Barloworld's files. That might put a kitten amongst the pidgeons.

 

[Netserk]

Maybe L'Equipe didn't ask for them. Maybe they were only interested in pertinent data, not data from him being a domestique.

And I'm not apologising for Sky. My point is that releasing data is pointless as it will everyone will maintain the opinion they had anyway. It is likely to do more harm than good. This applies to all riders. Nibali, Contador, Martin, Rodriguez - everyone. It did nothing for Horner, it will do nothing for them.

Of course it didn't. It will only do any good if you're clean.

 

[Parker]

So that begs the question, what are Sky scared of? release the data, the fans wont notice, the clinic will do its psuedo scientist thread and they'll still walk next years TdF!

They are wary of pseudo-scientists with a more high profile platform - like Vayer for example. Why give someone like him the tools to fabricate a scandal? Which will then probably drag on as journalists create a 'war of words'. And to what gain? No-one will thank them for it?

 

[sniper]

Maybe L'Equipe didn't ask for them. Maybe they were only interested in pertinent data, not data from him being a domestique.

And I'm not apologising for Sky. My point is that releasing data is pointless as it will everyone will maintain the opinion they had anyway. It is likely to do more harm than good. This applies to all riders. Nibali, Contador, Martin, Rodriguez - everyone. It did nothing for Horner, it will do nothing for them.

you need a lot of adhoc explanations to account for the facts at hand.
there's a much more straightforward explanation for the facts at hand.

 

[Parker]

Of course it didn't. It will only do any good if you're clean.

You thought he was doping before he released his data. You thought it after.
Those who thought he was clean before, thought it after.
Those, like me, saw no compelling evidence either way, still saw no compelling evidence either way.

The status quo was maintained. It changed nothing.

All it did was fuel the gossip for a little longer

 

[sniper]

You thought he was doping before he released his data. You thought it after.
Those who thought he was clean before, thought it after.
Those, like me, saw no compelling evidence either way, still saw no compelling evidence either way.

The status quo was maintained. It changed nothing.

All it did was fuel the gossip for a little longer

you've made clear you don't care to see any potential evidence.

 

[Benotti69]

You thought he was doping before he released his data. You thought it after.
Those who thought he was clean before, thought it after.
Those, like me, saw no compelling evidence either way, still saw no compelling evidence either way.

The status quo was maintained. It changed nothing.

All it did was fuel the gossip for a little longer

Compelling evidence for some who are not blinded by PR is they hired a well known, in the pro world, doping doctor. They had at least 3 riders on their team to inform them whether he was a 'clean' doctor and yet they still hired him.

They also hired plenty of guys with doping histories, that a bit of digging on a computer would have raised red flags over.

That they let these guys go instead of defending them just added fuel to the fire of guilt.

Then we have the compelling evidence (even in 2007 David Walsh found it compelling evidence) of Froome breaking dopers times up mountains.

I think there is lots of compelling evidence. But the 'never tested positive' is gonna be rolled out soon...........

 

[sniper]

Compelling evidence for some who are not blinded by PR is they hired a well known, in the pro world, doping doctor. They had at least 3 riders on their team to inform them whether he was a 'clean' doctor and yet they still hired him.

They also hired plenty of guys with doping histories, that a bit of digging on a computer would have raised red flags over.

That they let these guys go instead of defending them just added fuel to the fire of guilt.

Then we have the compelling evidence (even in 2007 David Walsh found it compelling evidence) of Froome breaking dopers times up mountains.

I think there is lots of compelling evidence. But the 'never tested positive' is gonna be rolled out soon...........

That zero tolerance protocol was straight from the DDR doping book. DDR athletes had to sign similar declarations/convenants.
Designed to make sure that athletes take the fall, and the executives keep themselves out of the headlights.

 

[Parker]

That zero tolerance protocol was straight from the DDR doping book. DDR athletes had to sign similar declarations/convenants.
Designed to make sure that athletes take the fall, and the executives keep themselves out of the headlights.

Yes, because a state run operation under a totalitarian regime with the stasi and no free press or judiciary is exactly the same as a private sports team in the EU.

 

[LaFlorecita]

I am baffled by Sky's second half of the season. They almost look clean

 

[Netserk]

I am baffled by Sky's second half of the season. They almost look clean

They have so far won 35 races this year. Only 5 of those were after the Tour

EDIT:

Podium places after the Tour:

 

[thehog]

I am baffled by Sky's second half of the season. They almost look clean

Like Pink Floyd.

Much prefer their albums when they were doing bucket loads of drugs

 

[timmers]

It could of course be possible that Porte just doesn't care about Beijing and is just going through the motions. Last I looked, Sky have a man 3rd in the overall.

Judging by the squad Sky sent to Beijing its clear Sky don't care about it. Assumedly Porte was sent as its not far from him to travel in comparison with the Euro based riders.

Porte lives is Monaco which is still in Europe so his travel is the same!

 

[Benotti69]

Porte lives is Monaco which is still in Europe so his travel is the same!

Porte will proabably be travelling to Australia from China after the race.

 

[The Hitch]

I see those at public relations constructing these roundabout philosophical arguments about how Sky shouldn't release their data because "the clinic" (who on every other occasion they chide as irrelvant) would still doubt them, conveniently ignore the elephant in the room.

Why should Sky release their data? **** the clinic, **** the fanboys, and **** PR. They should release it because it is the right thing to do full stop, regardless of whether it convinces the clinic or not.

Sky have portrayed themselves as nothing less than the Holy Trinity of anti doping. They have from the word go lapped up as much credit as they can for alleged revolutionary anti doping stances that no one else in sport takes.

This "commitment to anti doping" is allegedly what seperates Sky from the big shadow hanging over the sport -Armstrong. Because otherwise, all sky have to say they are clean is never having tested positive. Oh wait Armstrong didnt either so that doesnt mean anything. And they have the myth of scientific improvement which is exactly what Armstrong argued on all those occasions.

So all Sky have to truly seperate them from Armstrong is this "commitment to anti doping". Which is what they use in the press.

And what we see with Sky's refusal to release Froome's info and in particular with their little Grappe stunt where they refused to show Froome's pre GOD values, is an asnwer to the million dollar question.

"Are Sky actually commited to anti doping, or is it just a lie they put in the media, backed up by their connections and money, to convince people they are clean? "

Sky's behaviour shows us that the answer is quite clearly the latter. Claim transparency, but don't actually offer it.


You can crow all you want about how it doesn't matter because the clinic wouldn't believe it anyway. I would still believed they dope with other stuff and not blood doping, if they released the data and the experts said it was kosher. But what truly convinces me Sky are dirty and what truly converted me from an apathetic stance to Froome and Wiggins doping (as I held on here in 2011), is the dirty politics. If you claim to be all this anti doping and then it turns out you are lying, as we found out sky were doing when we saw they had lienders and yates and rogers, then that is more than just a rider injecting himself with steroids.

 

[Ferminal]

Porte will proabably be travelling to Australia from China after the race.

Gotta drag himself around Japan on the weekend first although that may be off now.

Wonder if he really wanted to do it or his team made him, isn't that exactly what they did to him and Froome in Les Essarts last year?

You'd think with eyes on May, the extra two weeks off now wouldn't hurt.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Yes, because a state run operation under a totalitarian regime with the stasi and no free press or judiciary is exactly the same as a private sports team in the EU.

Uhhh. Sky is simultaneously public/private. You've got public funded BC coaches and infrastructure supporting the "private" team. There's no line where BC's role ends and Sky's begins. Cookson ran both of them simultaneously.

It is nice when the sport federation is responsible for the success of the team they are supposed to regulate. No losers!