Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[The Hitch]

Classic del logic. Did sky - the team that actually hired lienders, know anything about the guy they hired.

No, they can't have because jv- someone who had absolutely nothing to do with him, didn't know him

now criminals around the world can jump on this moral loophole created by a desperate fanboy who is willing to change even the moral standards by which we live by, in order to defend his favourite team.

Interviewer- mr burns, did you know that lake you dumped all that nuclear waste into was a UNESCO heritage site which contains thousands of unique species and you may have now wiped them out.

Mr burns- Jonathan vaughters has just tweeted he did not know it was a UNESCO site. If he didn't know, how could we.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

JV in July 2012 Tweeted he had no idea who Geert was

https://twitter.com/Vaughters/status/222044650683371521

people are saying that cycling is such a tight knit community that everyone knows everyone, however JV who probably knows a lot more than DB about the doping culture did not know who Leinders was.

Yea, Geert was under the radar compared to many doping doctors. But he was still named in the Rasmussen court case. And Vaughters didn't need to do the background checks on whether he would look bad in the future for making this hiring, because
a) Garmin never made a "zero tolerance" vow, and a large part of Vaughters' policy has been about the rehabilitation of former offenders, stemming from himself, and proceeding through Millar, the ex-USPS contingent, Dekker, Alex Rasmussen and beyond, therefore they could always spin him as being along similar lines, and not need to deny his past or hide his appointment
b) Garmin weren't hiring him, so they didn't have the responsibility of looking up his doping connections.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Yea, Geert was under the radar compared to many doping doctors. But he was still named in the Rasmussen court case. And Vaughters didn't need to do the background checks on whether he would look bad in the future for making this hiring, because
a) Garmin never made a "zero tolerance" vow, and a large part of Vaughters' policy has been about the rehabilitation of former offenders, stemming from himself, and proceeding through Millar, the ex-USPS contingent, Dekker, Alex Rasmussen and beyond, therefore they could always spin him as being along similar lines, and not need to deny his past or hide his appointment
b) Garmin weren't hiring him, so they didn't have the responsibility of looking up his doping connections.

An interesting question (or at least the answer) would be if JV had any knowledge of Leinders as a doping doctor at the time that Sky hired him? Perhaps someone could tweet him that question if the answer is not already known?

 

[Dazed and Confused]

An interesting question (or at least the answer) would be if JV had any knowledge of Leinders as a doping doctor at the time that Sky hired him? Perhaps someone could tweet him that question if the answer is not already known?

Will anybody believe JV's answer to that question?

 

[Benotti69]

Wonder did Sky do any digging on Fabio Bartalucci after 'mistakenly' hiring Leinders?

Bartalucci worked at Phonak

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Will anybody believe JV's answer to that question?

Maybe, maybe not but lets wait until we hear his answer before you assume he is lying.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Wonder did Sky do any digging on Fabio Bartalucci after 'mistakenly' hiring Leinders?

Bartalucci worked at Phonak

Good point. Imagine if Bassons had ridden for Festina? How would that have looked?

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Maybe, maybe not but lets wait until we hear his answer before you assume he is lying.

Its a question of credibility imo.
Also JV employs way too many doctors himself.

 

[the sceptic]

I think it's decidely odd you think it strange that the ex Rabobank guys on Sky would not out him. Seems you've had a bit of a commonsense bypass when it comes to basic human nature.

Tell me, why on earth would De Jongh, for example, tell Brailsford or anyone else about Leinders hands all over systematic Rabo doping? Given that would -

a) pretty much be an admission that he doped himself, and/or
b) quite possibly rile Leinders into spilling the beans

and thus get him (De Jongh) the sack?

Why would De Jongh commit professional Hari kiri? You tell me.

You seem to think it the most likely thing in the world, and need explanation otherwise. Someone else might think keeping schtumm to keep your job a perfectly likely scenario.

Fran Millar more or less hinted it today herself - you'll have to ask De Jongh what he said, and why. Which is brave, if De jongh has just been sacked and outed for a scheme they were all in on, and now has nowt to lose.

We also 'know' that Leinders painted an anti-doping story to Steve Peters, at least that's what's been said. What's the odds De Jongh warned him what he needed to say?

There are threads to pull here, and dots to join. I've said De Jongh was the key from ages ago. BUT, there's a lot of people have drawn up to three, furiously looking for 5. The LAST thing an (ex) doper will do at Sky is voluntarily draw his bosses attention to his previous misdemeanors...

Good vortexing martin.

But then why would they recommend Leinders in the first place? Surely if they wanted to avoid any beans getting spilled it would be a pretty dumb idea to recommend someone they knew to be a doping doctor?

"hey guys, im looking for a doctor, but please keep in mind I am trying to run a clean cycling team here"

Sorry Martin, I find it hard to believe that the rabo guys would recommend Leinders if they were trying to run a clean cycling team at sky.

So maybe the good doctor just materialized out of nowhere when Braislford one day wished he had a doctor on the team?

Either sky knew he was a doping doctor, or they didnt know who he was at all right?

Tell me more about common sense Martin, I want to know how it is possible to hire Leinders if you are trying to run a clean cycling team.

 

[del1962]

People put up that everyone knows everyone in cycling, this is not necessarily true, probably more the case that people hide things from others in cycling, if SKy asked De Jong, Flecha, Hayman and they said nothing bad about Leinders, then where does that put them,.

If you read the USADA testimonies, you will find Zabriskie said that it was not until after 3 years at Postal he was "unaware of how involved the team leadership was in drug use by riders",

so it is not necessarily a fact that all riders on the Rabbo team would know what Leinders was up to and even what they did know they might not have felt comfortable sharing with Sky.

 

[the sceptic]

Its a question of credibility imo.
Also JV employs way too many doctors himself.

JV could employ Dr Ferrari and find a way to justify it.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Its a question of credibility imo.
Also JV employs way too many doctors himself.

Just because you have already hung, drawn, and quartered JV it does not mean everyone else has. I do think he is trying to run a clean team. Now whether he is succeeding is another matter.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Just because you have already hung, drawn, and quartered JV it does not mean everyone else has. I do think he is trying to run a clean team. Now whether he is succeeding is another matter.

JV is trying to push pro cycling in a clean direction. I will give him credit for that. However his own team is/has been dirty and filled with plenty of dopers.

No way anybody could run a successful team at the top of our sport without dopers at least until now. JV knows it and hes trying to work around the problem while pushing for better times ahead.

Pragmatic solution.

 

[Benotti69]

Good point. Imagine if Bassons had ridden for Festina? How would that have looked?

Comparing Bassons to Sky? Now that takes a lot of stretching!

Bassons was extremely outspoken, who on Sky is the equivalent? Let me see........no one. Hmmm wonder why?

 

[Benotti69]

People put up that everyone knows everyone in cycling, this is not necessarily true, probably more the case that people hide things from others in cycling, if SKy asked De Jong, Flecha, Hayman and they said nothing bad about Leinders, then where does that put them,.

In the idiot bracket.

If you read the USADA testimonies, you will find Zabriskie said that it was not until after 3 years at Postal he was "unaware of how involved the team leadership was in drug use by riders",

How involved does not mean he didn't know they were doping.

so it is not necessarily a fact that all riders on the Rabbo team would know what Leinders was up to and even what they did know they might not have felt comfortable sharing with Sky.

In a small sport, everyone makes it their business to know what the others are up to. How else do they keep ahead of the competition or catch up tot the competition?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

JV is trying to push pro cycling in a clean direction. I will give him credit for that. However his own team is/has been dirty and filled with plenty of dopers.

Dopers or ex-dopers? There is a big difference.

No way anybody could run a successful team at the top of our sport without dopers at least until now. JV knows it and hes trying to work around the problem while pushing for better times ahead.

Pragmatic solution.

So, in reality it is unfeasible to run a team without (ex) dopers? Or are you saying that you need current dopers to have a 'successful' team.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Comparing Bassons to Sky? Now that takes a lot of stretching!

Bassons was extremely outspoken, who on Sky is the equivalent? Let me see........no one. Hmmm wonder why?

Ok, lets take Moncoutie if it is easier for you. Does not speak out against doping. Rode for Cofidis. A lot of things point to him being clean. Explain that one then?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

While the point is sound, the circumstances are different. David Moncoutié (or Pierrick Fedrigo, Janek Tombak, Christophe Bassons, whoever) are riders within a team where doping went on; Fabio Bartalucci was a doctor at a team where doping went on (Phonak). Because the team doctor's responsibility is the health and condition of the athletes on his team, he has a more direct link to doping than the rider, whose responsibility on that front is to himself alone. Now, there are doctors who have been on some dodgy teams and have good reputations (Íñigo San Millán has been brought up on the forums before, with JV telling us of how he was thrown off teams for his anti-doping stance), and it is quite likely that Phonak were a "don't ask don't tell" team where the riders had their own docs and did their own thing, and Bartalucci was only involved in keeping a lid on things and preventing the riders from going too far etc. - but that would still make them at least partly complicit.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

While the point is sound, the circumstances are different. David Moncoutié (or Pierrick Fedrigo, Janek Tombak, Christophe Bassons, whoever) are riders within a team where doping went on; Fabio Bartalucci was a doctor at a team where doping went on (Phonak). Because the team doctor's responsibility is the health and condition of the athletes on his team, he has a more direct link to doping than the rider, whose responsibility on that front is to himself alone. Now, there are doctors who have been on some dodgy teams and have good reputations (Íñigo San Millán has been brought up on the forums before, with JV telling us of how he was thrown off teams for his anti-doping stance), and it is quite likely that Phonak were a "don't ask don't tell" team where the riders had their own docs and did their own thing, and Bartalucci was only involved in keeping a lid on things and preventing the riders from going too far etc. - but that would still make them at least partly complicit.

Using your same logic then are not Bassons, Moncoutié, whoever... complicit for not exposing the doping going on in their teams?

 

[veganrob]

Using your same logic then are not Bassons, Moncoutié, whoever... complicit for not exposing the doping going on in their teams?

I don't think so. The rider is in a far more vulnerable position than the docs. Riding is the athletes life and livelihood. If he is ostracised out of the sport he has little opportunities. He has dedicated his life to a sport he loves.
The doc on the other hand did not go to school to be a cycling doc. They are trained in other aspects of medicine and in fact very often continue in their other business while doing the cycling doc on the side.

 

[roundabout]

I would say in 2013 people would be a lot more receptive than in 1999 or 2004 should a rider actually speak out.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I don't think so. The rider is in a far more vulnerable position than the docs. Riding is the athletes life and livelihood. If he is ostracised out of the sport he has little opportunities. He has dedicated his life to a sport he loves.
The doc on the other hand did not go to school to be a cycling doc. They are trained in other aspects of medicine and in fact very often continue in their other business while doing the cycling doc on the side.

So if you have dedicated a large amount of your life to getting into cycling you are not complicit? What about if you were on of the professionals that started late? How many years do you need to have put in before you are absolved of responsibility?

 

[Grupetto1]

Comparing Bassons to Sky? Now that takes a lot of stretching!

Bassons was extremely outspoken, who on Sky is the equivalent? Let me see........no one. Hmmm wonder why?

Danny Pate is fairly outspoken?

 

[veganrob]

So if you have dedicated a large amount of your life to getting into cycling you are not complicit? What about if you were on of the professionals that started late? How many years do you need to have put in before you are absolved of responsibility?

I agree they are still somewhat complicit. It is just that they had so much more to lose that so few of them spoke out of the doping. They were a very small cog in a very large machine that would grind them out and spit them out.
They are not totally absolved of responsibility, but were very much the victim.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Using your same logic then are not Bassons, Moncoutié, whoever... complicit for not exposing the doping going on in their teams?

The doctor's influence is far stronger than that of the rider. If the rider is caught in intrigue, he pays the price; if the doctor is caught in intrigue, the whole team pays the price, often including any innocent names. That's why their complicity is more troubling when they appear on teams trumpeting their cleanliness.

I'm also making a best-case scenario out of Phonak. It's also possible that Bartalucci had a specific role to play with regards to doping there, but I'm treating it as that he did not. But even if he was just there to monitor and police things, he is thereby involved in the act to a greater extent than a clean rider who knows it happens to others but says nothing publicly.