Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[del1962]

Whatever dope doctors are associated with Radio Shack sure did not help Andy Schleck. The dope doctor associated with Sky has a much better recent track record. He is the obvious choice of the new generation. Maybe Celaya or Del Moral can be brought back, like Classic Coke, but right now it is New Coke time.

Perhaps Andy (or Chris H) for that matter doesnt want to dope (though why CH is probably Rider 15) I am agnostic on that, but the set up at radioshack, the bullying of Levi for testyfying in the reasoned decision, shows to me that if you wanted to dope then that would have been (and may still be) one of the teams to do it on

 

[MarkvW]

So two years ago when the entire team was TTing up the tour climbs and dropping all the major contenders without ever breaking ranks, you think they did that by each finding their own individual program?

That's quite possible. They're sharing doctors, after all.

 

[BroDeal]

That's quite possible. They're sharing doctors, after all.

Thehog had a great post about why people looking for the same type of doping programs as the past won't find them. Unfortunately it is impossible to find anything in these stupid million post threads. His reasoning was solid, though. He spent some time on it to use as one of his first posts when he returned from his ban.

Things have changed. Ten and fifteen years ago riders gossiped with each other about doping. Now everything is underground. Riis did not run a program for his team. He let his riders outsource. Even Postal restricted its program to the riders who were slated to support Armstrong.

 

[BYOP88]

Perhaps Andy (or Chris H) for that matter doesnt want to dope (though why CH is probably Rider 15) I am agnostic on that, but the set up at radioshack, the bullying of Levi for testyfying in the reasoned decision, shows to me that if you wanted to dope then that would have been (and may still be) one of the teams to do it on

There are stories about Andy being a "charger" long before he joined the professional peloton.

Edit:But that's probably best for the FrAndy thread.

 

[Hugh Januss]

That's quite possible. They're sharing doctors, after all.

I think it is much more likely, based on the 'clean team" narrative that Brailsford has complete oversight of who is doing what in order to ensure that nobody goes to catchable levels in their doping. I guess you could argue that is not team doping, but that's just semantics really.

 

[The Hitch]

Perhaps Andy (or Chris H) for that matter doesnt want to dope (though why CH is probably Rider 15) I am agnostic on that, but the set up at radioshack, the bullying of Levi for testyfying in the reasoned decision, shows to me that if you wanted to dope then that would have been (and may still be) one of the teams to do it on

You seem to view doping as a random perhaps inherent characteristic totally unrelated to sport, not really any different from something like hair colour, rather than as an action which has a direct impact on performance.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Thehog had a great post about why people looking for the same type of doping programs as the past won't find them. Unfortunately it is impossible to find anything in these stupid million post threads. His reasoning was solid, though. He spent some time on it to use as one of his first posts when he returned from his ban.

Things have changed. Ten and fifteen years ago riders gossiped with each other about doping. Now everything is underground. Riis did not run a program for his team. He let his riders outsource. Even Postal restricted its program to the riders who were slated to support Armstrong.

Hmm, see thats what I think Sky are doing.
But that appears to contradict what you say Hog wrote.

I would be very interested in reading that - so, no flaming here, if you can remember anything, approximate date, thread or keyword, I can search it and if I get it post it again.

 

[ferryman]

This thread has been seriously getting out of hand but the last few posts may be getting it back on track. I'm sure we all don't want another cull of posts so come on guys cut out the personals and pointless tit for tat replies.

Accept it, people have different opinions than you. It can be for a myriad of reasons. It should all mean for reasonable debate, no

 

[BroDeal]

Hmm, see thats what I think Sky are doing.
But that appears to contradict what you say Hog wrote.

I would be very interested in reading that - so, no flaming here, if you can remember anything, approximate date, thread or keyword, I can search it and if I get it post it again.

Da Hog:

"Di Luca’s statements are interesting.

As Floyd’s and Tyler’s omissions were a snapshot from the 1999-2004 period Di Luca appears to be giving an insight into what it is today in 2014.

Di Luca has the ability of comparison; between “old cycling” and “new clean era” cycling. He rode during both eras.

His point that doping is no longer talked about in the peloton rings true with the perception of the “new clean era”. Sky and others have leant well from the USPS saga that by openly talking about doping only leaves bread crumbs of evidence.

The second point of interest he made was that doping appears to have shifted to training alone. The risk of doping and racing is now too great. What I believe he meant was exporting the doping products to races is the risk rather than actually testing positive. This shift fits in with the new way of training at Tenerife and racing at sequenced intervals. Also a point to Kerrison’s concept with the Classics team last year of skipping Paris-Nice etc. in preference for a training camp.

The third point in relation to the “90% claim”; what Di Luca said was “Secondo me il 90%” which really means “in my opinion” or “at a guess I would say” – second hand information rather than “I know as fact
“.

What I take from all this fits in with the Sky model. Training camps in far-away places, sequenced tests at races prior to the main objective of the year (TDF etc.), zero tolerance on talking about doping practices, no doping at races or exportation of doping products to races and the non-release of performance data.

Leading on from this point is Walsh (as well as others) are looking for the “USPS model” at Sky. That he won’t find. Doping has shifted and whilst Walsh is looking for “an Emma O'Reilly” or “transfusion kits in the team buses” or “motorman” etc. Sky (and others) have implemented a newer form of doping which limits the risks of detection and being caught at borders etc.

What he’s missing is that doping is defined itself into something new. Something more closely aligned with legal medical products and presented under the guise of performance management and marginal gains.

Di Luca words shouldn’t be dismissed so freely."

 

[MarkvW]

I think it is much more likely, based on the 'clean team" narrative that Brailsford has complete oversight of who is doing what in order to ensure that nobody goes to catchable levels in their doping. I guess you could argue that is not team doping, but that's just semantics really.

Three things:
(1) I don't think you need a mastermind to lead a doping team to great success. Johan Bruyneel is a perfect example of this. He's a moron, who's bad at managing people, but when he has a doped up squad supporting a domineering team leader, he has success in multiple tours. I don't think Brailsford needs to do that kind of micromanagement to succeed. Of course, it's possible, though.

(2) If Brailsford (or one of his trusted minions) is 'in the loop,' then every potential disgruntled future rider is a potential snitch who could wreak enormous devastation on his team.

(3) Putting all the risk and responsibility on the rider, if he can, is just what a capitalist would do to his workers, if he can get away with it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Da Hog:

"Di Luca’s statements are interesting.

As Floyd’s and Tyler’s omissions were a snapshot from the 1999-2004 period Di Luca appears to be giving an insight into what it is today in 2014.

Di Luca has the ability of comparison; between “old cycling” and “new clean era” cycling. He rode during both eras.

His point that doping is no longer talked about in the peloton rings true with the perception of the “new clean era”. Sky and others have leant well from the USPS saga that by openly talking about doping only leaves bread crumbs of evidence.

The second point of interest he made was that doping appears to have shifted to training alone. The risk of doping and racing is now too great. What I believe he meant was exporting the doping products to races is the risk rather than actually testing positive. This shift fits in with the new way of training at Tenerife and racing at sequenced intervals. Also a point to Kerrison’s concept with the Classics team last year of skipping Paris-Nice etc. in preference for a training camp.

The third point in relation to the “90% claim”; what Di Luca said was “Secondo me il 90%” which really means “in my opinion” or “at a guess I would say” – second hand information rather than “I know as fact
“.

What I take from all this fits in with the Sky model. Training camps in far-away places, sequenced tests at races prior to the main objective of the year (TDF etc.), zero tolerance on talking about doping practices, no doping at races or exportation of doping products to races and the non-release of performance data.

Leading on from this point is Walsh (as well as others) are looking for the “USPS model” at Sky. That he won’t find. Doping has shifted and whilst Walsh is looking for “an Emma O'Reilly” or “transfusion kits in the team buses” or “motorman” etc. Sky (and others) have implemented a newer form of doping which limits the risks of detection and being caught at borders etc.

What he’s missing is that doping is defined itself into something new. Something more closely aligned with legal medical products and presented under the guise of performance management and marginal gains.

Di Luca words shouldn’t be dismissed so freely."

Thanks. Thats actually pretty good.

It is a rather obvious thing that anyone doping will have learned from previous screw ups. But Walsh was on Tenerife and was indeed expecting it to be a place that they could be 'preparing', but Sky didn't even bring a Doc. This of course does not discount someone being close by.

 

[sniper]

Thanks. Thats actually pretty good.

It is a rather obvious thing that anyone doping will have learned from previous screw ups. But Walsh was on Tenerife and was indeed expecting it to be a place that they could be 'preparing', but Sky didn't even bring a Doc. This of course does not discount someone being close by.

of course they didn't bring a doc the one time Walsh was there.

 

[ChrisE]

Hi Chris.
It gives me great pleasure reading your post.
No, of course it wasn't BS. The UCI will always try to protect the brand, and make it equally easy so that people don't get caught.
With Armstrong they also took payment - a nice addition that no other rider has been shown to have got.
You are more than welcome to show otherwise - in the appropriate thread of course.

No, just knowing your arrogance ****s with your consistency is enough for me. Your BS is the fact that you take the opposite opinion now that you took back then in terms of the depth of UCI tendency to protect its image, by various means. You know what I am talking about, and you remember the thread. For that reason I don't care to go back and dig up stuff from 2011 for the forum to see, because you and I know the score.

 

[del1962]

You seem to view doping as a random perhaps inherent characteristic totally unrelated to sport, not really any different from something like hair colour, rather than as an action which has a direct impact on performance.

No I don't think of doping as random, while I see that dope improoves performance, that does not mean that improovement in performance automatically equates to dope (the view of many in the clinic), nor do I go with the line of guilt purely by association, though I have no problem with either performance or association to increase target testing.

However I do think that failed tests or testimony of others that ppl where involved in doping (soigneurs, riders, wives of riders etc), or bloodbags found or possesion of doping products is all evidence of doping.

I also think that the culture in certain teams like radioshack (definately pre-reasoned decision) would make a rider wanting to dope easier, this is from the fact that LL got a lot of grief from someone in the staff on that team for testifying.

 

[roundabout]

Landis got grief from Wiggins.

Then what?

 

[Tonton]

Da Hog:

"Di Luca’s statements are interesting.

As Floyd’s and Tyler’s omissions were a snapshot from the 1999-2004 period Di Luca appears to be giving an insight into what it is today in 2014.

Di Luca has the ability of comparison; between “old cycling” and “new clean era” cycling. He rode during both eras.

His point that doping is no longer talked about in the peloton rings true with the perception of the “new clean era”. Sky and others have leant well from the USPS saga that by openly talking about doping only leaves bread crumbs of evidence.

The second point of interest he made was that doping appears to have shifted to training alone. The risk of doping and racing is now too great. What I believe he meant was exporting the doping products to races is the risk rather than actually testing positive. This shift fits in with the new way of training at Tenerife and racing at sequenced intervals. Also a point to Kerrison’s concept with the Classics team last year of skipping Paris-Nice etc. in preference for a training camp.

The third point in relation to the “90% claim”; what Di Luca said was “Secondo me il 90%” which really means “in my opinion” or “at a guess I would say” – second hand information rather than “I know as fact
“.

What I take from all this fits in with the Sky model. Training camps in far-away places, sequenced tests at races prior to the main objective of the year (TDF etc.), zero tolerance on talking about doping practices, no doping at races or exportation of doping products to races and the non-release of performance data.

Leading on from this point is Walsh (as well as others) are looking for the “USPS model” at Sky. That he won’t find. Doping has shifted and whilst Walsh is looking for “an Emma O'Reilly” or “transfusion kits in the team buses” or “motorman” etc. Sky (and others) have implemented a newer form of doping which limits the risks of detection and being caught at borders etc.

What he’s missing is that doping is defined itself into something new. Something more closely aligned with legal medical products and presented under the guise of performance management and marginal gains.

Di Luca words shouldn’t be dismissed so freely."

Great stuff. Having said that, just like when investigating drug cartels, traditional methods can still apply:

Intelligence: looking for an Emma O'Reillly is still one angle of attack: in all workplaces, there can always be a disgruntled employee or even someone too talkative at the pub or with friends/family, and the whistle is blown.

Start with the supply... find out who manufactures what, who the customers are at wholesale, then go down the chain.

...and with the demand too: if you suspect a team or rider to be charging, you may wiretap, check trash, bribe postman and/or hotel employees to monitor mail, deliveries, or contacts between team members and 'tourists' in Tenerife.

In a nutshell, if UCI really wanted to know, they would know. They would pay a PI firm or hire a former cop $80K plus expenses, and they would know

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, just knowing your arrogance ****s with your consistency is enough for me. Your BS is the fact that you take the opposite opinion now that you took back then in terms of the depth of UCI tendency to protect its image, by various means. You know what I am talking about, and you remember the thread. For that reason I don't care to go back and dig up stuff from 2011 for the forum to see, because you and I know the score.

Hi Chris.
And I requested you to go ahead and find it.
Not much I can do when your anger is clouding your memory.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

of course they didn't bring a doc the one time Walsh was there.

That would seem pretty obvious.
It kills the theory that Walsh is in on the dastardly deed but ...

 

[the sceptic]

That would seem pretty obvious.
It kills the theory that Walsh is in on the dastardly deed but ...

I dont think many believes Walsh is in on it. Maybe you havent read the Walsh thread?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

really?.............................i'm crushed

Mark L

Either you have a sockpuppet (I'm notifying the moderators now), or you can't read. I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to Gooner (or at least I thought it was gooner). Get your logins mixed up?

Cheers

 

[ferryman]

OK, a few parting bow shots are expected but let's all let it go and get back to the debate/topic without the personals. Nobody needs to get banned here.

 

[The Hitch]

Either you have a sockpuppet (I'm notifying the moderators now), or you can't read. I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to Gooner (or at least I thought it was gooner). Get your logins mixed up?

Cheers

Don't ever talk to me like this again

 

[peloton]

However I do think that failed tests or testimony of others that ppl where involved in doping (soigneurs, riders, wives of riders etc), or bloodbags found or possesion of doping products is all evidence of doping.

Sky's results (in stage races) improved dramatically after they hired Leinders.
You don't have to be a genius to figure out what that meant.

Michael Barry's latest book which is released in summer should be an interesting read.

 

[Col Okey]

Either you have a sockpuppet (I'm notifying the moderators now), or you can't read. I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to Gooner (or at least I thought it was gooner). Get your logins mixed up?

Cheers

Don't ever talk to me like this again

Wait. I meant don't ever talk to me like this again

 

[peloton]

Don't ever talk to me like this again

Where did ChewbaccaD mention you?