Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Benotti69]

For all the ranting that still doesn't constitute proof, whether you like it or not. It may be enough to convince you but I remain open to other possibilities. That doesn't mean I'm denying absolutely they didn't achieve what they did by nefarious means, that is one of the possibilities, I just choose to reserve judgement, which is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint to have

The sport is so dirty that is needs to prove itself clean in my opinion and it is not doing that.

UCI covers ups and we are hearing more about them every day.

Biopassport not working or being managed properly due to so little acutal testing.

Old school still in charge of the sport and teams.

Nearly all riders efusing to speak out about doping. Contador a patron of the sport refusing to accept his stripping of the TdF and Giro wins is an example. This guy just won La Vuelta

So nothing has changed.

Riders want us to believe it is clean, time to show us and not lambast those who doubt as bone idle F****** W****** and C***s.

 

[JRanton]

Some very interesting comments from Brailsford published today:

Dave Brailsford suggested yesterday that cycling had to move on from the Lance Armstrong revelations. And the only way to move on was to stop denying that doping was endemic in the sport.

“I’ve been thinking about Armstrong a lot,” the Team Sky general manager and British Cycling performance director said. “In cycling we’ve got a past, a present and a future. Generation EPO is now the past. We can’t deny it. The more you read about what went on, the more the jaw drops. But let’s accept it happened.

“Now we have the present. We set this team up as clean and our job is to make them go faster. But some of the tentacles of the past are impacting. So when people see the huge advances we are making, because of what happened in the past, it is understandable that people are sceptical.

“What we want to work towards is a future where there is no doubt, so that when someone moves performance forward nobody questions it.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...er-Roberto-Mancini-how-to-beat-the-world.html

 

[JimmyFingers]

I await the howls of 'propaganda!'

 

[thehog]

For all the ranting that still doesn't constitute proof, whether you like it or not. It may be enough to convince you but I remain open to other possibilities. That doesn't mean I'm denying absolutely they didn't achieve what they did by nefarious means, that is one of the possibilities, I just choose to reserve judgement, which is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint to have

Jimmy it is proof.

It proof that the governing body covers up positive tests. Its proof that they are selective over the bio-passport. Its proof that if a team has a enough money and resources that they will bend and manipulate the rules to ensure a desired team/rider wins. Its proof that knowing all this information the governing body instead of opening the door on corruption it decides sue and apply pressure to journalists to bury the corruption.

Its ok that you reserve your judgment. I think is noble that you believe that they're clean.


One of the owners of the Sky team sits on the UCI board. The winner of the Tour is very close the very person at the centre of the greatest corruption scandal in the history of the sport. The winner of the Tour praises the very body involved in the corruption. The winner of the Tour points fingers at Italian/French dopers but glosses over the the most recent doping scandals and biggest doping fraud in history.

Nothing to see here?

Your judgment is misplaced. But that's your prerogative.

 

[ToreBear]

I found Brailsford very sensible with that comment. I'm eagerly waiting for it to be turned into proof of sky doping.

 

[oldcrank]

The winner of the Tour points fingers at Italian/French dopers but glosses over the the most recent doping scandals

Big Wig is much too classy to slag Contador.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I found Brailsford very sensible with that comment. I'm eagerly waiting for it to be turned into proof of sky doping.

To me, it is a sensible comment and I like what he said.
That's kindof the problem though - they are words. He (& his team) are in a perfect position to show that there is "no doubt". Time will tell whether his words turn in to action.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

For all the ranting that still doesn't constitute proof, whether you like it or not. It may be enough to convince you but I remain open to other possibilities. That doesn't mean I'm denying absolutely they didn't achieve what they did by nefarious means, that is one of the possibilities, I just choose to reserve judgement, which is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint to have

We get it.
It does not constitute "proof" for you. You "reserve judgement" - you are entitled to that. Good for you. Team Sky appreciate that way of thinking.
But given the (recent) history of the sport that is not "a reasonable viewpoint" - its a hope, a wish.

 

[thehog]

I found Brailsford very sensible with that comment. I'm eagerly waiting for it to be turned into proof of sky doping.

I like his comments also. But don't so much like the "lets move on" element to it. But I think he's acknowledge that USPS and Armstrong were doping. Which is a start.

Think we can Brad to say the same?

The cynic in me thinks DB doesn't like it because it reflects badly on Sky but I'm if he wants to be different from USPS then lets see those blood profiles and the report on Geert.

 

[Benotti69]

I await the howls of 'propaganda!'

I suppose you missed that he does not mention Leinders.

What Brailsford said was a repeat of the many times it was said in 1998 after Festina, by numerous team DS, ASO and UCI.

Armstrong back in 1999 was spreading the message of clean cycling.

 

[The Hitch]

They are sensible comments from Bailsford, though anyone who finds those comments suggestive of the fact that Sky are clean, would presumably, going by the same standards, take Wiggins praises of Armstrong to be suggestive of him doping, no?

 

[ebandit]

proof

We get it.
It does not constitute "proof" for you. You "reserve judgement" - you are entitled to that. Good for you. Team Sky appreciate that way of thinking.
But given the (recent) history of the sport that is not "a reasonable viewpoint" - its a hope, a wish.

fact is jimmyf is correct it is not proof...............only suggestion

being aware of the procedures used by pro teams one would be foolish to quote the words of uci's mr v.................'they never never never cheated'
but it is possible that sky are clean

time will tell................perhaps we must wait until 'dumped' riders speak out

 

[ToreBear]

To me, it is a sensible comment and I like what he said.
That's kindof the problem though - they are words. He (& his team) are in a perfect position to show that there is "no doubt". Time will tell whether his words turn in to action.

I agree. Reading this, proves all to clearly how much weight one should put in the words of the UCI:
http://www.podiumcafe.com/2011/1/19...-on-the-causes-of-doping-in-the-beginning-was

But I hope and think that Brailsford has yet to be drawn into the UCIs ways of doing things.

As for what action he and his team can and should take, I'm willing to be a bit more patient. The UCI has proven time and again that it is able to stiffle progress in cleaning up the sport. If Brailsford were to get to far ahead of the curve it could lead to all number of upleasentnes.

But when the USADA stuff becomes known, and things become clearer I hope Brailsford will be more active in outlining the way forward.

 

[ToreBear]

I like his comments also. But don't so much like the "lets move on" element to it. But I think he's acknowledge that USPS and Armstrong were doping. Which is a start.

Think we can Brad to say the same?

The cynic in me thinks DB doesn't like it because it reflects badly on Sky but I'm if he wants to be different from USPS then lets see those blood profiles and the report on Geert.

I didn't see much of a "move on" element in what he said compared to all the other "lets move on" I have heard. This to me was more of an acceptance of fact and that Sky would need to do it's bit moving forward.

It's not like the "That is all in the past, things are different now, and it's time to move one and look forward".

I don't suspect Brad due to his comments on lance. My impression is that Lance not liking you is not conductive to a future in cycling. So Brad did the sensible thing and played along. When the USADA stuff comes out I would expect Brad to be a little more talkatiwe. If he's sober that is.


On Brailsfords reasons, I don't see being concerned with your teams image as being suspicious. It's only sensible.

As for the Report on Leinders, I'm eagerly awaiting that too. But is'nt there a court case in the Netherlands going on that has bearing on the interpretation of Leinders past? Could be that it's more sensible for Brailsford to let that play out before he concludes his "investigation".

Releasing blood profiles might be a good idea, but I think it should perhaps be done in a pr savy way. Perhaps get other teams to do it at the same time, and also produce an explainer on how to interpret the results, so that the papers can't get dr. Quack to say how this and that indicates doping when it actually is a normal profile.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

It's almost too late for that now. Opinions are already formed. People have turned into Betonköpfe and will simply look for any small detail that confirms the conclusion they've already made, whether the profile looks clean or dirty. People who want to believe will cling to lab errors, altitude, dehydration or whatever they can to explain away suspicious looking figures, and people who are adamant it's doping will pore over any minute fluctuation that can be turned into an accusation that the profile isn't in order.

There is no 'proof' that Wiggins or Sky doped to win the 2012 Tour de France.

But then, there is no 'proof' that Ivan Basso doped to win the 2006 Giro d'Italia. There is no 'proof' that Alexander Vinokourov doped to win the 2006 Vuelta a España. There is no 'proof' that Danilo di Luca doped to win the 2007 Giro d'Italia, and there is no 'proof' that Juanjo Cobo doped to win the 2011 Vuelta a España. How do we view those?

OK. There is no 'proof' that Alberto Contador doped to win the 2011 Giro d'Italia, but it got taken away. And finally, there is no 'proof' that Damiano Cunego doped to win the 2004 Giro d'Italia, but Damiano himself has done more or less all he can to say that he did without expressly admitting to it.

 

[MatParker117]

It's almost too late for that now. Opinions are already formed. People have turned into Betonköpfe and will simply look for any small detail that confirms the conclusion they've already made, whether the profile looks clean or dirty. People who want to believe will cling to lab errors, altitude, dehydration or whatever they can to explain away suspicious looking figures, and people who are adamant it's doping will pore over any minute fluctuation that can be turned into an accusation that the profile isn't in order.

There is no 'proof' that Wiggins or Sky doped to win the 2012 Tour de France.

But then, there is no 'proof' that Ivan Basso doped to win the 2006 Giro d'Italia. There is no 'proof' that Alexander Vinokourov doped to win the 2006 Vuelta a España. There is no 'proof' that Danilo di Luca doped to win the 2007 Giro d'Italia, and there is no 'proof' that Juanjo Cobo doped to win the 2011 Vuelta a España. How do we view those?

OK. There is no 'proof' that Alberto Contador doped to win the 2011 Giro d'Italia, but it got taken away. And finally, there is no 'proof' that Damiano Cunego doped to win the 2004 Giro d'Italia, but Damiano himself has done more or less all he can to say that he did without expressly admitting to it.

Innocent until proven guilty until UK Sport, WADA, the UCI, Greater Manchester Police haul Team Sky in front of some kind of court and successfully convict them of a doping offense this is nothing but conjecture.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Innocent until proven guilty until UK Sport, WADA, the UCI, Greater Manchester Police haul Team Sky in front of some kind of court and successfully convict them of a doping offense this is nothing but conjecture.

Fair enough, but this begs six questions.

Do you think Ivan Basso was doping at the 2006 Giro?
Do you think Alexander Vinokourov was doping at the 2006 Vuelta?
Do you think Danilo di Luca was doping at the 2007 Giro?
Do you think Juan José Cobo was doping at the 2011 Vuelta?
Do you think Alberto Contador was doping at the 2011 Giro?
and
Do you think Damiano Cunego was doping at the 2004 Giro?

Hell, I'll throw a seventh in just for the hell of it.

Do you think Alejandro Valverde was doping at the 2009 Vuelta?

 

[ferryman]

Fair enough, but this begs six questions.

Do you think Ivan Basso was doping at the 2006 Giro?
Do you think Alexander Vinokourov was doping at the 2006 Vuelta?
Do you think Danilo di Luca was doping at the 2007 Giro?
Do you think Juan José Cobo was doping at the 2011 Vuelta?
Do you think Alberto Contador was doping at the 2011 Giro?
and
Do you think Damiano Cunego was doping at the 2004 Giro?

Hell, I'll throw a seventh in just for the hell of it.

Do you think Alejandro Valverde was doping at the 2009 Vuelta?

Hey LS. Excellent posts as ever. I think we all know the answer to these. The only debate would be over to what level. Basso 2006 at the top with Cunego at the bottom I would say.

Anyway, I was wondering what your thoughts are on Carlos in TDF 2008? Clean? At the bottom scale? Would be great if you could share your thoughts/insight on this.

Gracias

 

[DirtyWorks]

Why on earth would you think Sky would get caught. lance almost got away and he frickin told everyone he met he doped when 1 to 1.

Doping is a conspiracy by definition. And a succesfull conspiracy is 1 that never gets oficially found out.

And what *eventually* happened because he told everyone and ran an elaborate doping operation? I agree that it could take years, like past any kind of statute of limitation for it to come out, but it will. Human nature suggests that more honest people involved in the operation can't keep their mouths shut. When the less honest ones get angry at Sky for not re-upping a contract, or not paying sufficiently, then they will have plenty of motivation to speak.

I agree with you to some extent, but this is cycling we're talking about.

 

[ferryman]

And what *eventually* happened because he told everyone and ran an elaborate doping operation? I agree that it could take years, like past any kind of statute of limitation for it to come out, but it will. Human nature suggests that more honest people involved in the operation can't keep their mouths shut. When the less honest ones get angry at Sky for not re-upping a contract, or not paying sufficiently, then they will have plenty of motivation to speak.

I agree with you to some extent, but this is cycling we're talking about.

I guess the first indication could be riders getting popped after they leave Sky. We've seen the pattern before

 

[ebandit]

sky?

Fair enough, but this begs six questions.

Do you think Ivan Basso was doping at the 2006 Giro?
Do you think Alexander Vinokourov was doping at the 2006 Vuelta?
Do you think Danilo di Luca was doping at the 2007 Giro?
Do you think Juan José Cobo was doping at the 2011 Vuelta?
Do you think Alberto Contador was doping at the 2011 Giro?
and
Do you think Damiano Cunego was doping at the 2004 Giro?

Hell, I'll throw a seventh in just for the hell of it.

Do you think Alejandro Valverde was doping at the 2009 Vuelta?

but this is the sky thread.................questions about these riders would be best posed in the relavant thread

now are sky doping?

innocent until some tangible evidence is found

 

[thehog]

but this is the sky thread.................questions about these riders would be best posed in the relavant thread

now are sky doping?

innocent until some tangible evidence is found

Not true. The information demonstrates that testing negative is not an indication of being clean. In fact never testing positive knowing what we know now is probably an indication of doping!

The information presented is extremely relevant and pertinent to the current situation at Sky.

Those who do not follow history are doomed to repeat it.

Being smart and catchy that this is the Sky thread and facts in regards to cover ups by the UCI shouldn't be presented is foolhardy.

In answer to your question. Yes Sky are doping.

 

[ferryman]

but this is the sky thread.................questions about these riders would be best posed in the relavant thread

now are sky doping?

innocent until some tangible evidence is found

Yes and you are missing what he is getting at. Give your answer to the riders in question and then add Wiggins TDF 2012 to the list and give your answer. I put it to you that Cobo in Vuelta 2011 was clean. One against 2 and putting the mighty Sky in their place. Do you agree? If not, please provide the tangible evidence otherwise.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

but this is the sky thread.................questions about these riders would be best posed in the relavant thread

now are sky doping?

innocent until some tangible evidence is found

The point is... those six (seven) performances are all "innocent". Basso was only caught for intending to dope. Vino didn't get caught until July '07. Di Luca was known to be shady at the time, but his 2007 Giro turned back nothing and he only tested positive in 2009. CAS have stated that they see no reason to suspect any foul play in Valverde's '09 Vuelta or Contador's '11 Giro, but one got to keep their win and the other didn't. Cobo has nothing against his name but got treated like a leper through that Vuelta, often by people who saw nothing wrong with screaming 'blatant doper' at him while trying to silence those who pointed out the transformation in Froome going on right beneath their eyes. And Cunego has nothing against his name, but with quotes like "the Damiano who won the Giro no longer exists" has dropped some pretty blatant hints that he wasn't playing ball then.

No tangible evidence on any of them. Even the subsequent positives for Vino and di Luca are only circumstantial as they don't relate to the race they won. The thing is, in a strict sense, there is nothing on Sky to say that they were cheating at the 2012 Tour de France.

But in a strict sense, Riccardo Riccò never doped until the 2008 Tour de France. In a strict sense, Emanuele Sella took CERA in July 2008, and his Giro wins could be considered clean if he hadn't told us that he had been taking it at the Giro.

I don't necessarily think we should be throwing Sky under the bus, but a lot of riders have been given stick for putting in shocking performances on this forum, and where have the legions of defenders been for them? That was the point of my Cobo post. Everybody was willing to throw him under the bus, but most of the rational arguments (i.e. not "Anglo guys wouldn't dope it's a different mentality") used to defend Sky could be used to defend Cobo as well. It seems people want to believe in Wiggins and Froome, but they don't have the same desire to believe in Cobo.

 

[ebandit]

probably

Not true. The information demonstrates that testing negative is not an indication of being clean. In fact never testing positive knowing what we know now is probably an indication of doping!

The information presented is extremely relevant and pertinent to the current situation at Sky.

Those who do not follow history are doomed to repeat it.

Being smart and catchy that this is the Sky thread and facts in regards to cover ups by the UCI shouldn't be presented is foolhardy.

In answer to your question. Yes Sky are doping.

sky are 'probably' doping but the hypothesis is unproven

but really? showing that rider a c or d doped but were not caught is interesting but no proof at all re sky