Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Dr. Maserati]

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

Actually it is a completely fair and pertinent question - if the answer is different to how they view Sky (or anyone else) then it does leave the question why?

Ps- what, in your opinion constitutes "tangible proof"?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

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

Carlos rode for Riis and alongside some dodgy characters, but the way he won that Tour is fairly believable for a clean cyclist (i.e. he had worse days, he had a strong but not superhuman team around him, he had the benefits of being able to sit quietly in the group when people chased Fränk on Hautacam, he kept his powder dry and didn't waste energy, he made his move that won him the race in a place where you would expect a rider of his style to do so - the steepest MTF - and he put in a good but not astounding TT to defend when faced with a shot at the biggest prize of all). I am not willing to state definitively that I think he's clean, but certainly near the bottom of the scale. Ditto for Ryder in the Giro - that was what I believe a clean GT winning performance COULD look like. He had bad days, but others were too weak or too tentative to punish them. He made time on good days, he maximised those areas where he held the advantage and he clung on where he didn't. Then again, though, I'd say Valverde's '09 Vuelta is one of the most believably clean GT wins of recent years too. After all, he was barred from the Tour so was fresher than most of his competitors, Mosquera and Sánchez were injured in the crash in Liège, and most of the time Valverde gained over them came at Xorret del Catí, the first really tough stage after that. He showed weakness (was dropped at La Pandera), and tame racing by others, a strong domestique corps and little time trial mileage helped him.

So maybe it's still a crapshoot.

 

[ebandit]

proof

Actually it is a completely fair and pertinent question - if the answer is different to how they view Sky (or anyone else) then it does leave the question why?

Ps- what, in your opinion constitutes "tangible proof"?

same as for any other rider

1st hand witness testimony
problematic passport profile
blood bags linked to riders dna
peds/equipment found with team
paper trail to supplier of peds ect

i view sky just the same as any other team..............i'm skeptical
but honest enough to say that my doubt is just opinion

 

[thehog]

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

I never said "probably" I said they "are" doping.

The fact that x y z riders are doping is not the issue. The issue is that the governing body who oversees doping is obviously not doing the job of anti-doping. That much is clear and is 100% fact.

As I've stated. We're about to discover the biggest doping fraud in history top down from UCI to the gardener.

You're not going to get your blood bag or your positive test when its been covered up or non-selected on a passport case.

This is also fact. Its proven.

What we do know that 99.9999999% of all Tour winner for the last 20 years have doped.

And you want me to believe the 0.000001% chance that this years after the domination fashion they won in is not?

I like my odds. I don't like your chances.

It will be proven in time that Sky doped. Fact.

 

[ferryman]

Carlos rode for Riis and alongside some dodgy characters, but the way he won that Tour is fairly believable for a clean cyclist (i.e. he had worse days, he had a strong but not superhuman team around him, he had the benefits of being able to sit quietly in the group when people chased Fränk on Hautacam, he kept his powder dry and didn't waste energy, he made his move that won him the race in a place where you would expect a rider of his style to do so - the steepest MTF - and he put in a good but not astounding TT to defend when faced with a shot at the biggest prize of all). I am not willing to state definitively that I think he's clean, but certainly near the bottom of the scale. Ditto for Ryder in the Giro - that was what I believe a clean GT winning performance COULD look like. He had bad days, but others were too weak or too tentative to punish them. He made time on good days, he maximised those areas where he held the advantage and he clung on where he didn't. Then again, though, I'd say Valverde's '09 Vuelta is one of the most believably clean GT wins of recent years too. After all, he was barred from the Tour so was fresher than most of his competitors, Mosquera and Sánchez were injured in the crash in Liège, and most of the time Valverde gained over them came at Xorret del Catí, the first really tough stage after that. He showed weakness (was dropped at La Pandera), and tame racing by others, a strong domestique corps and little time trial mileage helped him.

So maybe it's still a crapshoot.

Thank you for responding and pretty much endorsing what I thought. Your comments about Valverde 2009 are interesting though so I will go off and do some research on that.

Salut

 

[Avoriaz]

forgot what i was saying now...

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Carlos rode for Riis and alongside some dodgy characters, but the way he won that Tour is fairly believable for a clean cyclist (i.e. he had worse days, he had a strong but not superhuman team around him, he had the benefits of being able to sit quietly in the group when people chased Fränk on Hautacam, he kept his powder dry and didn't waste energy, he made his move that won him the race in a place where you would expect a rider of his style to do so - the steepest MTF - and he put in a good but not astounding TT to defend when faced with a shot at the biggest prize of all). I am not willing to state definitively that I think he's clean, but certainly near the bottom of the scale. Ditto for Ryder in the Giro - that was what I believe a clean GT winning performance COULD look like. He had bad days, but others were too weak or too tentative to punish them. He made time on good days, he maximised those areas where he held the advantage and he clung on where he didn't. Then again, though, I'd say Valverde's '09 Vuelta is one of the most believably clean GT wins of recent years too. After all, he was barred from the Tour so was fresher than most of his competitors, Mosquera and Sánchez were injured in the crash in Liège, and most of the time Valverde gained over them came at Xorret del Catí, the first really tough stage after that. He showed weakness (was dropped at La Pandera), and tame racing by others, a strong domestique corps and little time trial mileage helped him.

So maybe it's still a crapshoot.

No love for Ivan basso 2010?

 

[ebandit]

?

I never said "probably" I said they "are" doping.

The fact that x y z riders are doping is not the issue. The issue is that the governing body who oversees doping is obviously not doing the job of anti-doping. That much is clear and is 100% fact.

As I've stated. We're about to discover the biggest doping fraud in history top down from UCI to the gardener.

You're not going to get your blood bag or your positive test when its been covered up or non-selected on a passport case.

This is also fact. Its proven.

What we do know that 99.9999999% of all Tour winner for the last 20 years have doped.

And you want me to believe the 0.000001% chance that this years after the domination fashion they won in is not?

I like my odds. I don't like your chances.

It will be proven in time that Sky doped. Fact.

whatever you say...........without proof it is merely rhetoric

my chances? it's not about me

i repeat sky are probably doping but the hypothesis is unproven

 

[Dr. Maserati]

same as for any other rider

1st hand witness testimony
problematic passport profile
blood bags linked to riders dna
peds/equipment found with team
paper trail to supplier of peds ect

i view sky just the same as any other team..............i'm skeptical
but honest enough to say that my doubt is just opinion

Great - so, that would implicate Leinders, Rogers and Barry.
Add to that some Sky riders had high numbers on the suspicion index.

 

[thehog]

whatever you say...........without proof it is merely rhetoric

my chances? it's not about me

i repeat sky are probably doping but the hypothesis is unproven

Whatever I say has 99.9999% accuracy.

We tried the proof route last time. 1999-2011. Didn't work. Generally its the comeback when a team is covering up doping. We know that now.

There's $53,496 reasons why we don't believe in it anymore.

But I agree with you. They are probably doping. The probability is very high. 1 chance in 99 that they're not. Based on fact and proof of past Tour de France's.

 

[The Hitch]

Carlos rode for Riis and alongside some dodgy characters, but the way he won that Tour is fairly believable for a clean cyclist (i.e. he had worse days, he had a strong but not superhuman team around him, he had the benefits of being able to sit quietly in the group when people chased Fränk on Hautacam, he kept his powder dry and didn't waste energy, he made his move that won him the race in a place where you would expect a rider of his style to do so - the steepest MTF - and he put in a good but not astounding TT to defend when faced with a shot at the biggest prize of all). I am not willing to state definitively that I think he's clean, but certainly near the bottom of the scale. Ditto for Ryder in the Giro - that was what I believe a clean GT winning performance COULD look like. He had bad days, but others were too weak or too tentative to punish them. He made time on good days, he maximised those areas where he held the advantage and he clung on where he didn't. Then again, though, I'd say Valverde's '09 Vuelta is one of the most believably clean GT wins of recent years too. After all, he was barred from the Tour so was fresher than most of his competitors, Mosquera and Sánchez were injured in the crash in Liège, and most of the time Valverde gained over them came at Xorret del Catí, the first really tough stage after that. He showed weakness (was dropped at La Pandera), and tame racing by others, a strong domestique corps and little time trial mileage helped him.

So maybe it's still a crapshoot.

I dont like when people try to determine who is dirty or clean based on performances.

It really annoys me when Harmonn for example says that its great that races are more boring now , because that is proof the sport is clean.

Some dopers attack from 60k out, some sit in the peloton until the last 3k, and if we suggest that there is a clean way to win a race then dopers will ride like that and claim it proof that they won clean.

Its like when people say riders who condemned ricco, must be clean. Christ its like we expect these people do be brainless zombies. Its ****ing evolution. If dopers see their others getting attacked for finding solidarity with caught dopers, then they will evolve and start condemning easy targets themselves.

Sastre definately has some questionmarks over him, and i think he doped, but i demand that anyone who claims good ol anglophones evans and wiggins are clean, honour Sastre as the first clean tour de france winner.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I dont like when people try to determine who is dirty or clean based on performances.

The thing is, it's about gut feeling. I'm not saying that Sastre or Hesjedal are clean, but the way they won the race is consistent with how I believe a clean rider could plausibly win a GT now. That's not to say that clean riders couldn't be successful with a more visually appealing style. But that's what the Valverde 'counterexample' is about. He's a guy we know has doped in the past, if not the present, and he won a GT in precisely the style that I am saying makes me feel least concerned about the doping implications, therefore suggesting that the method of determining a clean rider could do with some improving, or that Valverde 2009 was equally likely to be clean as Hesjedal 2012 and Sastre 2008.

 

[Ferminal]

No love for Ivan basso 2010?

Cleanest GT win in 2 decades and he gets no credit for it

 

[Tinman]

We tried the proof route last time. 1999-2011. Didn't work. Generally its the comeback when a team is covering up doping. We know that now.

There's $53,496 reasons why we don't believe in it anymore.

But I agree with you. They are probably doping. The probability is very high. 1 chance in 99 that they're not. Based on fact and proof of past Tour de France's.

So Pro-wrestling in pro-cycling looks like it's here to stay? And we are watching the TV coverage mostly for the scenery? Sustainable for the sport?

I say we need to take the sport back from the clowns that got us here. No time to lose, UCI elections Sept 2013. Another 5+ years and there will be nothing left. So need Pat & Hein replaced, good people in, independent doping process, increased transparency and accountability.

 

[TubularBills]

Brothers in Arms.

~ Sir SkyStrong

(Slight variance in venue. How the mighty fall.)

 

[blackcat]

narcissucide

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Cleanest GT win in 2 decades and he gets no credit for it

Amen, Brother.

 

[summerhill]

Brailsford Time to accept truth about doping

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

“I’ve been thinking about Armstrong a lot,”.............

 

[Tinman]

Brailsford Time to accept truth about doping

“I’ve been thinking about Armstrong a lot,”.............

Sadly the "Trust me, the times they have changed" is not going to do it anymore in 2012. That was 1998, latest 2005. And until Brailsford, Wiggins et al really "come clean" (either on doping or other magic) the fans doubts will persist and Team Sky victories are going to remain hollow victories.

 

[ebandit]

implicate

Great - so, that would implicate Leinders, Rogers and Barry.
Add to that some Sky riders had high numbers on the suspicion index.

that's correct implication..................but not proof

 

[User Guide]

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.

...... witchtrials spring to mind

 

[Dr. Maserati]

that's correct implication..................but not proof

You gave your views on what would constitutes "tangible proof" for you - you even listed it. The riders and staff I highlighted would be guilty by your standard.
Yet now you have changed position again.

 

[ebandit]

?

You gave your views on what would constitutes "tangible proof" for you - you even listed it. The riders and staff I highlighted would be guilty by your standard.
Yet now you have changed position again.

you're kidding? i agreed with you ..............your previous post stated
'so lienders rogers and barry are implicated' i replied 'correct'

all my posts are consistent..............there is no proof of doping at sky
even if it is suggested............ such as

sky are probably doping but the hypothesis is unproven

 

[Dr. Maserati]

you're kidding? i agreed with you ..............your previous post stated
'so lienders rogers and barry are implicated' i replied 'correct'

all my posts are consistent..............there is no proof of doping at sky
even if it is suggested............ such as

sky are probably doping but the hypothesis is unproven

You're going around in circles.
You said there was no proof, I asked what constitutes proof, you made a list.....
That was your standard. Yours.
Now you are saying that does not constitute proof.

 

[wirral]

If you read carefully what Brailsford says, you can see that his deep-seated wish is that nobody questions him about doping. This is what the article says to me.