Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Ferminal]

Picture of Wiggo with plaster on arm at TdF. Speculation (not mine) that this may have been on a non-doping control day. Keep in mind UCI no needles policy...

twitter going off...

https://twitter.com/UCI_Overlord/status/258560135922851840/photo/1

nice comments: "internal blood control" <<< yer k.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Come on, Murph. Any argument "proving" doping that relies on a claim that riders are deliberately holding back so as to not look suspicious, with such claim supported by observations of one-handed riding, looking at powermeters and Wag Wars on Twitter is not a good one!

They might well be doping - and on balance I think there is something fishy going on - but "Proof by One Handed Wag Wars" is not overly compelling, even for this place!

Not really, Look at the evidence - there are quite a few reports of teams being asked/told/deciding to 'dial it back to not look too obvious'.

So what is 'proof' in your eyes?

These arguments about 'not proof' seem so very familiar to the old 'not proof' statements the Armstrong kool aid drinkers used to put out.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

So what is 'proof' in your eyes?

I think all of these are more compelling indicators of something potentially dodgy at Sky. (Even so, they only give a "balance of probabilities" proof rather than anything that you could pin on someone for a ban.):

- Froome in the Vuelta last year

- Wiggo's TT improvements since last year

- The suspicion index

- Doc Leinders

- Rodger's from this year compared to his Telekom and post-Telekom days

There are very few convincing explanations of the above (particularly collectively), whereas Wag Wars and one-handed riding can easily be explained away. For Wag Wars etc. to be a convincing argument, you need to have assumed doping is going on.

Personally, I've had my doubts about Wiggo since 2009, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to agree with every "argument" put forward the supposedly "proves" doping.

The long sequence of not individually unbelievable performances is a tough nut to crack for the anti-Sky/anti-Wiggo brigade. When Mig, Pantani, Lance etc were climbing repeatedly at 6.3w/kg and above, it was much easier to justify doping base on analysis of performances.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Picture of Wiggo with plaster on arm at TdF. Speculation (not mine) that this may have been on a non-doping control day. Keep in mind UCI no needles policy...

twitter going off...

https://twitter.com/UCI_Overlord/status/258560135922851840/photo/1

I saw this video at the time. Didn't O'Reilly say she used to cover the bruising and needle marks with make up? Would seem strange for a doper to conduct an interview with a journalist in front of a camera with a plaster on where he had just infused a bag. Jus' sayin'

 

[Zam_Olyas]

I think all of these are more compelling indicators of something potentially dodgy at Sky. (Even so, they only give a "balance of probabilities" proof rather than anything that you could pin on someone for a ban.):

- Froome in the Vuelta last year

- Wiggo's TT improvements since last year

- The suspicion index

- Doc Leinders

- Rodger's from this year compared to his Telekom and post-Telekom days

There are very few convincing explanations of the above (particularly collectively), whereas Wag Wars and one-handed riding can easily be explained away. For Wag Wars etc. to be a convincing argument, you need to have assumed doping is going on.

Personally, I've had my doubts about Wiggo since 2009, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to agree with every "argument" put forward the supposedly "proves" doping.

The long sequence of not individually unbelievable performances is a tough nut to crack for the anti-Sky/anti-Wiggo brigade. When Mig, Pantani, Lance etc were climbing repeatedly at 6.3w/kg and above, it was much easier to justify doping base on analysis of performances.

What about Fabio Bartalucci

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

What about Fabio Bartalucci

Sorry - I don't trawl the media for every last factoid available re Sky and potential doping, so I've never even heard of the bloke. Please enlighten me.

 

[Ferminal]

Think he's one of those doctors they were hiring outside of cycling.

 

[Froome19]

Jimmy I’m with you. Sky are clean. Cycling has certainly turned the corner since those doping days of Lance Armstrong and Contador in 2009, 2010. The sport has changed. Dramatically. No longer do you have one team on the front dominating the entire race. It’s a lot more humane these days. Riders from all teams can attack and make their play. The speeds are not so fast that the guy coming 3rd can't atatck. It’s got a lot better. Much better. No longer are cyclists riding so fast they literally have to put their brakes on going around corners uphill or ride with one hand on the handlebar was gesticulating at the yellow jersey to hurry up whilst climbing a 8% gradient. Don’t see that. Cycling has got so much cleaner since the dark era of 18 month ago.

The coming around corner uphill so fast and Froome waving at Wiggins is rubbish and you know that.. Seeing Froome was slowing down and could have ridden at a higher tempo. Even considering Sky are doping, it is obvious Froome was faster than Wiggins (as they would be on the same level) and therefore the fact that he was doping or not is irrelevant to him slowing down. It was merely him in comparison to Wiggins.

And this is nothing about being humane, just because a team is better than other teams does not mean that the Tour is not humane. Sky are a level above everybody else at the moment whatever anyone says.

Why is this so? Well there are possible reasons, doping one of them, but not a certainty whatsoever that it is the reason.

Whilst I appreciate your enthusiasm because you think you've unlocked the secret of Ferrari and Tenerife that its no longer the mystical island of doping I'll ask you to take two steps back.

All the way through the Reason Decision Ferrari has taken all of his riders in question to Tenerife for training and specifically (and I quote):



The entire document is littered with examples that high altitude regardless of where it is performs a specific function in a doping program.

Ferrari has never said go to Tenerife and dope all you want. The location has a specific purposes in the training program. A) it provides high altitude to mask the use of EPO even when taken prior to the training camp and b) its location was always hard to get to for testers - meaning you'd have a fair idea when they arrived and on what plane. None of this has changed.

Whilst the translation is fairly accurate it lacks context. What Ferrari meant was "be careful of Tenerife" as its "scolded". What he meant was "everyone" is going there and its become too common. He never said it was "monitored". That does not appear in the text.

I think what you're trying to do is take one statement from Ferrari tossing away everything else he has done in his entire career and tried to apply it to Sky and say "look no doping!".

Tenerife has a long history of a training venue for cyclists who train with Ferrari and whom are on sophisticated blood boosting drug programs. Period. That has been the base for a good 20 years.

Nothing has changed. Its a training ground for athletes masking their oxygen drug use.

The proofs cancel each other out, you claim that Sky must be doping by going to Teide because that is where Ferrari went. Disconsidering all the other beneficial motives for going there and then you go on to say that Ferrari's comment about it not being ideal to go to Teide for doping is not enough to disprove your proof. If your proof was solid then I would agree, unfortunately it is as tenuous as the comment we have from Ferrari.

Currently our knowledge of Teide is still limited all your inferences and conspiracy theories are nice, but still that unless you have any solid proof to back it up with..

 

[Don Quixote]

DZ testimony which offered a great insight I think into the psychology of seccumbing to pressure (and ergo the application of it). Now Chris isn't Brad Pitt - but he has a pretty hot and ambitious chick on his arm. He is also about to lose his contract at Team Sky unless he performs real good. What does he do? Try his best, but not perform - thus lose his chick and his career? Or seccumb to the filthy side? Vuelta 2011 anyone? I like the guy. I hope he's clean, but I can understand if he bowed to the pressure applied by fat suits who wouldn't know what suffering was, even if it slapped them around their gluttonous chops.

 

[roundabout]

Sorry - I don't trawl the media for every last factoid available re Sky and potential doping, so I've never even heard of the bloke. Please enlighten me.

He is one of the people named in the Sanremo raid from the 2001 Giro. He was a doctor at Bonjour when Lelarge tested positive at the same race.

He also worked at Phonak back in the Hamilton/Camenzind/Perez era.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

He is one of the people named in the Sanremo raid from the 2001 Giro. He was a doctor at Bonjour when Lelarge tested positive at the same race.

He also worked at Phonak back in the Hamilton/Camenzind/Perez era.

I assume he's been working for Sky this season as well? Genuine question. I've only read/heard about Leinders.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

DZ testimony which offered a great insight I think into the psychology of seccumbing to pressure (and ergo the application of it). Now Chris isn't Brad Pitt - but he has a pretty hot and ambitious chick on his arm. He is also about to lose his contract at Team Sky unless he performs real good. What does he do? Try his best, but not perform - thus lose his chick and his career? Or seccumb to the filthy side? Vuelta 2011 anyone? I like the guy. I hope he's clean, but I can understand if he bowed to the pressure applied by fat suits who wouldn't know what suffering was, even if it slapped them around their gluttonous chops.

Unrelated to doping, but if the aforementioned Hot Chick would consider dumping the Froomedog based on his cycling results, then he's best shot of her sooner rather than later.

 

[roundabout]

I assume he's been working for Sky this season as well? Genuine question. I've only read/heard about Leinders.

He is listed as doctor here

http://www.teamsky.com/article/0,,24400_7450650,00.html

But I am too lazy to look through other races

 

[Libertine Seguros]

This reminds me of the old adage 'I'm not racist... some of my best best friends are [insert minority group]...

And I say that with Libertine, in my opinion, being one of the best posters on this forum since I have been on here. Yes, the irony...

The point was more to separate "disliking Sky" from "disliking Britain/Britons" given the conflation of the two (and the blurring of the distinction between the two in cycling terms), but I do see how it reads that way.

 

[cineteq]

"Team Sky, with the assistance of their sponsors and a brigade of backroom backers (including Geert Leinders), created the second coming of Armstrong. The British media have glommed onto the Wiggins story like piranhas feasting on an unsuspecting Bond villain."

http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/10/groundhog-day-for-cycling/

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

he doesn't exactly ride like armstrong. he wins outside of the tour as well and he rides like a coward bafoon in the tour.

 

[hrotha]

he doesn't exactly ride like armstrong. he wins outside of the tour as well and he rides like a coward bafoon in the tour.

That's not the point. He's talking in terms of corporate backing and hero worship.

 

[Velo_vicar]

I heard Jimmy Engoulvent was doped up to the eyeballs but deliberately came last in the TdF so as not to look suspicious. The bottom half of the standings are looking very dodgy with this brilliant bullet proof evidence of doping.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

That's not the point. He's talking in terms of corporate backing and hero worship.

not really. outside the uk nobody gives 2 ***** about wiggins. with lance that was a lot different

 

[thehog]

Why is this so? Well there are possible reasons, doping one of them, but not a certainty whatsoever that it is the reason.

The proofs cancel each other out, you claim that Sky must be doping by going to Teide because that is where Ferrari went. Disconsidering all the other beneficial motives for going there and then you go on to say that Ferrari's comment about it not being ideal to go to Teide for doping is not enough to disprove your proof. If your proof was solid then I would agree, unfortunately it is as tenuous as the comment we have from Ferrari.

Currently our knowledge of Teide is still limited all your inferences and conspiracy theories are nice, but still that unless you have any solid proof to back it up with..

No. I don't say Sky are doping because thats where Ferrari went. I say Sky are doping for a number of reasons one of which is training and high altitude and in Tenerife. The pattern and context of doping becomes apparent when you add all the facts together - a doping conspiracy if you will.

Make no mistake about it. Tenerife has been used by many many many cyclists as a venue to work in with their "doping" programs. Its well documented not only in the Reasoned Decision but also in Hamilton's book and several other publications. Its not a conspiracy theory. Its in plain writing from multiple sources.

Like I've said before. Statistics are on my side. Every Tour de France winner in the last 20 years has been embroiled or suspended in a doping scandal. Do you get it? 99.99% of riders who've won the Tour have been involved in doping and used high altitude/Tenerife as a means to facilitate such activity.

This is not a conspiracy but fact.

Somehow you want me to believe Sky are in the 0.0001% of clean winners even after their display of sheer dominance? What changed in cycling to make them so clean? To buck the trend? I've not seen anything different to suggest the sport has cleaned up.

A gambling man wouldn't take the odds that they're clean. We know from the USADA files that "not testing positive" means very little.

I also think its a sad day that Sky fans are hanging on to the words of Ferrari as evidence that they're clean! Good luck with that! You do realise he just issued a statement professing his innocence? You sure you want to trust his words? Blimey! You're must be 'avin a laugh governor!

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

how did sky dominate in a ridiculous way? they have the best riders and froome had to softpedal against b-contenders to not drop wiggins all the time. it was a pathetic sight nothing like we've seen before where heras would pull gas a bit and lance and him and beloki would be alone and the rest were minutes behind, who were in fact also doped mostly.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Like I've said before. Statistics are on my side. Every Tour de France winner in the last 20 years has been embroiled or suspended in a doping scandal. Do you get it? 99.99% of riders who've won the Tour have been involved in doping and used high altitude/Tenerife as a means to facilitate such activity.

This is not a conspiracy but fact.

Somehow you want me to believe Sky are in the 0.0001% of clean winners even after their display of sheer dominance? What changed in cycling to make them so clean? To buck the trend? I've not seen anything different to suggest the sport has cleaned up.

Statistics probably are on your side, but maths doesn't appear to be your strong point...

There have been approx 50 winners of the Tour, so 99.99% of Tour winners equates to 49.995 of them, which would be decidely odd. Not normal, infact. If you're going to have a non-zero proportion of Tour winners being clean, then at most, 98% of the winners were doping.

Also, if you have 99.99% of Tour winners doping and 0.0001% clean (per your post) then you are still missing 0.0099% of a Tour winner. Lance's testicle, perhaps?

 

[thehog]

Statistics probably are on your side, but maths doesn't appear to be your strong point...

There have been approx 50 winners of the Tour, so 99.99% of Tour winners equates to 49.995 of them, which would be decidely odd. Not normal, infact. If you're going to have a non-zero proportion of Tour winners being clean, then at most, 98% of the winners were doping.

Also, if you have 99.99% of Tour winners doping and 0.0001% clean (per your post) then you are still missing 0.0099% of a Tour winner. Lance's testicle, perhaps?

50 winners in the last 20 years? I think your math is incorrect. Your reading skills are lacking. You obviously didn't read my post.

So much for trying to be smart

 

[hrotha]

not really. outside the uk nobody gives 2 ***** about wiggins. with lance that was a lot different

Of course, he doesn't have the same global appeal. But it's a way to get the British market, he's their beachhead, and with Contador tainted and Andy not quite stepping up it's not like they have anyone else.

 

[Velo_vicar]

I would read your post again hog before you get too confident in your own statements. You state '99.99% of tour winners' nothing's about the 20 years in that sentence.