Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Dear Wiggo]

I’m with you. Only midranked Italian teams use Ferrari and dope. The top tier are clean. Especially teams that can ride so fast day in day out that no other team can attack.

The day Sagan can do this to the yellow jersey then I’ll eat my hat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTDb0ep_epo

Not normal!

froome sprinting his guts out. wiggins on his wheel, not breathing as they cross the line. not normal. i should take a week off and do some video analysis.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Ps. I Have a theory that Evans cracked because he underestimated the lactate level his attack would bring at altitude. XC skiers talk about getting surprised when they are at altitude. They feel fine, and suddenly crack. I think it's something about not sensing the build up of lactate the same way they do at lower altitude. They need altitude training to be able to learn when to slow down.

An example of cracking at altitude by a young talented swede with not enough experience of the effect of altitude:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hqnrtzTQxQ
She is in white, number 38. And she did finnish the race.

yeah coz it's so new to him n all.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Depends on your valuation of Mick Rogers. It's Mick Rogers we're talking about. Mick Rogers who had done next to nothing since the 2009 Giro. Mick Rogers who had posted almost 100% of his career's good results whilst riding for T-Mobile and either training with Ferrari (see Leipheimer's affidavit) or being involved in T-Mobile's internal doping procedures (see Sinkewitz's testimonies back when he tested positive). But, Mick Rogers who has suffered with illness and injuries for much of the last two years and has seemingly been prevented accordingly from achieving at the appropriate level.

Putting a valuation on what a reasonable expectation of the capabilities of a clean Mick Rogers is, is kind of just licking your finger and sticking it up in the air to ascertain the wind's direction. Inexact at best, and wholly random at worst. If you rate Rogers as a top talent, you might believe that he could do rides like the clean. If you rate him as having been a chemically-created golem during his days of winning the Worlds TTs, you probably got déjà vu.

This is the sum total of "evidence" against Rogers that you (and many others) are hanging your hat on. An unproven allegation by Sinkewitz in 2006 and not a single shred of evidence in 6yrs to back that claim up even though anti-doping crusader Werner Franke investigated the charges, and attending a couple of training camps organised by Ferrari. Every cyclist who attended those camps has since admitted or been busted for doping offences which means they would likely have known who else was doping alongside themselves at the camps, but where is the allegation of doping against Rogers though from those other cyclists? Leiphemer has been given a reduced sentence in return for his testimony and there are numerous other riders who attended, but none has actually come forward and stated that Rogers was involved in doping. If Leiphemer spilled everything he knows about doping to USADA then you would think that he would make that claim (as Sinkewitz did in 2006) but he hasn't. IMO the burden of proof needs to be higher, it needs to be testimony of doping itself, not simply attendance at a camp where there were other dopers. And again, this was all some 6yrs ago and there has not been a single shred of evidence since. Rogers name does not appear (yet?) in the present Padua investigation.

In 2008 Rogers was back in Australia for Olympics preparation and he worked at the AIS during that period (I'm not exactly sure how long but at least 3wks in the lead up). I know for certain that he was tested in the lab and that his results suggest that he is entirely capable of riding at the level we have seen across much of his career. People will immediately cite Mark French as an example of being able to dope under the nose AIS medical and sport science staff, however, those guys were doing corticosteroids and HGH as far as I'm aware. Organizing a blood doping program on your own from Canberra would be nigh on impossible because the infrastructure simply does not exist. Lets not forget you've got Prof Chris Gore (who gave evidence to USADA against Lance Armstrong regarding the 2009 blood profiles) looking at your blood results. Rogers finished 5th or 6th at the Olympics that year and I strongly suspect that was done clean. If you are a donkey and all your previous palmares are achieved by doping, then how do you ever compete at that level clean?

Rogers could be doping and he could have been doping for most of his career, however, the thing that people cannot seem to understand about my stance on all this, is that I believe just as strongly as them (you and others) that certain riders could be doping, the only difference is that I require a higher burden of proof than the weak evidence that gets presented in support of some of the doping accusations which fly around here willy nilly.

Lastly, as both torebear and Parker have pointed out, the ridiculous over the top exaggeration of Rogers' performance (mainly by thehog) at this years tour, is exactly that.... a ridiculous over the top exaggeration. Rogers finished way down on GC and he lost minutes to the GC top 10 riders on every mtn stage. So the claim that he "dropped" the best mtn climbers in the world is completely false. Oh wait, maybe thehog has never been in a cycle race before and doesn't understand the rules about where the finish line is and what it means to cross that line, maybe he thinks that if you drop someone on a climb 10kms from the finish, but then get caught and passed by that guy later on, means that you actually won the race even though you were 3min behind by the time you arrived at the finish line.

I have one final question htough to ask you or anyone, how does a cyclist (any cyclist) actually prove their innocence if they really are innocent of doping? What must they do in addition to signing a declaration??

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I have one final question htough to ask you or anyone, how does a cyclist (any cyclist) actually prove their innocence if they really are innocent of doping?

Obviously, in the real world, it is not possible to prove a negative. The burden of proof falls on the party making the accusation.

In the Clinic, I think drowning when subjected to the "Ducking Stool" should suffice.

 

[ToreBear]

That 2009 Giro was the thing I was referring to when I was saying he had no results that would indicate sticking contenders out the back in Le Tour was feasible in the last couple of years - because that Giro was the last time he was really up there.

Doing well on the hills of Tirreno-Adriatico is different to doing well on the 20km alpine passes, though I concede maybe his 2010 was better than I gave it credit for, even if most of the results were due to the TT, which is unsurprising. Then again, do I believe Mick Rogers was clean between T-Mobile and Sky? Tough one.

I guess one of the main things is, I know Rogers is a good time triallist, but I don't rate him as a climber, and the only times he's ever been remotely close to that 2012 Tour level are when he was in a situation where thanks to Leipheimer and Sinkewitz we can be almost certain he was charging, and that 2009 Giro.

On Planche des Belles Filles, he shelled half the contenders, dropped off, then rode back to the group while Porte was still sticking other guys out the back door. Of the four Sky guys in their mountain train, I might even rate him below Froome in the believability stakes.

Read from down and up.

17:10 The lead group
The riders in the front of the stage are: Porte, Wiggins, Froome, Evans, Nibali, Menchov, Zubeldia, Rolland, Taaramae... they are inside the final 2km of the stage but Porte has just lost contact after a strong turn of pace.

17:10 Rolland dropped
Rolland has now also lost contact with the lead group as has Menchov. Schleck is at 37".

17:08 Less than 3km to go
There is less than 2.6km to go in the stage. Porte is still at the front with Wiggins on his weel. There is only one team with multiple riders and it's Sky. Roche has just been dropped...

17:07 The lead group...
Sanchez, Nibali, Taaramae, Evans, Menchov, Froome, Porte, Wiggins, Roche are some of the riders who are still in the lead group. They are 45" ahead of Cancellara.

17:06 Sanchez wins fighting spirit award
Sanchez (RAB) will go to collect the red dossard as the winner of the most aggressive rider prize today.

17:05 Porte takes over
Porte is now at the front of the stage and leading Wiggins. Rogers time is over and he's now off the back. But Wiggins still has Froome following him. On the wheel of Froome is Evans... Sanchez (EUS) is still in touch with the lead group as is Nibali, Rolland... but it's hard to see past the Sky guys to know who else is holding on.

17:03 Rogers causing the pain...!
Rogers is still in his saddle and tapping tempo but behind him there is carnage as riders fight to stay in touch with the main peloton. Mollema and Gesink and have already been eliminated as has van Garderen and Basso and Leipheimer...

17:03 Schleck losing contact...
Horner is setting the pace for Schleck but the Luxembourger has lost contact with the group that is now composed of about 15 riders.

17:02 Rolland and Kloden remain in the lead group
Rolland and Kloden can be seen near the front of the peloton but we can report that van den Broeck has now passed Cancellara who has finally cracked... the yellow jersey will, as expected, change today.

17:01 Sky leads the stage
All the escapees have been caught now. There are four Sky guys at the front: Rogers is setting the pace for Porte who leads Wiggins and then there's Froome. Evans is behind this quartet.

16:59 Leaders on the climb
Van den Broeck has been able to catch the peloton just as the six stage leaders begin the final climb. Sorensen is at the front and Sanchez (RAB) has been caught by the peloton that's led by Rogers. Fofonov has also been swallowed up by the peloton.
Boasson Hagen's job is done and he's been dropped by the bunch.
Riblon is about to be caught...

16:59 Albasini caught
Only Sorensen remains ahead of the peloton that is led by Rogers (SKY). The rest of the escape has been caught by the bunch that has four Sky riders at the front.

16:56 Boasson Hagen leads peloton
On the approach to the final climb, Boasson Hagen and a number of other Sky riders are at the front of the peloton.

16:55 Valverde punctures!
Valverde has had to stop because of a puncture. He got a new wheel from a team-mate and his riding again.
VDB has the support of Hansen as he chases down the peloton that is 27" behind the six stage leaders who are about to start the final climb.

16:53 VDB Speeding back to the peloton
The escapees are inside the final 10km of the stage. They are 35" ahead of the bunch that is now being pursued by van den Broeck (LTB) who has solved his mechanical problem but lost a lot of ground.

16:52 Van den Broeck has mechanical trouble
Lars Bak has stopped to help his team leader van den Broeck who was forced to stop and tend to trouble with his bike. He's racing again but has to make up some ground on a bunch led by Boasson Hagen.

16:43 Details of final climb...
The final climb today makes its debut in the Tour this year. It rises to an altitude of 1,035m and is rated category-one (but there are double points on offer today as it's the final challenge of the stage - so there are 20 points on offer for first over the line). It is 5.9km long with an average gradient of 8.5% but there are sections that have a gradient of almost 20%!

http://www.letour.fr/le-tour/2012/us/stage-7/news.html

6 minutes on the front by Rogers.
5 minute on the front by porte.

Porte +1m 14s
Rogers + 1m 24s
http://www.cyclingarchives.com/ritfiche.php?ritid=191628

Now what is it that makes this performance so impossible?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

This is the sum total of "evidence" against Rogers that you (and many others) are hanging your hat on. An unproven allegation by Sinkewitz in 2006 and not a single shred of evidence in 6yrs to back that claim up

You wish:

Michael Rogers: “I’ve seen a five to seven per cent increase in my general threshold power. And that’s great." - RideMedia, 2012.

Hint: this is not a normal increase.

In 2008 Rogers was back in Australia for Olympics preparation and he worked at the AIS during that period (I'm not exactly sure how long but at least 3wks in the lead up). I know for certain that he was tested in the lab and that his results suggest that he is entirely capable of riding at the level we have seen across much of his career.

Same goes for Lance - what's your point?

I don't know why you continue to spruik single event results as evidence of a clean career...

As for logistics - if they were available, there was ample opportunity to set something up, given he raced there in 2007 as part of the test event.

Perhaps you'd like to claim the peloton was clean and Rogers was placing 5th in a clean peloton? 2 riders were poisitive for CERA in that raod race though. And remember, Khol was using CERA and not being caught - so here's 2 riders who failed the IQ test.

As for his placing - Mick came last out of the 6 breakaway riders that were finishing alone at the end of the race. The powerful, world renowned sprinter Andy Schleck beating him to the line.

People will immediately cite Mark French as an example of being able to dope under the nose AIS medical and sport science staff, however, those guys were doing corticosteroids and HGH as far as I'm aware. Organizing a blood doping program on your own from Canberra would be nigh on impossible because the infrastructure simply does not exist.

Infrastructure like a private room and medical supplies? Really? You sound like you're familiar with the infrastructure required to dope a rider, Krebs, please enlighten us on:
1. what is required and
2. how you know

and then perhaps point to a study that "explains" why this is not available in Canberra at the time, given that 2 riders on AIS scholarships were caught doping by ASDA in 1999, and a few more in 1998? If there is no study, I will accept your own explanation, but I know they are teh hard for you, so my expectations are low.

I have one final question htough to ask you or anyone, how does a cyclist (any cyclist) actually prove their innocence if they really are innocent of doping? What must they do in addition to signing a declaration??

Wow. The PhD in exercise physiology does not know how to prove a rider is clean. What happened to your slavish praise of the athlete's passport and Ashenden's expert analysis?

Ooh ooh, I know!! Why don't we ask someone who has studied hypoxia in athletes and has a PhD and 10 years experience working with elite athletes what he considers "proof" of a clean athlete. How about it, Krebs Cycle?

 

[Parker]

You wish:

Michael Rogers: “I’ve seen a five to seven per cent increase in my general threshold power. And that’s great." - RideMedia, 2012.

Hint: this is not a normal increase.

Taking at face value what any cyclist, pro or amateur, says about their power output is stupid. It's like believing what an angler says about the fish he almost caught or the amount of sex a teenage boy says he's had. They're all prone to exaggeration.

You probably think it's doping when a sportsman promises to give 110%, don't you? Where does that extra 10% come from? Not normal.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

There is no way a clean cyclist was on training camps with Schumi in 2005. The guy was convicted of sporting fraud for doping riders, ffs! You can't claim ignorance at that point and no clean rider would want to work with such a doc.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Taking at face value what any cyclist, pro or amateur, says about their output is stupid. It's like believing what an angler says about the fish he almost caught or the amount of sex a teenage boy says he's had. They're all prone to exaggeration.

No, it is not stupid. Saying anything in the media and then having people defend what has been said is stupid.

So we have to believe it when Brailsford says everyone is clean, but when a rider says "I increased threshold 5%" we ignore it?

When a rider with many, many years of track work says "something about the gears and rolling resistance" we ignore it?


Ignore this:

Michael Rogers: “We did [the Joux Plane climb] in 34:50, I think, and I averaged 440 Watts. That was one of my highest every power reports.”

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Taking at face value what any cyclist, pro or amateur, says about their power output is stupid. It's like believing what an angler says about the fish he almost caught or the amount of sex a teenage boy says he's had. They're all prone to exaggeration.

You probably think it's doping when a sportsman promises to give 110%, don't you? Where does that extra 10% come from? Not normal.

I have a lot more background info here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1050161&highlight=highest#post1050161

Feel free to debunk the points I make there if you truly believe a rider with a PM and many, many years experience using it is going to brag, and say 5% improvement, if it was only 1%.

If anything, I'd say he was getting out in front of the speculation, due to the fact he is about to perform better than he ever has.



ETA:

After a disappointing 2010 Tour de France (37th overall), Rogers announced he would concentrate in future on shorter races (e.g. one week in length) as he was no longer suited to the longer tours.

He finishes 23rd in 2012, as a domestique, at 32.

This is his highest finish since 2006, when everyone stopped doping and he came 9th. At T-Mobile. Nothing dodgy going on there that year...

 

[blackcat]

move along

anglophones have different ethics.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Read from down and up.

http://www.letour.fr/le-tour/2012/us/stage-7/news.html

6 minutes on the front by Rogers.
5 minute on the front by porte.

Porte +1m 14s
Rogers + 1m 24s
http://www.cyclingarchives.com/ritfiche.php?ritid=191628

Now what is it that makes this performance so impossible?

No performance was impossible from the perspective of the bounds of human achievement. The days of Pantani-speed are gone. However, take Rogers out of there and plug in somebody else. Let's say, for the sake of an argument, you plugged in Vladimir Karpets. He has good stage racing credentials, finished in the top 10 of the Vuelta a few years ago, has won the Tour de Suisse.

Vlad Karpets gets on the front in the Tour de France and puts half the GC contenders out the back, as part of a Movistar train of similar riders who've improved large-scale and are crushing the race. How do we feel? I doubt we'd have had such vociferous defences of a Movistar train of pain.

I see Mick Rogers rather like Vlad Karpets. Solid bike riders, functional climbers who accumulate results without ever really being noticeable except by their absence, who were probably dodgy earlier in their career. I don't rate Mick Rogers any higher than I rate Vladimir Karpets, and thus while his super-domestiquing performance is not outside the bounds of possibility, I don't buy it coming from him.

 

[Parker]

No, it is not stupid. Saying anything in the media and then having people defend what has been said is stupid.

So we have to believe it when Brailsford says everyone is clean, but when a rider says "I increased threshold 5%" we ignore it?

When a rider with many, many years of track work says "something about the gears and rolling resistance" we ignore it?


Ignore this:

No. When soneone thinks that every single thing that comes from Sky is a sign of doping - then I ignore it.
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to be more selective with your 'evidence'. Your shotgun approach of picking up dozens of theories and seeing which stick just makes you look desperate.

 

[thehog]

No performance was impossible from the perspective of the bounds of human achievement. The days of Pantani-speed are gone. However, take Rogers out of there and plug in somebody else. Let's say, for the sake of an argument, you plugged in Vladimir Karpets. He has good stage racing credentials, finished in the top 10 of the Vuelta a few years ago, has won the Tour de Suisse.

Vlad Karpets gets on the front in the Tour de France and puts half the GC contenders out the back, as part of a Movistar train of similar riders who've improved large-scale and are crushing the race. How do we feel? I doubt we'd have had such vociferous defences of a Movistar train of pain.

I see Mick Rogers rather like Vlad Karpets. Solid bike riders, functional climbers who accumulate results without ever really being noticeable except by their absence, who were probably dodgy earlier in their career. I don't rate Mick Rogers any higher than I rate Vladimir Karpets, and thus while his super-domestiquing performance is not outside the bounds of possibility, I don't buy it coming from him.

Excellent analogy.

 

[The Hitch]

Obviously, in the real world, it is not possible to prove a negative. The burden of proof falls on the party making the accusation.

In the Clinic, I think drowning when subjected to the "Ducking Stool" should suffice.

In the real world, solid proof is required to put someone behind bars. Yet you are asking us to demonstrate solid proof which the perpetrators do their best to make sure we don't have access to, in order to justify our own opinions that people who walk talk and quack like dopers, in a sport where doping is rife, are dopers.

Do you see the difference?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

No. When soneone thinks that every single thing that comes from Sky is a sign of doping - then I ignore it.
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to be more selective with your 'evidence'. Your shotgun approach of picking up dozens of theories and seeing which stick just makes you look desperate.

Seriously? I know lots of amateurs who have power meters - they either shut up about their current power, or underestimate. Why the hell would you exaggerate your current power capability? People would pop you off the back immediately.

My "shotgun approach" is simply responding to the facts - as communicated by Sky. And they all align and reinforce one another. Feel free to point out a theory that is fabricated on no evidence at all.

If there's any incohesive communication happening, it's all coming from Sky press releases, interviews and dodgy performances.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

So mick rogers is not a suspect now LOL

 

[Dear Wiggo]

move along

anglophones have different ethics.

 

[blackcat]

I have the manufacturer on the left. I need to tournez à droite.

 

[sairyder]

Roche doesn't believe in guilty by association, even if you're associated with Conconi and with EPO, or with testosterone.

"Is everybody guilty through association?" asked the Irishman.

"In that case, get rid of everybody. Wipe out half the peloton, half the directeur sportifs, half the managers, half the UCI and then start from scratch.

"I'd understand, but I don't think it's really fair. It's a bit radical to tear things up like that.


not fair but necessary

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I have the manufacturer on the left. I need to tournez à droite.

tournez a gauche?

 

[blackcat]

the right turn, is the anglophone turn.

I need to trade mine in on the gauche

 

[sittingbison]

Ah yes, the clinic's 'hard facts'. Elsewhere it's called speculation.

Ar least Sky seem to be doing something, saying something. Most teams don't seem to be saying anything at all, despite most of the them being tainted by the fall out from Lance much worse.

Anyway since they have been convicted out of hand anything they do say will be perceived as PR or spin. I hope they fire Yates for a start, and possibly Rogers.

Although as has been pointed out, if teams start firing riders who admit to doping then they don't admit to doping, the whole thing goes underground again and we don't get full closure.

OK jimmy, here are some actual hard facts that I just posted on another forum:

Kimmage wrote an article straight after the Olympics inquiring what had happened to the Sky transparency policy, a “no dopers policy”. They specifically and categorically stated “we will not employ doctors from within cycling”. Since then they have hired dodgy soigneurs Yates who has many question marks over him, Bobby Jullich who is named in the Evidence (reducted Rider 4) and Shane Sutton (see Darryl Webster), dodgy doctors Geert Leinders who ran the Rabobank systematic team based doping programme and Fabio Bartalucci who is named in the Sanremo raid from the 2001 Giro and a doctor at Bonjour when Lelarge tested positive and at Phonak back in the Hamilton/Camenzind/Perez era. Dodgy riders Dodger who has Ferrari AND Freiburg hanging over his head, and one of the top scores with 7 on the suspicion index (from five upwards, the comments associated to the rider files started to become much more precise, “even affirmative”, from six to ten, the circumstantial evidence of possible doping was “overwhelming”), Christian Knees and Geraint Thomas are both 6 on the index, and Kanstantsin Siutsou with a mind blowing 8 on the index.

Every rider, director and team is now open to scrutiny, like it or not, fair or not. Even now omerta is operating on all cylinders, Brailesfords ill advised comments on signing a declaration withstanding, and various extremely experienced riders with ridiculous “I am shocked! Shocked I tell you!!” or impersonating Sgt Schults with “never saw anything” comments.

So how do you explain how clean transparent good ship Sky has such a scaly crew?

 

[thehog]

OK jimmy, here are some actual hard facts that I just posted on another forum:

Kimmage wrote an article straight after the Olympics inquiring what had happened to the Sky transparency policy, a “no dopers policy”. They specifically and categorically stated “we will not employ doctors from within cycling”. Since then they have hired dodgy soigneurs Yates who has many question marks over him, Bobby Jullich who is named in the Evidence (reducted Rider 4) and Shane Sutton (see Darryl Webster), dodgy doctors Geert Leinders who ran the Rabobank systematic team based doping programme and Fabio Bartalucci who is named in the Sanremo raid from the 2001 Giro and a doctor at Bonjour when Lelarge tested positive and at Phonak back in the Hamilton/Camenzind/Perez era. Dodgy riders Dodger who has Ferrari AND Freiburg hanging over his head, and one of the top scores with 7 on the suspicion index (from five upwards, the comments associated to the rider files started to become much more precise, “even affirmative”, from six to ten, the circumstantial evidence of possible doping was “overwhelming”), Christian Knees 6 on the index, and Kanstantsin Siutsou with a mind blowing 8 on the index.

Every rider, director and team is now open to scrutiny, like it or not, fair or not. Even now omerta is operating on all cylinders, Brailesfords ill advised comments on signing a declaration withstanding, and various extremely experienced riders with ridiculous “I am shocked! Shocked I tell you!!” or impersonating Sgt Schults with “never saw anything” comments.

So how do you explain how clean transparent good ship Sky has such a scaly crew?

And a Sky rider spoke to Ashenden about what was going on how he could get out.

 

[Ferminal]

So mick rogers is not a suspect now LOL

He's a known long-term doper, but because he rode for the Tour winner he is clean?