Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[armchairclimber]

Not really, no. Speaking out about doping doesn't mean you're actively trying to get rid of it within your team or the sport in general. What good did Wiggins' rant do in 2007?

But he isn't JUST speaking out is he? They'll be several members of staff lighter before very long.

As was said above, there appears to be a core group in the clinic who are determined that SKY are doping. Anyone just landing on it from outside could be forgiven for thingking that this core group of clinicians would be very disappointed indeed were it to be verified that SKY are clean....that is, the riders raced and won clean. A bit mad really.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

As was said above, there appears to be a core group in the clinic who are determined that SKY are doping. Anyone just landing on it from outside could be forgiven for thingking that this core group of clinicians would be very disappointed indeed were it to be verified that SKY are clean....that is, the riders raced and won clean. A bit mad really.

And the two things that could prove it: power files and blood values; are missing.

Hop to it - you seem to have an "in" with Team Sky, proclaiming them clean with such confidence every time you type something - get the files for us.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

And the two things that could prove it: power files and blood values; are missing.

I think you're only saying that as you're unlikely ever to get that information. Even if it "proved" Sky were clean, you'd simply say the data was doctored!

A few days ago, Sky were getting criticised for not following through on their "Zero Tolerance" policy with accusations that their "piece of paper" was just a PR exercise. Now they've actually sacked someone, the story changes to Sky's actions encouraging dopers to keep quiet. Whatever Sky (or whoever the current bogey team is) do, their actions will be continuously reinterpreted to be unfavourable, even if they've done precisely what they were previously being criticised for not doing.

As an aside, this thread proves to me that just as riding a bike to any level of commitment attracts those who like suffering for the sake of it, following cycling seems to attract a certain type of person, ie one who seeks out personal suffering. This type of person appears to follow cycling solely for the purpose of being able to be outraged at the latest doping scandal or suspected dodgy team. For them, clean cycling would be the worst possible thing, as they'd have nothing to complain about and they would have to seek another sport by which to be outraged.

 

[bianchigirl]

There was a time when half the team coming down with a 'stomach bug' would automatically raise eyebrows but not 'clean' team Sky...And why would a Team with zero tolerance hire a signer with euskaltel/saunier duval on their cv?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

There was a time when half the team coming down with a 'stomach bug' would automatically raise eyebrows but not 'clean' team Sky...And why would a Team with zero tolerance hire a signer with euskaltel/saunier duval on their cv?

To be honest, I think the unfounded allegations that the soigneur's death was related to doping has drawn debate away from what the riders were or weren't doing. This is a shame, but I guess that is the price to be paid for the Talebanesque actions of certain members of the anti-Sky faction.

 

[fat_boy_fat]

As a non-doctor I’d like to ask: Do you know what was behind the "stomach bug" and why it plagued so many simultaneously?

 

[airstream]

Sorry, perhaps, my thought may seem to you too banal and hackneyed, but still. Don't you find way over suspicious the fact that Sky let Cav go with such a light heart? In substance, the team easily sacrifies 10-12 almost guaranteed wins for the season, including 5 in the anniversary TdF for unguaranteed success in the GTs. To me, it's very presumptuously to put it mildly. It looks like Sky dealt with someone in high places. So... I expect to see a lot of Pena Cabargas at the Tour.

 

[thehog]

I too am confused about how the soigneur's death had to do with bringing in Leinders. Why do you need a cycling doctor to take care of a non-cyclist? Of course you don't, but that still leaves the question of why did Txema die in the first place? Handling dirty needles?

Brailsford spoke about heat even though it unfolded on stage 2 before the weather got really hot or that exhaustion came into play.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...n-kills-Team-Sky-soigneur-Txema-Gonzales.html

It wasn't a killer team at the 2010 Vuleta for Sky. But all (big) teams will transfuse just before stage 1 after the health check.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You are quoting my post, so it looks like you are responding and directing these statements to me.

I think you're only saying that as you're unlikely ever to get that information. Even if it "proved" Sky were clean, you'd simply say the data was doctored!

It's simple to see if they make sense. Funny how no data is released and yet the impact of releasing it is 0 on competitive grounds.

Or do you disagree? Data can be doctored, but if the files themselves are released, it's very simple to verify them, and they need to make sense from a performance POV too. Release all of them - even just from key stages - and the truth will be revealed.

A few days ago, Sky were getting criticised for not following through on their "Zero Tolerance" policy with accusations that their "piece of paper" was just a PR exercise. Now they've actually sacked someone, the story changes to Sky's actions encouraging dopers to keep quiet. Whatever Sky (or whoever the current bogey team is) do, their actions will be continuously reinterpreted to be unfavourable, even if they've done precisely what they were previously being criticised for not doing.

I'm not the one who criticized them for not following their "ZTP". If anything, I repeatedly point out Brailsford explicitly stated he's relaxing the policy in 2011 - just before Sky ricochet into the stratosphere of winning everything. Now that the proverbial is hitting the fan, they dial it back - oh no, we're really zero tolerance, ignore what we publicly stated previously.

If you don't see the reality of sacking someone who was doping, you're missing the forest for the trees. Can't help you there.

Curious that Froome was allowed to race without signing the paper yes?

Curious that Wiggo can talk to the media but still hasn't signed?

As an aside, this thread proves to me that just as riding a bike to any level of commitment attracts those who like suffering for the sake of it, following cycling seems to attract a certain type of person, ie one who seeks out personal suffering. This type of person appears to follow cycling solely for the purpose of being able to be outraged at the latest doping scandal or suspected dodgy team. For them, clean cycling would be the worst possible thing, as they'd have nothing to complain about and they would have to seek another sport by which to be outraged.

You are taking the urine here, no question. My love of cycling has nothing to do with the pros whatsoever, and involves sunshine (which I know you lot don't get in the UK), fresh air, an alpine vista, and an increasing fitness before I start racing again. It also includes people I race with and coach. It's all real and natural and believable.

I would not have turned my attention to Brad if he had not invited me to prove that I am not a bone idle lazy w*nker. My attention and energy is directed at him and his team purely for this reason: he annoyed me with his outburst.

The only interaction betwen a pro rider and the public that might in any way indicate what they are up to are:

1. their performances: Brad's are not normal
2. their words: "I'm not going to do it by the book", "I'm going to do it my way", "I love Lance Armstrong", "People who say you have to dope to win a GT are bone idle lazy w*nkers", "something about the gears and rolling resistance, and for the same power, going further". Either unbelievable or not believable.
3. their improvement over time: Brad's is not normal
4. their blood values or power files: Brad's 2009 values have interesting "bumps" in the 3rd week, and there's nothing since 2009.

Clean cycling is the best possible thing - I compete and coach in it on an ongoing basis.

 

[Benotti69]

I think you're only saying that as you're unlikely ever to get that information. Even if it "proved" Sky were clean, you'd simply say the data was doctored!

A few days ago, Sky were getting criticised for not following through on their "Zero Tolerance" policy with accusations that their "piece of paper" was just a PR exercise. Now they've actually sacked someone, the story changes to Sky's actions encouraging dopers to keep quiet. Whatever Sky (or whoever the current bogey team is) do, their actions will be continuously reinterpreted to be unfavourable, even if they've done precisely what they were previously being criticised for not doing.

As an aside, this thread proves to me that just as riding a bike to any level of commitment attracts those who like suffering for the sake of it, following cycling seems to attract a certain type of person, ie one who seeks out personal suffering. This type of person appears to follow cycling solely for the purpose of being able to be outraged at the latest doping scandal or suspected dodgy team. For them, clean cycling would be the worst possible thing, as they'd have nothing to complain about and they would have to seek another sport by which to be outraged.

You appear to enjoy suffering by coming into the clinic and trying to defend indefensible positions re dodgy doctors, dodgy riders, dodgy pr statements, untruths all related to sky.

 

[proffate]

Brailsford spoke about heat even though it unfolded on stage 2 before the weather got really hot or that exhaustion came into play.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...n-kills-Team-Sky-soigneur-Txema-Gonzales.html

It wasn't a killer team at the 2010 Vuleta for Sky. But all (big) teams will transfuse just before stage 1 after the health check.

your link says that many of the "back-room" rolleyes staff were affected. I understand that riders with "stomach viruses" are thought to have suffered botched transfusions, but my question is that in a doping theorist's mind, what does it mean that the staff were affected? Are they also applying banned methods? Marginal gains indeed. I'd say the "back-room staff" comment is a cover story except that wouldn't explain the death.

 

[Benotti69]

your link says that many of the "back-room" rolleyes staff were affected. I understand that riders with "stomach viruses" are thought to have suffered botched transfusions, but my question is that in a doping theorist's mind, what does it mean that the staff were affected? Are they also applying banned methods? Marginal gains indeed. I'd say the "back-room staff" comment is a cover story except that wouldn't explain the death.

Many Soigneurs took doping products to test them before the riders. I think that the staff were mentioned as also suffering was a cover.

Hell Fuentes used to pop the pills aswell according to Tyler Hamilton.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

You appear to enjoy suffering by coming into the clinic and trying to defend indefensible positions re dodgy doctors, dodgy riders, dodgy pr statements, untruths all related to sky.

Tee he! Guilty as charged!

I like suffering both on and off the bike. Suffering on the bike comes naturally to me, but life is generally kind to me, so I have to work to get my off-sbike suffering so I come here. Whilst on balance I think Sky are dodgy, I do like to get my fix of suffering here by attacking the less plausible arguments put forward. One can believe Froome is doping whilst still thinking the claim that him cycling one-handed for a few seconds on a HC is "prove" of doping is complete hogwash (no pun intended).

 

[sittingbison]

...One can believe Froome is doping whilst still thinking the claim that him cycling one-handed for a few seconds on a HC is "prove" of doping is complete hogwash (no pun intended).

Whilst we have all enjoyed thehogs posts on this incident, to be fair he did raise a second issue with it. Namely that Froome was gesticulating "HTFU" to team leader maillot jeune wiggo. Which is something you do NOT do on a hors category climb.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

It's simple to see if they make sense. Funny how no data is released and yet the impact of releasing it is 0 on competitive grounds.

Or do you disagree?

...

My love of cycling has nothing to do with the pros whatsoever, and involves sunshine (which I know you lot don't get in the UK), fresh air, an alpine vista, and an increasing fitness before I start racing again. It also includes people I race with and coach. It's all real and natural and believable.

I don't disagree that said files might be useful. My point was that you know they won't be released so you won't have your bluff called when you say that the files would provide evidence that Sky/Wiggo aren't doping. In my view, you're too far down the road of accusing Wiggo et al of doping to ever backtrack, so you would not accept apparently unsuspicious data as being genuine.

Or maybe they will be released and you will be converted and worship at the alter of St Wiggo thereafter. We're in a strange environment at the moment, and it's hard to predict what might happen next.

Re clean cycling, I was referring to the pro game. I share your love of "real" cycling (ie that practiced by the enthusiastic amateur dodging work and family commitments) and share your view of the UK weather. I was riding in thermals in June this year.

 

[summerhill]

I don't know if the interview with Brailsford that broadcast on 5 Live this evening is available in its entirety. The man could not have made things more plain. Sky haven't doped. They don't dope. They will not dope. They do it clean.
.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nvv55
Mark Chapman presents a follow up to "Peddlers - Cycling's Dirty Truth" with further discussion and interviews on the issue of drugs and doping in cycling. With guests Andy Parkinson, chief executive of UK Anti-Doping and journalist Jeremy Whittle.

Starts with Bonnie Ford on LA. Half hour extensive interview with Brailsford. Good listening whether you believe him or not.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Whilst we have all enjoyed thehogs posts on this incident, to be fair he did raise a second issue with it. Namely that Froome was gesticulating "HTFU" to team leader maillot jeune wiggo. Which is something you do NOT do on a hors category climb.

Indeed, but I have been seduced by the Clinic's unspoken practice of selective quoting.

I actually think Froome was gesturing to the watching Mrs Froome. It looked more like a "Look, Michelle, I've gapped him as much as my contract allows so don't make me sleep in the spare room" type gesture to me.

 

[sittingbison]

maybe he was "signing" to Michelle what she should tweet to Mrs wiggo

 

[maltiv]

Brailsford spoke about heat even though it unfolded on stage 2 before the weather got really hot or that exhaustion came into play.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...n-kills-Team-Sky-soigneur-Txema-Gonzales.html

It wasn't a killer team at the 2010 Vuleta for Sky. But all (big) teams will transfuse just before stage 1 after the health check.

Löfkvist didn't get sick at all, and he was their GC leader. So they doped the entire team except from the leader?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Löfkvist didn't get sick at all, and he was their GC leader. So they doped the entire team except from the leader?

Here's how a GT works:

1st week: sprinter's stages - get your leadout train and sprinter (Ben Swift) on the front for a stage win, maybe an early leader's jersey and take the pressure off for the rest of the Tour. Keep your GC guy out of trouble on the road by protecting him.

2nd week: key stage separates the men from the boys and the GC guys stretch their legs. Rest day "recovery" ensures a good second half to the week for GC and key climbers / helpers.

3d week: Queen stage and / or final TT are key stages where recovery or boost are requred to ensure optimum performance.

So no, Löfkvist doesn't need to boost until rest day mid-2nd week.

And given how poorly it was going, they pulled the entire team rather than risk it.

 

[Benotti69]

Löfkvist didn't get sick at all, and he was their GC leader. So they doped the entire team except from the leader?

Maybe Löfkvist's BB was stored properly.

Maybe Löfkvist brought his own!

 

[Ferminal]

If Löfkvist is doping he should retire.

 

[RHRH19861986]

I think Löfkvist was the only star rider at Sky who was clean.

Wiggins, Froome, Porte, Rogers, and so on, why should´t they dope? You can´t detect blood transfusions. Why shouldn´t they take blood transfusions when they are undetectable? Because they believe Basso, Scarponi, Valverde, Rodriguez, Contador, Nibali, Leipheimer, Klöden, Evans, all the international top GT riders also take none?
Brailsford can say a hundred thousand times that they won the Tour cleanly, and he won´t even sleep bad, because there is never ever a chance to proove the opposite. It´s so easy.

Löfkvist turned pro aged 20, at FDJ, was super talented, and later, at HighRoad, he really got opportunities to show himself as GT leader, I remember the Giros in 2008 and 2009. He was good for seven or ten days, then he became weaker from day to day. I think there he realized he´d never be able to get a Top3 or Top5 spot in a GT, accepted that, decided to be domestique at Sky, and now joins IAM, maybe to make a podium in Tour de Suisse, Romandie and other races where they get invited.

Löfkvist is someone who certainly really feels ****.ty, because he knows exactly that he´d leave many of the likes mentioned above in my text behind if they were clean. He´s has the qualities of a Jan Ullrich and stays clean, hats off to him.

 

[Don Quixote]

Dear Wiggo, interesting theory put forth wrt Leinders hiring - the circumstances surrounding which I think have puzzled everyone.

I don't have any great understanding of the period, but would this theory also fit?


I) The sudden death of a close staff member is going to spook the riders, whether doping is involved or not.

II) The riders request a doctor to monitor the Team. I think that this would be a natural response from the riders.

III) Leinders is hired short notice to fulfill this request made by the riders.

iV) Because the hiring was made at short notice, the necessary checks on Leinders weren't made or the results overlooked, because of the nature of the situation at the time and his specialist knowledge.

v) The data for this period wasn't collated or was lost due to 'minds being elsewhere.'

Brailsford and Team Sky reconsidered their medical policy – initially no practitioners with a background in cycling were to be hired – after the death of the carer Txema González following a bacterial infection contracted during the 2010 Vuelta a España, citing the need for specialist knowledge to put the riders first.

The question this statement raises in my mind is - does Leinders have specialist knowledge of pathology?

 

[Franklin]

I

A few days ago, Sky were getting criticised for not following through on their "Zero Tolerance" policy with accusations that their "piece of paper" was just a PR exercise.

I do not like when someone is actively lieing

The criticism is that it's a BS policy. In fact we knew people would get the axe after that statement, if only if they did not the whole excercise would look stupid.

The criticism is because it enforces the Omerta, it has been tried before and all in all is a heavy handed method when just one glance at the names show who have been involved in scandals. The result is that we are waiting for these people to be fired and if they don't get fired all kinds of hooplah will arise.

All in all moronic. JV is 100% right in this.

So take a deep breath and appologize. Admit that you are misrepresenting the stance of most of us here.