Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[will10]

My talking of "no evidence" was sarcasm, don't you get it? Credible eyewitness testimony IS evidence, as successfully used quite recently to create the biggest shock in the sports' history.

If there is such credible evidence it's beyond me why it's not being pursued. It took Travis Tygart a few weeks to nail the whole gang didn't it?

I think you meant "unveil the biggest cover up in sporting history". Not sure it was a shock to anyone who's been paying the slightest bit of attention.

 

[Grandillusion]

My point is that what is credible evidence to you or I, is not credible evidence to fanboys, in fact as far as they are concerned there will never be any credible evidence - it doesn't matter what is presented there will be those who will never accept it. Which is why people are still saying there is no evidence against Armstrong.

And no the sarcasm did not come across in your post. Sorry

OK, I understand what you're saying MJM. Actually I don't mean to try & shut down the argument, the technical detail yourself Hog ,Wiggo et al bring is fascinating to the likes of me. You guys obviously love the sport & feel this stuff deeply.
I'll do more listening & put a sock in it

 

[will10]

I am telling you. He would be booted out. Seems obvious to me & I know very little.

Can't see what "fans' reaction" has got to do with anything.

So it seems obvious to you, yet you posted that the breaking of the Armstrong story was the biggest "shock" in sports history? Was it really a shock to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention? Suggests your judgement isn't as great as you might like to think.

 

[Grandillusion]

So it seems obvious to you, yet you posted that the breaking of the Armstrong story was the biggest "shock" in sports history? Was it really a shock to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention? Suggests your judgement isn't as great as you might like to think.

Shock in the sense of seismic not surprise, don't try to be a smartarse.

 

[blackcat]

My point is that what is credible evidence to you or I, is not credible evidence to fanboys, in fact as far as they are concerned there will never be any credible evidence - it doesn't matter what is presented there will be those who will never accept it. Which is why people are still saying there is no evidence against Armstrong.

And no the sarcasm did not come across in your post. Sorry

reckon their are a few guys on death row in the south wishing the phenomenon of the fanboi infiltrated jury pools and evidence submissions

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

OK, I understand what you're saying MJM. Actually I don't mean to try & shut down the argument, the technical detail yourself Hog ,Wiggo et al bring is fascinating to the likes of me. You guys obviously love the sport & feel this stuff deeply.
I'll do more listening & put a sock in it

No problem. But here is an example of something that I might consider to be evidence of things not being right with Wiggins and grounds for being suspicious.

It is no wonder Wiggins thanked Armstrong, given that Armstrong was apparently acting as one of his advisors at the time.

Quote:
I said Paris-Nice was a stepping stone, no disrespect for Paris-Nice. But I must continue that progression to July now. Lance Armstrong warned me recently not to burn too many matches for July. It's certainly a long trail."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012...ins-paris-nice

Now, even though Armstrong was under investigation, Wiggins still felt confident enough to publicly talk about Armstrong advising him.

This is the same Wiggins who a couple of weeks ago was denying having raced against Armstrong apart from CI in 2004.

I think that when/if the press ever get the balls to start questioning Wiggins this is certainly a line of questioning - just what was Armstrong advising you about and what the hell were you doing talking to him anyway?

 

[thehog]

The other troubling aspect of Wiggins that he was trotting out the "500 tests - and that's good enough for me" rhetoric for sometime.

It wasn't just simple man love he was keen on protecting the myth.

Wiggins is not stupid. He knew at the time exactly what was going on.

Question is; what was he protecting?

 

[blackcat]

weight loss, also is grey matter loss, according to exercise physiogists.

you can do sudoki puzzles with that I hear. But if you dont have your A levels or GED you might struggle.

 

[Grandillusion]

Armstrong's relationship with Ferrari was know for a long time before his latest "setback", but was never enough to bring him down. Similarly then, Wiggins' relationship with Ferrari, or with dodgy directors, is hardly enough to bring him down. What brought Armstrong down was that thousand pages worth of what you called "useless evidence".

Just seen your post - My reference to "useless evidence" was I thought obvious sarcasm. I've been trying to get hog to see that there IS evidence, it IS useful, and it was SUCCESSFULLY used to bring down the whole Armstrong team.

He and others were banging on ad nauseam about positives/negatives being impossible to use as evidence, when the other type of evidence (witness testimonies etc) have just brought down Armstrong. It's been like banging my head against a brick wall, so a modicum of sarcasm I thought was permissible, and easily comprehended?

In relation to Ferrari, when USADA finally applied the screws (after 15 years), it was precisely this type of evidence of suspicious relationship which was successfully used by Tygart.

If a similar British "Eliot Ness" figure could credibly prove Wiggins' suspicious links to Ferrari, then of course it would be his downfall. That seems obvious to me.

 

[Froome19]

No. What you have to understand is this when it comes to national heroes (Armstrong, Contador, Wiggins etc) :

Only acceptable evidence is a positive test.

When there is a positive test - the testing procedure is flawed + the test was triggered by too much beef/whisky/sex delete as applicable.

When there is eyewitness testimony - it is from bitter jealous people.

When there is documentary evidence - it was a misunderstanding and they never actually met the doctor concerned.

When there is indirect evidence - links between people, etc - it is all in the imagination of people.

So, just as Contador fanboys claim that there is no evidence of him working with Ferrari or Fuentes, Armstrong fanboys claiming he never tested positive, Sky fanboys will scream 'no evidence', just like the others did previously.

The evidence/suspicion is:

Froome's and Wiggins' improvement - Armstrong had a WC and a couple of decent 1 day race results before 'post-cancer weightloss and cadence' transformed him.

The number of people involved in/implicated in doping at Sky within the senior management and riders. The improvement in Sky's road performance from their first year seems to map onto their coming on board. Again, Armstrong hung around with Hog who was well known for his love of PEDs, Contador's ridden for Saiz, Hog, Riis.

Training in Tenerife - of all the places in the world you choose a place that is notorious for being a favourite of dopers. Even pre-USADA it was known that Tenerife was a favoured location for riders suspected of doping to go to dope/charge up etc. (Since confirmed by the USADA evidence). But again, when this was pointed out to the Armstrong and Contador fanboys - it was dismissed as 'not evidence'.

'No evidence' is something of a red herring, because most fanboys of any rider, will never accept any evidence against their heroes. If Wiggins were to **** hot tomorrow, you can bet that the Sky apologists will be out with excuses to explain why this happened and why Wiggins is clean.

Sadly, for some people, cycling takes on a cult like tendency as they refuse to accept that their heroes are fallible and anyone saying otherwise, is automatically a heretic or a talibani, bitter, jealous (delete depending on your chosen way of insulting critics).

I get what you are saying, but I believe that the evidence for Lance prior to USADA and the evidence for Sky currently is entirely different. Lance has team mates, associates and the like all claiming he had doped at US Postal. Sky have had no such implications from anyone involved with them, on the contrary even in situations where possibly doping involvement could have been leaked, for example with the firing of their staff, nothing was said.

For me the Lance saga has demonstrated that it is near to impossible to keep everything bottled up, eventually we will get drips and drops from within. Indeed there is still time for such to happen with Sky but from what I have heard up till now, I find it doubtful that there is really any doping which could be leaked to the public. Barry for one could have leaked informations, especially after Brailsford bad mouthed him. Maybe he was made to sign non disclosure documents or whatever, but those are a risk unto themselves and they are really not as simple as some posters here make them out to be.

And about your points, I do not believe any posters here will claim that Froome, Wiggins and in fact the whole of Sky's teams' unbelievable perfomances are certainly down to doping. Wiggins and co. could all have managed this naturally. Different posters will have different views on how natural, but the bottom line is that it is possible. Is it evidence? It certainly could be used as evidence, but not even close to evidence which would provide any level of certainty, unlike the Hog and other posters like to claim.

The number of people involved previously with doping is certainly not all that suspicious, when it is considered that from the pool of people who were available the probability that Sky would end up with a couple of such members of staff/riders would always have been likely. And so what about Sky's policy? I think it is pretty clear it was always a PR stunt which they never took too seriously. Just look at this thread to see how all teams have such members of staff on their teams, maybe they are all dirty, but certainly this can not be used to claim Sky specifically are doping: http://velorooms.com/the-doping-section/the-dodgy-team-staff-thread-a-work-in-progress/ Maybe if Sky had as many suspicious staff as Katusha for example, then I would be more suspicious but to me their list of suspicious staff seems fine. If these staff cut their involvement in doping they would need jobs nevertheless, wouldn't they?

Tenerife? Once again admittedly if I would assume (like you seem to) that Sky are doping then this would seem fine evidence and indeed I can not deny that it could be taken as evidence. Once again though it is certainly not evidence which makes one lean one way of the other in this debate, even when considered along with the above points. Tenerife is also an ideal place to train due to its altitude and the only reason it became a hot spot for dopers was because it was one of the best places to train (though it could be argued it was out of the way and easy to hide in truth it is not all that unique in that respect). If you come to the debate with an open mind you would see that Tenerife would be an ideal place for any team to train and indeed I have seen team managers (clean ones) admitting that in an ideal situation they would like their team to train there.

So currently considering the evidence I would say it is more likely Sky are not doping, this is also not only considering your accusations but also others factors such as the riders themselves and their press statements, once again though these proofs are subjective and they could be considered totally void by posters like you and fair enough that is true, but I find it a bit condescending when posters post with an attitude which seems to imply they have total proof that Sky are doping, when in truth they do have such proof.

When there is eyewitness testimony - it is from bitter jealous people.

Come back to me when this occurs with Sky and most likely I will change my view on the possibility of them doping.. until then..

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Here's the thing - where were you before USADA and before Landis broke omerta.

It is easy to say that there is a ton of evidence against Armstrong but back in 1999-2000-2001-2002 there was what - Emma O'Reilly (she first speaks out c2001 I think), Lemond, I can't remember what year the Betsy started to speak out. The 1999 TUE, Ferrari wasn't publicly known about till Lemond started talking about it (as I recall), all you had was a guy who until 1999 couldn't TT, couldn't climb, hadn't made it out of the first week in 3 out of 4 times he'd tried the TDF, all of sudden becoming this uber TT and uber climber, and it was all down to cadence and post-cancer weight-loss.

What do we have now - we have guys who used to be in the bus, suddenly, becoming uber-climbers and uber-TTers, and its all down to marginal gains and warm downs.

Remember for years Armstrong apologists would point to the fact that no one on USP/Disco had ever tested positive.

It took almost 14 years for everything for Armstrong to come out, it took a good 20 years for everything about the GDR to come out.

It took Landis years to decide to speak out, Hamilton longer. Lets not forget omerta here - maybe Barry thinks that if he keeps his mouth shut he might get a job at another team, maybe like Kevin Livingston he hopes he'll get a bike shop out of it. There are lots of ways of keeping people silent. I'm sure Yates, etc didn't retire poor.

As for Sky I think we are nearer to 2001 than to 2012. There are plenty of red flags and lots of dots that seem to connect. It'll be a while, unless the press really get their teeth into Sky or the UCI blows up, before anyone pulls a Landis on the team.

 

[Froome19]

Here's the thing - where were you before USADA and before Landis broke omerta.

It is easy to say that there is a ton of evidence against Armstrong but back in 1999-2000-2001-2002 there was what - Emma O'Reilly (she first speaks out c2001 I think), Lemond, I can't remember what year the Betsy started to speak out. The 1999 TUE, Ferrari wasn't publicly known about till Lemond started talking about it (as I recall), all you had was a guy who until 1999 couldn't TT, couldn't climb, hadn't made it out of the first week in 3 out of 4 times he'd tried the TDF, all of sudden becoming this uber TT and uber climber, and it was all down to cadence and post-cancer weight-loss.

Exactly my point, Emma, Betsy.. these are people who are eyewitnesses.. There has not been a hint of such things occurring with Sky and until people do start to come out I would like to reserve my judgement before announcing that Sky are doping.

What do we have now - we have guys who used to be in the bus, suddenly, becoming uber-climbers and uber-TTers, and its all down to marginal gains and warm downs.

Remember for years Armstrong apologists would point to the fact that no one on USP/Disco had ever tested positive.

It took almost 14 years for everything for Armstrong to come out, it took a good 20 years for everything about the GDR to come out.

It took Landis years to decide to speak out, Hamilton longer. Lets not forget omerta here - maybe Barry thinks that if he keeps his mouth shut he might get a job at another team, maybe like Kevin Livingston he hopes he'll get a bike shop out of it. There are lots of ways of keeping people silent. I'm sure Yates, etc didn't retire poor.

As for Sky I think we are nearer to 2001 than to 2012. There are plenty of red flags and lots of dots that seem to connect. It'll be a while, unless the press really get their teeth into Sky or the UCI blows up, before anyone pulls a Landis on the team.

All true, but for me there are two points. The first is the fact that there has been nothing whatsoever in terms of eyewitness evidence as I have mentioned above. Instead all we have had is guys like JV who say that he does not think Sky are doping, I would not take his word certainly but currently there is no one in the pro peloton saying different and that is where we get onto the second point.. Omerta, personally in my opinion Sky would not be at 2001, they would be much further down the line. In 2001 it was still standard "what everyone was doing" to dope, no one had really broken the omerta why should any of the riders who have just now spoken out actually come out and spoke out at that time? No one spoke out, why should they? Now the attitude is altering, it may not be exactly 2012, but to me the process would have sped up in relation to the US Postal saga. There may still be omerta as you claim, but nevertheless there are promising signs which at least imo, inform me that the leash which restrained Landis for example in 2001, is not as restraining when it comes to Barry currently.

 

[noddy69]

The other troubling aspect of Wiggins that he was trotting out the "500 tests - and that's good enough for me" rhetoric for sometime.

It wasn't just simple man love he was keen on protecting the myth.

Wiggins is not stupid. He knew at the time exactly what was going on.

Question is; what was he protecting?

I have no problem believing that there could be something wrong at sky.In fact I would welcome it coming out. However I do have an issue with someone saying they have proof then declining to comment on what the proof is. You can do this without giving away your sources, journalists do this all the time so thats not an answer I can accept.
If there is proof out there ,if Wiggins is indeed 100% working with ferrari then it needs to be out in the public domain and it needs to be out now so we dont end up with another back dated scandal in a few years time. If you have the sources, you have the evidence as you suggest,then dont you think you could do something constructive in a push for it to be public rather than stating you just know and not backing it up.

 

[The Hitch]

For me the Lance saga has demonstrated that it is near to impossible to keep everything bottled up, eventually we will get drips and drops from within.*

Proof again you know very little about cycling. you do know lance went around telling everyone he doped and it still took 13 years and a lot of luck.

If you really believe that then please direct me to where i can read about the fall ofindurain.

 

[Froome19]

Proof again you know very little about cycling. you do know lance went around telling everyone he doped and it still took 13 years and a lot of luck.

If you really believe that then please direct me to where i can read about the fall ofindurain.

Different eras, imo this drips and drops business it getting more and more prevalent as the sport progresses.

And how does this show I know very little about cycling, what are you going on about? Please explain..

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

All I can say is that to me, Sky and the discussions around it, feels like deja vu to the discussions about USP in the early 2000s. Everything from the responses of the fanboys, to the amount of information. Do you not remember the discussions back then?

In 2000 it was connect the dots, in 2012 it is connect the dots.

 

[thehog]

I respect Froome19. At least he thinks about the possibility of doping and provides critical reasoning to why he thinks they're clean.

The "no proof" brigade is not even thinking about it. Just shouting "no proof" with their fingers in their ears.

I still don't even know what they mean by "proof". What's is proof? A positive test?

I'm still waiting. I'll be waiting a long it seems....

 

[noddy69]

All I can say is that to me, Sky and the discussions around it, feels like deja vu to the discussions about USP in the early 2000s. Everything from the responses of the fanboys, to the amount of information. Do you not remember the discussions back then?

In 2000 it was connect the dots, in 2012 it is connect the dots.

Yes. But we have someone stating proof of video evidence and a statistic of 100% certainty that Wiggins is working with Ferrari. Now should that not be enough to move forward with outing them ? Yet all we get is a persons word without even a clue as to what the evidence is or how the facts have been gathered. I mean if I knew with 100% certainty that someone was working with Ferrari then I would like to think I would do something about it(hopefully) other than just saying I do without any substance. As I have said sources dont have to be given up, its easy not too while giving some evidence other than what at the moment looks like a roswell theory due to no real evidence whatsoever unfortunately.

 

[noddy69]

I respect Froome19. At least he thinks about the possibility of doping and provides critical reasoning to why he thinks they're clean.

The "no proof" brigade is not even thinking about it. Just shouting "no proof" with their fingers in their ears.

I still don't even know what they mean by "proof". What's is proof? A positive test?

I'm still waiting. I'll be waiting a long it seems....

No Hog you should not be waiting your just choosing to quote the same line to deflect that you at this time have no credibility with your statements of having proof.......The 100% certainty that wiggins is working with Ferrari is evidence alone, start there !

 

[Mellow Velo]

Tenerife is unfortunately tainted by it's association with dodgy doctors.
(as is Gran Canaria)
On the other hand, where else can you fly to with ease, board in comfort and find so many kms of roads above 2000 metres, that can be ridden in temperatures around 10C in mid-winter?

Where are the untainted, viable alternatives?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Tenerife is unfortunately tainted by it's association with dodgy doctors.
(as is Gran Canaria)
On the other hand, where else can you fly to with ease, board in comfort and find so many kms of roads above 2000 metres, that can be ridden in temperatures around 10C in mid-winter?

Where are the untainted, viable alternatives?

And which are of course harder for testers to make unannounced visits.

Of course all of those attractions were also explanations put forward by Armstrong, Vino, Dertie etc when they went training in Tenerife.

The question is - are they going for the roads or for the drugs.

Why should we believe Sky?

 

[thehog]

No Hog you should not be waiting your just choosing to quote the same line to deflect that you at this time have no credibility with your statements of having proof.......The 100% certainty that wiggins is working with Ferrari is evidence alone, start there !

No I don't need to do anything.

Your friends at Sky need to do the talking.

If they're happy to present to ASO they should be happy to show you the secrets behind their success.

Go knock on their door. I'm sure they'd be happy to show you their blood profiles

 

[Mellow Velo]

The question was simply are there any viable alternatives?
It's not a trick question. I ask out of curiostity.
I cannot believe that the use of Tenerife goes unnoticed by the likes of Walsh and Kimmage.
The Island does raise a doping red flag.
Is there such a thing as an unimpeachable high altitude, mid-winter training ground?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And which are of course harder for testers to make unannounced visits.

Of course all of those attractions were also explanations put forward by Armstrong, Vino, Dertie etc when they went training in Tenerife.

The question is - are they going for the roads or for the drugs.

Why should we believe Sky?

As Mellow asks, where is a viable alternative?
Riders do not go to Tenerife to dope, riders (including many dopers) go to Tenerife to train. Dopers need to train too.

Also, you mentioned that LA went to Tenerife to hide or dope, he actually went to Puigcerda in northern Spain to hide.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

The question was simply are there any viable alternatives?
It's not a trick question. I ask out of curiostity.
I cannot believe that the use of Tenerife goes unnoticed by the likes of Walsh and Kimmage.
The Island does raise a doping red flag.
Is there such a thing as an unimpeachable high altitude, mid-winter training ground?

Is it not chicken and egg? Which comes first, the desire for the warm weather, mid-winter training, or the desire for somewhere that is secluded and hard for testers to access but easy for doping docs to access? The training benefits can prove a useful veneer, a bit like oxygen tents, ice baths, warm downs etc.

Training in Tenerife won't turn a donkey into a racehorse, but doping in Tenerife will.

I believe I read some riders were using Mexico to train, and also I've read of North Africa being used as well. I'm fairly sure I read about someone using the Atlas Mountains as a training ground.