Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[red_flanders]

Stop debating the poster, debate if you must the post content. Some posts have been deleted.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Stop debating the poster, debate if you must the post content. Some posts have been deleted.

I questioned the content of their remarks - post, not poster.

You deleted the post where the person admitted they had actually no idea if Krebs had deleted their post, or a mod.
Yet you the post in question that says Krebs deleted their post?

 

[red_flanders]

Yeah, I'm not perfect. Move on.

 

[martinvickers]

So you agree that there is evidence Mick Rogers should not pass the Team Sky 'Zero Tolerance' test and should be jettisoned like the expendable DSes were?

I'm afraid you'll have to clarify the evidence you are referring to for me - though in principle, i've no problem with giving him the boot.

 

[slowspoke]

I'm afraid you'll have to clarify the evidence you are referring to for me - though in principle, i've no problem with giving him the boot.

So we have Working with Ferrari

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/rogers-regrets-coach-link-20121011-27fom.html

and eyewitness accounts of blood doping

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/tm...inkewitz-claims/2007/11/01/1193619042013.html

 

[martinvickers]

So we have Working with Ferrari

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/rogers-regrets-coach-link-20121011-27fom.html

Very suspicious, would certainly justify the authorities in keeping a beedy eye on him, but not evidence per se

and eyewitness accounts of blood doping

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/tm...inkewitz-claims/2007/11/01/1193619042013.html

Incorrect. There is no eye witness account in this article of MR specifically blood doping, or any form of doping. MR is not mentioned specifically, and sinkewitz doesn't specify anyone specifically. if it was everyone in the team, or some. Did he go onto specify him?

Very suspicious, i'll grant you - but this is from 2007 - since that time, did Sinkewitz ever name Rogers? Did anyone else?

 

[sittingbison]

The whole sordid Freiburg thing was effectively hushed up with the peculiar German technique of accepting money in lieu of prosecution. See Kloden.

The problem is Dodger has now been involved in the two of the largest doping scandals in cycling - Freiburg and the Evidence. Levi specifically named Dodger as being on Tenerife with Ferrari while Levi was there to dope. Ask yourself this - when omerta reigns supreme, why would Levi specifically name Dodger with Vino and the others.

The Sky anti doping policy was meant to exclude ANYBODY with an association with doping. So the team could be seen to be clean. Dodger is a fail. Just not quite in the Leinders category (remember him? lol).

hehe got post 9000! now dont go and delete one to cheat anybody lol

 

[Tinman]

Come on Vickers, do you want guys like Rogers in your sport? Y/N.

And then, do you want them in your team Sky, screwing your/its reputation? Y/N

Should be pretty simple really.

Should also be simple to resolve for Rogers, ie. to either sign and declare himself clean, or explain himself otherwise and find another team or retire.

But no need for you to defend the man, he can do that quite simply himself in public. As a high profile rider and quite chatty to the media should be no problem.

 

[Tinman]

Calls for publishing biopassport data are meaningless and not revealing that data also isn't a sign of non-transparency because the biopassport data already gets reviewed by an independent panel of experts. Allowing the lay public to view that data won't achieve anything because the lay public doesn't know how to analyse biopassport data since they are not experts.

I disagree entirely. As one familiar with the process of peer review I thought you would argue differently. Publication of blood data (note the word 'public-ation'), will allow discussion and validification. The concepts you refer to are not rocket science (not wanting to diminish your PhD at all) and quite accessible by many enthusiasts and other public experts not currently on the independent panel. And hence it will shift the emphasis of false positives away to a more rational level, where the onus is on the athlete to explain the abberations, not the panel. Restricting data use to an 'independent panel' will always be challenged by external critics, as currently happens.

The problem doesn't reside with the teams being non-transparent, it resides with the UCI, who as we know are corrupt.

What needs to happen is that the process of sanctioning riders on the basis of biopassport data must not be left in the hands of the UCI. Those riders who are deemed positive by an independent panel should have a ban put in place by some other body such as WADA, and the UCI must comply with that ban or face expulsion from the olympics or some other consequence such as the formation of breakaway leagues that support "clean cycling" and do comply with WADA.

This I fully agree with. And hence I see no issue with doing both.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Please define "independent panel of experts".

Experts in what?
Independent of what?

 

[Ferminal]

UCI has more control over ABP data than the independent panel of experts.

They may be experts and they may be independent, but nothing happens without the blessings of the highly incompetent UCI.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I disagree entirely. As one familiar with the process of peer review I thought you would argue differently. Publication of blood data (note the word 'public-ation'), will allow discussion and validification. The concepts you refer to are not rocket science (not wanting to diminish your PhD at all) and quite accessible by many enthusiasts and other public experts not currently on the independent panel. And hence it will shift the emphasis of false positives away to a more rational level, where the onus is on the athlete to explain the abberations, not the panel. Restricting data use to an 'independent panel' will always be challenged by external critics, as currently happens.

Maybe I should have explained this differently. It's less about the science and more about due process. Should there be a system where evidence is reviewed anonymously by a panel of experts whose recommendation then gets presented in a court or tribunal overseen by a non-corrupt regulatory body or should we just allow mob rule, with all its emotional bias and predjudice? Same concept applies to any legal matter. For example, why don't we just release evidence to the public regarding crimimal cases and then let mob rules decide what the sentencing should be as opposed to judges? Its a slippery legal slope to go down and the risk is that you let dopers off the hook because it could be argued that they were previously tried in the court of public opinion, which would thus lead to a mistrial.

If you have a proper system untainted by UCI corruption, then what would it achieve if you released the biopassport data, say in the event that an athlete has already been cleared any blood manipulation? How will you discourage doping moreso by doing that?

Regarding discussion on how the passport system works, well there already is quite a lot of publications detailing the method and its development in the scientific literature.

 

[Tinman]

CN today. "Team Sky confirmed that all of the riders and staff who will form the squad for 2013 had signed their declarations but would not comment on any possible changes to their line up. However Cyclingnews understands that changes may still be made to the rider roster before the start of next season.

“I don’t think the process will ever conclude,” a team spokesperson told Cyclingnews.

“It’s an ongoing process that the team will continue to implement throughout its development. Everyone within the team has been interviewed and the relevant declarations have been signed where appropriate. Any relevant news will be released in due course.”

Interesting to hear of the 2013 lineup then. As the process involves an interview and management decision it puts the emphasis on management to get it right. Management better makes some good (rider agreed) notes of these interviews...

But why would this process not conclude? We're talking about past doping or involvement in doping. Should be straight forward, no? The past doesn't change with time, does it?

 

[Tinman]

Maybe I should have explained this differently. It's less about the science and more about due process. Should there be a system where evidence is reviewed anonymously by a panel of experts whose recommendation then gets presented in a court or tribunal overseen by a non-corrupt regulatory body or should we just allow mob rule, with all its emotional bias and predjudice? Same concept applies to any legal matter. For example, why don't we just release evidence to the public regarding crimimal cases and then let mob rules decide what the sentencing should be as opposed to judges? Its a slippery legal slope to go down and the risk is that you let dopers off the hook because it could be argued that they were previously tried in the court of public opinion, which would thus lead to a mistrial.

You are representing an either/or scenario but we can have both. As is the case in many legal systems. Ie internal process, but information publicly available.

If you have a proper system untainted by UCI corruption, then what would it achieve if you released the biopassport data, say in the event that an athlete has already been cleared any blood manipulation? How will you discourage doping moreso by doing that?

Already covered. Onus is now on the athlete to explain, not the panel. And not only to the panel, but more broadly - indirectly - to the fans. Repeat feeble excuses no longer possible.

 

[Tinman]

UCI has more control over ABP data than the independent panel of experts.

They may be experts and they may be independent, but nothing happens without the blessings of the highly incompetent UCI.

As with several of these UCI panels, I seem unable to find out who is on them. Anyone familiar who is on this "independent biopassport data analysis panel"?

Likewise the 'disciplinary committee', who presumably discuss/conclude on rule infringements and penalties. Anyone know who is on there?

 

[Krebs cycle]

Already covered. Onus is now on the athlete to explain, not the panel. And not only to the panel, but more broadly - indirectly - to the fans. Repeat feeble excuses no longer possible.

The athlete has been cleared by the panel. What do they need to explain exactly to the public?

 

[Ferminal]

As with several of these UCI panels, I seem unable to find out who is on them. Anyone familiar who is on this "independent biopassport data analysis panel"?

Likewise the 'disciplinary committee', who presumably discuss/conclude on rule infringements and penalties. Anyone know who is on there?

Mercer has it:

http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/04/new-biological-passport-panel-created-in-lausanne/

 

[Tinman]

The athlete has been cleared by the panel. What do they need to explain exactly to the public?

The panel currently allows enormous 'benefit of the doubt' in declaring a suspicious reading/readings positive. Which is a good thing, to some extent. But it also means that many athletes are still getting away with things that are patently obvious transgressions. Ashenden has talked about several of these incidents. Having data publicly available strengthens the position of the independent panel and puts the emphasis much more strongly on the athlete to explain data abberations adequately. As the 'public' will also see this.

And by the way, easy to dismiss 'public' as 'unruly mob', etc etc, but misses the point conveniently that there are many experts out there who will aid the public discussion/understanding, etc etc.

And we're back to benefits of peer review (and paper discussion sections in journals, conferences, etc) which you know, right?

 

[blackcat]

I don't what you say. No one on Sky has ever tested positive. Ever. Period. Without doubt. No re-runs, do-ins, love-ins.

Clean.

worst they will ever get with the current regime is Rob Hayles crit suspension for health reasons. no Christine Ohrogu for Sky. No Siree. Uncle Rupert will be wielding his power from his twitter throne.

 

[blackcat]

Come on Vickers, do you want guys like Rogers in your sport? Y/N.

And then, do you want them in your team Sky, screwing your/its reputation? Y/N

Should be pretty simple really.

Should also be simple to resolve for Rogers, ie. to either sign and declare himself clean, or explain himself otherwise and find another team or retire.

But no need for you to defend the man, he can do that quite simply himself in public. As a high profile rider and quite chatty to the media should be no problem.

I want Rogers in the sport. This is getting Salem witch trials. No doubt he doped. No doubt Wiggins doped. No doubt Froome doped. there is no doubt.

There is no doubt it was not confined to Sky, that the peloton will still be on it.

A tenet of justice is the universal application of justice. Cant cherrypick riders like Ricco and Kohl and Landis. They make easy marks. But ultimately, all riders are hurt, not just the riders serving the suspension. If you think no one has ever won the Tour on bread and water, tho I will make a Lemond exception, he proves the rule prior to the blood and O2 vectors dominating the sport, if you think that no one has won the pinnacle of the sport on bread and water, just how does that redefine the sport?

And just how does it play out to throw Dodger to the wolves with Rory Sutherland. Its BS. You will see you cannot hold one person to a standard and account when the rest of the peloton go on their merry way. /sarcasm

 

[Tinman]

I want Rogers in the sport. This is getting Salem witch trials. No doubt he doped. No doubt Wiggins doped. No doubt Froome doped. there is no doubt.

There is no doubt it was not confined to Sky, that the peloton will still be on it.

A tenet of justice is the universal application of justice. Cant cherrypick riders like Ricco and Kohl and Landis. They make easy marks. But ultimately, all riders are hurt, not just the riders serving the suspension. If you think no one has every won the Tour on bread and water, tho I will make a Lemond exception, he proves the rule prior to the blood and O2 vectors dominating the sport, if you think that no one has won the pinnacle of the sport on bread and water, just how does that redefine the sport?

And just how does it play out to throw Dodger to the wolves with Rory Sutherland. Its BS. You will see you cannot hold one person to a standard and account when the rest of the peloton go on their merry way. /sarcasm

For me the whole lot of tainted ones can go. Start with a clean slate. Plenty of untainted riders out there, just that we may not yet know of them. I'm also comfortable with an amnesty concept. It's about how the stakeholders (incl. sponsors) want the sport to go forward. And that's why I like the concept of 'clean' declarations by riders and teams. But it needs to be backed up with transparency... on the past, on the bloods, on the UCI process, etc etc. And that's what is holding this back. Via UCI leadership. Just not there.

 

[blackcat]

For me the whole lot of tainted ones can go. Start with a clean slate. Plenty of untainted riders out there, just that we may not yet know of them. I'm also comfortable with an amnesty concept. It's about how the stakeholders (incl. sponsors) want the sport to go forward. And that's why I like the concept of 'clean' declarations by riders and teams. But it needs to be backed up with transparency... on the past, on the bloods, on the UCI process, etc etc. And that's what is holding this back. Via UCI leadership. Just not there.

I think it would be hypocrisy in extremis to let Frodo Mavendish to ride while he spews invective at Ricco. sorry, does not work that way. All are complicit. Some may indeed not take a thing now, but they will not utter a word, unless it is the accepted mark like Ricco or Landis. Bascially like the next UCI prez Dave Millar says. muppettry

 

[JimmyFingers]

For me the whole lot of tainted ones can go. Start with a clean slate. Plenty of untainted riders out there, just that we may not yet know of them. I'm also comfortable with an amnesty concept. It's about how the stakeholders (incl. sponsors) want the sport to go forward. And that's why I like the concept of 'clean' declarations by riders and teams. But it needs to be backed up with transparency... on the past, on the bloods, on the UCI process, etc etc. And that's what is holding this back. Via UCI leadership. Just not there.

+1 quality post

 

[blackcat]

For me the whole lot of tainted ones can go. Start with a clean slate. Plenty of untainted riders out there, just that we may not yet know of them. I'm also comfortable with an amnesty concept. It's about how the stakeholders (incl. sponsors) want the sport to go forward. And that's why I like the concept of 'clean' declarations by riders and teams. But it needs to be backed up with transparency... on the past, on the bloods, on the UCI process, etc etc. And that's what is holding this back. Via UCI leadership. Just not there.

the concept of declarations is the most absurd muppetry known to man.

under what contract were they riding their pro careers?

if they lied to race, why wont they lie when they put ink to paper?

hmmm. BS

fail socratic method

 

[martinvickers]

Come on Vickers, do you want guys like Rogers in your sport? Y/N.

I don't care, unless there is EVIDENCE of doping. Then boot the bast*rd.

And then, do you want them in your team Sky, screwing your/its reputation? Y/N

It's not my team Sky. And the insinuation in childish. It's about half a step up from sticking your tongue out and blowing a raspberry.

I've said time out of number,

- I'm not British, I'm Irish. I have no Pro-Brit agenda; it's a silly accusation.
- I have no skin in that (Sky's) game in particular, and
- I couldn't care less what happens to them as a team

With one exception. I care about doping. and I care about evidence. I don't like whitewashes. and I don't like witchhunts.

Sky's reputation is of no concern to me; it's their problem.

My reputation is perfectly fine. I look for evidence, not snide remarks and not rumours.

Should also be simple to resolve for Rogers, ie. to either sign and declare himself clean, or explain himself otherwise and find another team or retire.

Well, Sky announced last night that all remaining staff and riders had signed it - so presumably you're going to find out soon enough whether he signed, or left.

I'm also perfectly happy, given the 'unfortunate associations', for the relevant authorities to target him pretty relentlessly. I think that's the fair conclusion to what we currently have by way of evidence.

But no need for you to defend the man, he can do that quite simply himself in public. As a high profile rider and quite chatty to the media should be no problem.

I don't defend the man. Couldn't give a toss about the man. I defend the fairness of the process. You seem to think the process exists to vindicate your suspicions.

It's really not true.

It exists to find and deter cheats, and to ensure fairness. Anything that improves that I support.

The high school ***** club in here; not really improving much.

my 2c