Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Dr. Maserati]

Anglophones, maybe. Anglophiles, really? - Hog, Wiggo, Benotti AngloPHILES? Nope, not buying that.

The singular focus is for the reasons stated above - a number of people have quite odd chips on their shoulder. As a non-brit, who will wave my little tricolour at every race, and consider An Post Sean Kelly my home team, even I can see it.



Again, observe

Garmin, Anglophone - tick,
'clean' policy, tick
2012 GT -Giro- win, and full of ex-dopers - tick

Where's the nine thousand post topic on that today? with the near million views?

Look at how Garmnin and JV are used on this thread - only as weapons, if they are useful for beating up on Sky, they are used as such; when not, they are written off and abused.

Facts twisted to suit theories.

How is that actually useful?




I refer you back to the quotation from Holmes on twisting theories to suit facts.

They have a credibility problem. Entirely agree. Rogers is a PR disaster waiting to happen.

But nothing LiKe the one Astana, for one example, or Saxo-Tinkoff, have. They may wish differently - indeed, several very clearly do wish differently (wonder why)- but it ain't true. Not in the real world, were, you know, viewers and sponsors live.




Had a quick check - last thread to name another team -

Astana - last post 14/11/
Number of replies - 20
Views - 2324

observe, Watson.

Sky - last post, today
Number of replies - 9112
Views - 936,613

number posts by Wiggo, benotti or Hog on Astana thread? Zero
number posts by Wiggo, benotti or Hog on Sky thread? As the stars in the heavens, or the grains of sand on the beach.



Maybe, but I rather think I covered that in the cynicism is not wisdom section.

Skepticism - fine, bloody sensible

'Trust, but verify' - fine, scientific, let's start digging for some real facts

Cynicism, and then a load of 'fanboy' crap - pathetic, and barely fit for children. And makes actual backed-up allegations in here harder to trust.

you can have that 2c for free - it's pro bono

You're a lawyer right?
So, your arguement presented here today is about nationality, other posters, other teams, other threads......
Basically everything but the subject.

 

[martinvickers]

You're a lawyer right?

No, I'm a deep sea fisherman. does it change anything?

So, your arguement presented here today is about nationality, other posters, other teams, other threads......
Basically everything but the subject

It's not an argument, it's a series of answers to specific assertions. And perfectly focused as such.

Next please.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, I'm a deep sea fisherman. does it change anything?

Not really except you brought it up and I would have expected ou to notice that your arguement was not discussing any of the facts.
A usual ploy when the chips are not in your favor.

It's not an argument, it's a series of answers to specific assertions. And perfectly focused as such.

Next please.

There were no specific answers. Just a host of meaningless irrelevant thoughts.
Astana? Any thread would struggle to make the second page because you don't have fans of Asatna come up with odd inconsistent theories on how they do so well.

Garmin - plenty don't believe them. But in this case they did not set out to pretend that they have a policy as Sky did.

Anytime you wish to discuss Sky, please let me know.

 

[Benotti69]

Anglophones, maybe. Anglophiles, really? - Hog, Wiggo, Benotti AngloPHILES? Nope, not buying that.

I am not from the mediterranean region of the world

Why post about Astana when everyone considers them dopers?

Astana dont try and blow smoke up our coolos like Sky and Garmin.



The sky fanboys are giving the old armstrong fanboys a good run for their money!

 

[thehog]

Anglophones, maybe. Anglophiles, really? - Hog, Wiggo, Benotti AngloPHILES? Nope, not buying that.

Again, observe

Garmin, Anglophone - tick,
'clean' policy, tick
2012 GT -Giro- win, and full of ex-dopers - tick

Where's the nine thousand post topic on that today? with the near million views?

Look at how Garmnin and JV are used on this thread - only as weapons, if they are useful for beating up on Sky, they are used as such; when not, they are written off and abused.

Had a quick check - last thread to name another team -

Astana - last post 14/11/
Number of replies - 20
Views - 2324

observe, Watson.

Sky - last post, today
Number of replies - 9112
Views - 936,613

number posts by Wiggo, benotti or Hog on Astana thread? Zero
number posts by Wiggo, benotti or Hog on Sky thread? As the stars in the heavens, or the grains of sand on the beach.

you can have that 2c for free - it's pro bono

Settle down Vickers. Your schoolboy behavior is getting out of hand.

 

[martinvickers]

Settle down Vickers. Your schoolboy behavior is getting out of hand.

Kettle. Pot's calling you something.

 

[martinvickers]

Why post about Astana when everyone considers them dopers?

Astana dont try and blow smoke up our coolos like Sky and Garmin.


The sky fanboys are giving the old armstrong fanboys a good run for their money!

Tinman?

quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[Benotti69]

Tinman?

quod erat demonstrandum.

Why are you not adding to the discussion on the Astana, Saxo, Riis, Movistar, Cobo etc etc threads?

 

[martinvickers]

There were no specific answers. Just a host of meaningless irrelevant thoughts.

As I've said before, you're entitled to your opinion; like assh*les, everyone has one - usually full of the same thing, too.

 

[martinvickers]

Why are you not adding to the discussion on the Astana, Saxo, Riis, Movistar, Cobo etc etc threads?

Frankly because there's not much of a discussion to enter - which itself says soemthing, doesn't it.

You want to know what I think about these issues, ask away. I bet we won't end up with the same sarcastic 'fanboy' bullsh*t we get on Sky and to a lesser extent Garmin.

 

[Benotti69]

Frankly because there's not much of a discussion to enter - which itself says soemthing, doesn't it.

You want to know what I think about these issues, ask away. I bet we won't end up with the same sarcastic 'fanboy' bullsh*t we get on Sky and to a lesser extent Garmin.

You have nothing to add or start a discussion with?

Reacting to what others are saying is not bring much to the table is it.

 

[del1962]

I think people perceive a vitriol towards Sky in the clinic,

the Sky fanboy jibes certainly detract from the agruments as they seem petty

obviously there are concerns about whether Rodger's used dope in the past as he had associations with Ferrari, and this was after Italina riders were banned from associating with him, and as this evidence was not out there until the USADA report, then Sky can only ask him if he doped, they cannot just sack him. Perhaps had this association been out there in the past then they would not have signed him.

What suprises me is there is not more stuff about Greenedge who say they have a policy like Sky's, didn't they too have a dodgy doctor.

EDIt - sorry it was Quick Step who sacked Levi but have dodgy doctor.

 

[martinvickers]

You have nothing to add or start a discussion with?

Reacting to what others are saying is not bring much to the table is it.

As I said about Andywhateverhisnumberis - if it helps attack the bullsh*t quotient it serves a purpose. And I'll readily admit, my mind tends to react rather than initiate - pick holes rather than concoct theories.

You know one conversation I would like - why the hell are we putting no pressure on UCI over Saxo-Tinkoff - there's one place left on the Tour, Saxo need it; why won't UCI use this position of strength to put them over the barrell?

 

[MarkvW]

Why are you not adding to the discussion on the Astana, Saxo, Riis, Movistar, Cobo etc etc threads?

Cool insight, bro.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

As I've said before, you're entitled to your opinion; like assh*les, everyone has one - usually full of the same thing, too.

Why have YOU made this personal?
I certainly do not need you to point out my entitlements to my opinions.
My opinion are indeed drawn from facts - you would prefer just to dismiss them or put my opinions with someone else.

So as you do not derail the thread further - can you give clear answers to the following.
Can you please give your 'opinions' on why Rogers would go to Dr Ferrari?
Can you also give your opinions on his role in Tmobile and Frieburg?

 

[martinvickers]

Why have YOU made this personal?
I certainly do not need you to point out my entitlements to my opinions.

Just thought I'd help.

So as you do not derail the thread further - can you give clear answers to the following.
Can you please give your 'opinions' on why Rogers would go to Dr Ferrari?

I dislike 'opinions'. I much prefer facts.

But, for what little it is worth, and it's worth very little...

I think he went to dope. It's plausible, but not particularly likely, that he went to test...but I think he doped. And therefore he shouldn't be in the Sky team.

BUT my 'opinion' has zero probitive value - that's my point. You can't sack someone on a rumour or a suspicion. They shouldn't have hired him in the first place, but now they have, short of actual EVIDENCE(that word again) they are stuck with him.

I'm not convinced we'll see him in '13, but I suppose we'll see.

Of course, the rather obvious thing to do is for anyone who actually has evidence is to write to Sky with it, and openly copy other parties into the letter so that they cannot ignore it.

Isn't it?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Basically Sky have made a huge rod for their own back. They came into the sport with this idealist approach of zero-tolerance, then was forced to be more pragmatic as the harsh realities of a pro-tour bit. Rogers association with ferrari was known before they hired him, yet while ostentatiously they have broken their own rule, given the lack of positives during Rogers' career, that should have been a big enough of an alarm bell not to hire him in the first place.

Now in the wake of the USADA ruling they and re-iterated and toughed the zero-tolerance stance but have set themselves up for a massive fall if someone like Rogers signs the declaration. Legally they can't terminate the contract with the lack of evidence but the declaration looks a sham if he stays. Catch 22

Whether Rogers did actually dope or not is almost a moot point: given that he worked with Ferrari is enough to damn him in most people's eyes, mine included, and so there's needs to be some sort of reaction.

Precisely - there may not be enough to justify firing Rogers, but there's enough smoke to say that they probably shouldn't have hired him in the first place. If he's always been clean, he's made some pretty awful career choices in the characters he's associated himself with and the places he's chosen to go to associate himself with them. Going for altitude training with a banned doctor alongside several other known dopers would be pretty naïve or stupid.

And as I said about Brailsford before, I feel that to say that he had been naïve enough to believe Yates, de Jongh, Julich and Barry had never been involved in any doping ever, credits him with way too little intelligence for my liking, suggesting that Rogers had all the fairest intentions in the world when he used a guy who was banned from acting as a doctor or pharmacist due to abusing that position to dope professional athletes, and was simply unaware of the implications of that, credits Rogers with too little intelligence too.

If there was stronger evidence from 2006 than Sinkewitz's claim in addition to Rogers' own admission that he attended a Ferrari organised training camp, you'd think that some diligent journalist or investigator would have found it by now. The Freiburg incident was investigated by German anti-doping authorities wasn't it? How is it that Rogers got off scott free in that investigation but the others didn't?

Freiburg was investigated by the German anti-doping authorities. In the documents a few other non-German riders are named (Bernhard Kohl for one), but the investigation only centred on the riders under NADA jurisdiction, that is to say the German ones. And it didn't really go very far before Andreas Klöden paid to make it go away anyway.

"What we know is that Rogers was part of a very strictly controlled anti-doping program in 2007, and that he has complied entirely with our own anti-doping rules," Stapleton told Die Welt.
...
If Leiphemer was prepared to spill the beans on Lance, why hasn't he done the same on Rogers? Real evidence would be eyewitness testimony that Rogers admitted to doping or was involved in doping or was in possession of PEDs or received PEDs or whatever.

On the first point, Andreas Klöden made a point during the 2008 Giro to state that only a few of the teams had strong internal testing regimes. Slipstream was one, High Road another, CSC another and Astana the other.

High Road may have had extremely strict internal testing regimes in place, but we are being asked to take Bob Stapleton's word on that, and Bob Stapleton isn't exactly the most objective source. And besides, Klöden pointing out the strong internal testing regime at Bruyneel's Astana shows two things:
1) a strong internal testing regime does not necessarily catch all dopers;
2) a strong internal testing regime can be abused to disguise doping (see also: Rabobank)
Therefore I would consider Stapleton's comments inconclusive.

As to the other point, Leipheimer was prepared to spill the beans on Lance as part of an investigation and in a situation where he ran the risk of perjuring himself if he did not do so. This was an investigation by an American authority into an American doping offence or series of offences. Levi's affidavit is therefore about his relationship to Armstrong's doping offences (the subject of the investigation) and his own doping offences. Rogers is not important to the investigation, just part of the context Levi gives for his own offences, so in the context of the investigation there is no need for Levi to expand on his points regarding Popo/Kash/Vino/Rogers.

Finally, in the interests of constructive conversation. Can someone clarify the details of Italian ban of Ferrari in 2004? How I read Libertine's post is that as Ferrari was banned in 2004, and as Rogers was working with him in 2005, then by definition he's guilty of flouting the ban, and guilty of some kind of offence (regardless of what he did with Ferrari) - which is completely fair enough, and goes way beyond speculation (obviously). What I'm not clear about is who the ban was from, and who it applied to - was it a UCI/WADA type thing that all pro-riders were bound by, or was it more of a local, you can't practise in Italy type thing? (I'm not interested in the rights or wrongs, just the details of the ban!)

Ferrari was banned from acting as a doctor, pharmacist or physician. Rogers therefore did not per se commit an offence by using him, at least to the extent mentioned by Sinkewitz or Leipheimer, as Ferrari was not banned from acting as a sporting coach.

However, if I was going to put together a team that was based around the principle of not having anybody with a connection to doping... training with a banned doctor who just happens to be one of the most notorious doping docs in the history of the sport... that might be considered, in my personal opinion, a connection to doping. Team Sky may feel that it is sufficiently distant under the six-degrees-of-separation approach... but in my opinion it is not. As previously stated, not enough to fire him for, but enough to say that hiring him was a mistake from the zero-tolerance point of view.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Just thought I'd help.

I dislike 'opinions'. I much prefer facts.

But, for what little it is worth, and it's worth very little...

I think he went to dope. It's plausible, but not particularly likely, that he went to test...but I think he doped. And therefore he shouldn't be in the Sky team.

BUT my 'opinion' has zero probitive value - that's my point. You can't sack someone on a rumour or a suspicion. They shouldn't have hired him in the first place, but now they have, short of actual EVIDENCE(that word again) they are stuck with him.

I'm not convinced we'll see him in '13, but I suppose we'll see.

Of course, the rather obvious thing to do is for anyone who actually has evidence is to write to Sky with it, and openly copy other parties into the letter so that they cannot ignore it.

Isn't it?

Your opinion is almost identical to mine - which you made a snide remark about, is your opinion full of it also?

It is not up to anyone here to get evidence of Rogers doping (a strawman arguement)- that is about Sky and their policy.
If Sky have an actual zero tolerance policy then they would require Rogers to detail his relationship with Ferrari. Hand over training plans and any financial transactions. If he does not comply he goes.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Why are you not adding to the discussion on the Astana, Saxo, Riis, Movistar, Cobo etc etc threads?

Because there is no discourse on the Astana, Saxo, Riis or Movistar threads because there is far less hysteria about their victories, because they are less dominant victories, and because there are few people going to crazy lengths to rationalize their performances under a clean umbrella; also these teams do not make open commitments to clean cycling, thus when somebody at the team is given a level of suspicion this does not spawn a 100-page discussion of hypocrisy.

And there is no discourse on the Cobo thread because the guy is obviously clean.

 

[RHRH19861986]

These internal tests aren´t created to prevent riders from doping, but to avoid doped riders risk to test positive later in UCi/Wada tests.

I think, whatever managers and DS say in public, towards their riders, they´re all like Tinkov: do what you want to be fast, don´t get caught.

Just like in every company: people are there to perform, and if they do so, no one cares how they do it.

Crazy people like Ricco are risky for cycling managers, because they tend to exaggerate, but risky is the businessman who takes cocaine, too.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

According to the recently aired film "A year in Yellow" he was anything but micromanaged in 2010. He claims he went back on the drink, did little training and put on weight whilst lying to Sky as to how much training he was doing. It was only after 2010 that Shane Sutton and Brailsford micromanaged him

It certainly helps to explain it like that. I am directly quoting him from an interview.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/feature-wiggins-year-of-wisening-up
"We've already had long discussions about next year and the plan is for me to hit the ground running, to race early season to win races and then stop around April and have a break, and then start building towards the Tour," he continues. "Last year it was a whirlwind after finishing fourth in the Tour, the whole thing about changing teams going on through the winter, then joining this new superteam. All of a sudden, everyone was an expert on how to win the Tour de France. I had more advisers than the Prime minister. The year before, no one could give a monkey's about me."

He admits the clamour and increasing attention affected him.

I'd like to see how you have heaps of advisers without having them advising you - and that's the same team he rode for in 2011, not like all of a sudden the back office staff changed to any degree.

Personally I am more inclined to believe the interview over a film recently aired, no doubt produced by Sky and their PR department vs a generally open and honest Wiggins in an interview right in the thick of a disappointing year, a month after they had a soigneur die and a bunch of riders withdraw from the Vuelta.

 

[martinvickers]

Your opinion is almost identical to mine - which you made a snide remark about, is your opinion full of it also?

Yes, it is.

Does that admission shock you? My opinion is worthless, at least in terms of taking any action, or proving anything, against Rogers.

It appears we disagree not so much on what we believe, but on what the ramifications of that belief should be.

It is not up to anyone here to get evidence of Rogers doping (a strawman arguement)

Clearly, I beg to differ - it's the height of hypocrisy to post here and not to forward any evidence you may have. -

that is about Sky and their policy.
If Sky have an actual zero tolerance policy then they would require Rogers to detail his relationship with Ferrari. Hand over training plans and any financial transactions. If he does not comply he goes.

Sorry, incorrect. This is exactly my point. Rogers has a contract, with terms of employment. Assuming a no dope policy ( in know, I know, humour me), those terms include, presumably,-

1. Agreement not to dope now.
2. Agreement to be truthful in all dealings with Sky.
3. agreement that any doping or past doping are a sackable offence.

It simply does not follow that he has to hand over anything, or do anything else.condition/term 2 above does not necessarily give Sky that right.

If he agreed to those three things, then absent contrary proof, there's no requirement to provide any of the materials you suggest, and Sky has no right to sack him for failing to do so. This is especially so for a time limited contract (3 years, whatever) because courts and tribunals are much less likely to infer an implied term allowing for unilateral variation of contract (and bringing in a term demanding such documents would be a unilateral variation) in such a short and discrete employment contract.

So let's say Sky ask for such training plans. His reply? Oh, chucked that crap out years ago, cobber, moved house didn't I.

The dots just don't join so easily in the real world. Much as I'd like Rogers to exit, much as I would feel a certain relief if he admitted and walked. It's just not reality.

Remember the twists an turns to pin Lancey baby?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It certainly helps to explain it like that. I am directly quoting him from an interview.



I'd like to see how you have heaps of advisers without having them advising you - and that's the same team he rode for in 2011, not like all of a sudden the back office staff changed to any degree.

Personally I am more inclined to believe the interview over a film recently aired, no doubt produced by Sky and their PR department vs a generally open and honest Wiggins in an interview right in the thick of a disappointing year, a month after they had a soigneur die and a bunch of riders withdraw from the Vuelta.

No you're not.
You will only believe whichever story has some sort of doping angle.
If you are going to use Wiggins quote so literally then perhaps "everyone" being an advisor might me Pat the landlord at his local is an advisor - and he said relax and have another beer Brad

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes, it is.

Does that admission shock you? My opinion is worthless, at least in terms of taking any action, or proving anything, against Rogers.

It appears we disagree not so much on what we believe, but on what the ramifications of that belief should be.

How can I agree, disagree when you do not say what those "ramifications" should be?

Clearly, I beg to differ - it's the height of hypocrisy to post here and not to forward any evidence you may have. -

The evidence of him going to Ferrari is already there, he even admitted it.

Sorry, incorrect. This is exactly my point. Rogers has a contract, with terms of employment. Assuming a no dope policy ( in know, I know, humour me), those terms include, presumably,-

1. Agreement not to dope now.
2. Agreement to be truthful in all dealings with Sky.
3. agreement that any doping or past doping are a sackable offence.

It simply does not follow that he has to hand over anything, or do anything else.condition/term 2 above does not necessarily give Sky that right.

If he agreed to those three things, then absent contrary proof, there's no requirement to provide any of the materials you suggest, and Sky has no right to sack him for failing to do so. This is especially so for a time limited contract (3 years, whatever) because courts and tribunals are much less likely to infer an implied term allowing for unilateral variation of contract (and bringing in a term demanding such documents would be a unilateral variation) in such a short and discrete employment contract.

So let's say Sky ask for such training plans. His reply? Oh, chucked that crap out years ago, cobber, moved house didn't I.

The dots just don't join so easily in the real world. Much as I'd like Rogers to exit, much as I would feel a certain relief if he admitted and walked. It's just not reality.

Remember the twists an turns to pin Lancey baby?

You say my view is incorrect and then argue on what his contract "presumably" has in it?

If Sky were for real then they would pay off his contract but let him go, after all it is there error in hiring him in the first place without doing a sufficient check on him. No need for any makeup tribunal arguements.

As for bringing up Lance - now that's a strawman arguement and very poor one.

 

[Mellow Velo]

I am not from the mediterranean region of the world

Why post about Astana when everyone considers them dopers?

Astana dont try and blow smoke up our coolos like Sky and Garmin.

The sky fanboys are giving the old armstrong fanboys a good run for their money!

They don't? what's this then?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/astana-looks-to-join-mpcc

Hows that for timing!