Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[JimmyFingers]

Many appear to say there’s no story. But dropping Yates, Rogers and Tenerife is a story. A big story. There had to be big enough concern with the triage of doping association for them to be dropped. Yates just won the Tour with Wiggins for crying out loud. He and Tenerife as preparation was a big part of that victory. I think Brailsford after the USPS fallout saw the writing on the wall. Things can’t be done this way anymore. I would have preferred more openness about why they removed Yates etc. but they’re not going to blow the whole thing up are they?

I also would have thought Wiggins would have said more about Yates leaving and the adoption of new training grounds. But I get the feeling that everything he says is tightly controlled.

I hold my breath for 2013 to see what comes.

But I still smell a rat. If Tenerife was such a big part of 2012 then why not keep it? If the results were “amazing” why not continue to use it as a training base?

Quite frankly you need to lower your expectations. You're not going to get Brailsford et al coming out in the press and saying 'it's a fair cop guv' and admitting all. And if Yates wants to duck and cover then he will. He's big and ugly enough to know if he sticks to the line 'I know nothing' with the absence of any definitive proof nothing will stick. The press can join the dots but whether they think it's worth going in hard after Sky or not is another matter.

At least we're hearing about Sky, at least they seem to have reacted to the USADA report. They could be like a lot of other teams and just battoned down the hatches, waiting to re-emerge and carry on as before, hands in pockets whistling away as if butter wouldn't melt in their mouth.

You're never going to get full disclosure but know what is going on and why, although in my opinion what has/is happening at Sky falls short of your suspicions. This is a purge, albeit one being done on the quiet

 

[Stingray34]

What I want to know is, how are Sky going to incorporate their halos with the UCI helmet laws?

 

[andy1234]

Rule Britannia...


Meanwhile Noel effing Gallagher and Paul Weller sing the boy's praises, calling him 'the man.' HA! as if these two b'stards don't hate every cyclist they see and wish they could run off the road in their BMW 4WDs in Manchester and Surrey, respectively.

Is that you Liam? r kid?

 

[thehog]

Quite frankly you need to lower your expectations. You're not going to get Brailsford et al coming out in the press and saying 'it's a fair cop guv' and admitting all. And if Yates wants to duck and cover then he will. He's big and ugly enough to know if he sticks to the line 'I know nothing' with the absence of any definitive proof nothing will stick. The press can join the dots but whether they think it's worth going in hard after Sky or not is another matter.

At least we're hearing about Sky, at least they seem to have reacted to the USADA report. They could be like a lot of other teams and just battoned down the hatches, waiting to re-emerge and carry on as before, hands in pockets whistling away as if butter wouldn't melt in their mouth.

You're never going to get full disclosure but know what is going on and why, although in my opinion what has/is happening at Sky falls short of your suspicions. This is a purge, albeit one being done on the quiet

Thanks for the update.

Difference is “most other teams” didn’t smash the entire season start to finish along with trump carding the Tour as if the entire race was a victory procession.

That’s why the dropping of the Rogers, Yates, Tenerife triage is of particular interest in a doping context.

As ever with Sky. There are more questions than answers.

 

[Stingray34]

Is that you Liam, r kid?

If I were Liam, you'd need captions...fooken ell, eh

 

[JimmyFingers]

Thanks for the update.

Difference is “most other teams” didn’t smash the entire season start to finish along with trump carding the Tour as if the entire race was a victory procession.

That’s why the dropping of the Rogers, Yates, Tenerife triage is of particular interest in a doping context.

As ever with Sky. There are more questions than answers.

I'm not disagreeing, I'm saying you won't get the pund of flesh you seem to want, just them quiety correcting the mistakes they made last season. As Libertine is found of mentioning, I admit Sky couldn't have made themselves look more suspicious if they tried (and they weren't trying), now they are editing out those glaring errors.

And note I've also said that being so obvious actually makes them look innocent to me, because if you were doping you'd be much cleverer at hiding it.

 

[Stingray34]

I'm not disagreeing, I'm saying you won't get the pund of flesh you seem to want, just them quiety correcting the mistakes they made last season. As Libertine is found of mentioning, I admit Sky couldn't have made themselves look more suspicious if they tried (and they weren't trying), now they are editing out those glaring errors.

And note I've also said that being so obvious actually makes them look innocent to me, because if you were doping you'd be much cleverer at hiding it.

Bit of a jumbled missive, that: What was Sky's 'mistakes' exactly? Flagrant doping or something that looked like flagrant doping but was just good, ol' British pluck and superiority?

The mulled wine is quite nice, BTW.

 

[BroDeal]

I'm not disagreeing, I'm saying you won't get the pund of flesh you seem to want, just them quiety correcting the mistakes they made last season. As Libertine is found of mentioning, I admit Sky couldn't have made themselves look more suspicious if they tried (and they weren't trying), now they are editing out those glaring errors.

And note I've also said that being so obvious actually makes them look innocent to me, because if you were doping you'd be much cleverer at hiding it.

I cannot be a duck because it looks, walks, and sounds too much like a duck. That works brilliantly for Schumacher, Ricco, DiLuca, Pellizotti, Armstrong...

 

[thehog]

And note I've also said that being so obvious actually makes them look innocent to me, because if you were doping you'd be much cleverer at hiding it.

Reminds me of the infamous Armstrong quote; “Don’t you think if we were really doping, that someone would have found out by now? That if we were hiding it for this long someone would have discovered it? We have Coke, Subaru on board and do you really think we’d risk all that by doping? That would be too obvious”.

The reason doping looks so obvious is because it works and you end up winning everything!

This is Armstrong 101 – Question the questioner.

So I guess the next question is; what does doping look like?

How do you hide doping? and not looking so obvious.

Do you dope and not win?

 

[Stingray34]

Reminds me of the infamous Armstrong quote; “Don’t you think if we were really doping, that someone would have found out by now? That if we were hiding it for this long someone would have discovered it? We have Coke, Subaru on board and do you really think we’d risk all that by doping? That would be too obvious”.

The reason doping looks so obvious is because it works and you end up winning everything!

This is Armstrong 101 – Question the questioner.

So I guess the next question is; what does doping look like?

How do you hide doping? and not looking so obvious.

Do you dope and not win?

Exactly: 'How did I do it, then? How did I dope and get away with it?'

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Difference is “most other teams” didn’t smash the entire season start to finish along with trump carding the Tour as if the entire race was a victory procession.

Whether this is true or not is one thing, but if it is, then it doesn't make any doping by other teams less serious.

Doping is doping; if you get caught, you pay the penalty (depending on your national federation, I suppose) based on what you took rather than how much it aided performance.

Thus, cycling being cycling, the chances are that there are a lot of World Tour teams who have been doping - to little effect, but that's their problem - and doing nothing about it, as Jimmy suggests.

Sky are actually doing something, which suggests they'll be better placed than other teams when the next balloon goes up. (In general, planning and action in advance is better than faffing around at the last minute having done nothing when you had the chance.)

Unless the other teams are being radically decisive on the QT. Who knows for sure?

 

[JimmyFingers]

Reminds me of the infamous Armstrong quote; “Don’t you think if we were really doping, that someone would have found out by now? That if we were hiding it for this long someone would have discovered it? We have Coke, Subaru on board and do you really think we’d risk all that by doping? That would be too obvious”.

The reason doping looks so obvious is because it works and you end up winning everything!

This is Armstrong 101 – Question the questioner.

So I guess the next question is; what does doping look like?

How do you hide doping? and not looking so obvious.

Do you dope and not win?

You'd do it in such a way you don't generate vast threads on sites like this. If Sky hadn't hired Leinders, hadn't used Teide as a training base, didn't have Rogers on the roster or Yates as DS, not to mention Julich and Barry, would this thread be as long and winding?

Not winning won't help them: it just means they're off the juice now to cynics.

Anyway my viewpoint is that Sky aren't doping in the manner of Postal, but there's a good chance that some of the riders have been, just not as part of a team programme. The stand outs for me are Rogers and Froome.

Just an opinion mind.

 

[MartinGT]

Many appear to say there’s no story. But dropping Yates, Rogers and Tenerife is a story. A big story. There had to be big enough concern with the triage of doping association for them to be dropped. Yates just won the Tour with Wiggins for crying out loud. He and Tenerife as preparation was a big part of that victory. I think Brailsford after the USPS fallout saw the writing on the wall. Things can’t be done this way anymore. I would have preferred more openness about why they removed Yates etc. but they’re not going to blow the whole thing up are they?

I also would have thought Wiggins would have said more about Yates leaving and the adoption of new training grounds. But I get the feeling that everything he says is tightly controlled.

I hold my breath for 2013 to see what comes.

But I still smell a rat. If Tenerife was such a big part of 2012 then why not keep it? If the results were “amazing” why not continue to use it as a training base?

This and This and THIS!

*Bang* There are too many coincidences that cause this foul smell and if people are ignoring it, well, it shows their ignorance and IMO worse than Lance fans.

Lance fans back in the day when he won his early tours didnt have the Same MASSIVE scandal of whats just erupted with his own case.

Too many dots join to the Armstrong case. Mostly through Yates and training in Tenerife!

 

[thehog]

You'd do it in such a way you don't generate vast threads on sites like this. If Sky hadn't hired Leinders, hadn't used Teide as a training base, didn't have Rogers on the roster or Yates as DS, not to mention Julich and Barry, would this thread be as long and winding?

Not winning won't help them: it just means they're off the juice now to cynics.

Anyway my viewpoint is that Sky aren't doping in the manner of Postal, but there's a good chance that some of the riders have been, just not as part of a team programme. The stand outs for me are Rogers and Froome.

Just an opinion mind.

I would agree. Take Froome and Rogers out and it wouldn’t have looked so suspicious.

But with Yates and Tenerife in the mix is just has a bad smell about it all.

I would add that the general public has a lot to answer for in the Armstrong years. Its good that people question what they’re seeing. The sport needs it. Ardent support and blindly following the one team despite so many red flags is a little foolhardy.

You may wonder why Cadel Evans doesn’t get the same treatment as Sky. He worked with Ferrari and has Hincapie and Och on the team as well as Andy Rhiis. BMC is just as scary on the doping front as Sky. The difference is Evans didn’t smash the field apart like Sky did. He didn’t just appear one year and break open the entire race to the point that no one could follow or even attack. He may well have been doping but he not as severely criticized as Sky because in part it looked believable.

Sky are criticised because it was so obvious and they tried to pass it off with a product known as “marginal gains”. We’ve seen enough doped performances to know what it looks like. It’s not hard to pick. Really it’s not. Part of me says the day Yates called back Froome from attacking was more about making the performances look somewhat real than attacking Wiggins.

For me Froome will be the barometer in 2013.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Whether this is true or not

Don't let the facts get in the way of protecting Sky's image. Sky absolutely dominated 2012 stage racing when they showed up.

is one thing, but if it is, then it doesn't make any doping by other teams less serious.

So, Armstrong's "everyone did it" defense is raised from the dead once more?

Doping is doping; if you get caught, you pay the penalty

You are pretending the UCI doesn't suppress positives. Which they do and have done so multiple times with multiple riders. Pretending testing is a consistent process inside Pro Cycling is dishonest.

Thus, cycling being cycling, the chances are that there are a lot of World Tour teams who have been doping .

Which makes Sky's 2012 doping a grand tour squad entirely likely. But, you seem to draw a circle around Sky as the exception to the probability.

Sky are actually doing something, which suggests they'll be better placed than other teams when the next balloon goes up.

So, replacing clearly tainted coaching staff with very, very, very likely tainted staff from another discipline is the new anti-doping? The way the DS is talking, they may well be cleaner for 2013. Their UCI protection deal may be complete.

Do you see how serpentine the logic becomes defending your position? It's a weak defense.

 

[JimmyFingers]

You may wonder why Cadel Evans doesn’t get the same treatment as Sky. He worked with Ferrari and has Hincapie and Och on the team as well as Andy Rhiis. BMC is just as scary on the doping front as Sky. The difference is Evans didn’t smash the field apart like Sky did. He didn’t just appear one year and break open the entire race to the point that no one could follow or even attack. He may well have been doping but he not as severely criticized as Sky because in part it looked believable.

But there are questions over Evans, not least why he was competitive against riders like Contador and other dopers, and how in the 2011 TdF he suddenly turned around his TT performance to finish a few seconds of Tony Martin, after getting smashed in the Dauphine a few weeks earlier.

 

[MatParker117]

There will be a considerable drop off in Sky's results in 2013 no matter what. Losing Cavendish who was responsible for a good percentage of there wins is going to hurt.

 

[thehog]

This and This and THIS!

*Bang* There are too many coincidences that cause this foul smell and if people are ignoring it, well, it shows their ignorance and IMO worse than Lance fans.

Lance fans back in the day when he won his early tours didnt have the Same MASSIVE scandal of whats just erupted with his own case.

Too many dots join to the Armstrong case. Mostly through Yates and training in Tenerife!

It looks all the more strange when they drop Yates, Rogers and Tenerife.

Many here were saying that Tenerife was fine and it’s not a dopers paradise. All year Yates and Wiggins were telling us about the “amazing results”. And now dropped? Appears there something up with Tenerife. And if was so amazing and clean then why not keep using it?

Via Matt Parker looks like DB is trying to regain control of the situation he cleanly lost to nefarious activities.

 

[thehog]

There will be a considerable drop off in Sky's results in 2013 no matter what. Losing Cavendish who was responsible for a good percentage of there wins is going to hurt.

 

[JimmyFingers]

It looks all the more strange when they drop Yates, Rogers and Tenerife.

Many here were saying that Tenerife was fine and it’s not a dopers paradise. All year Yates and Wiggins were telling us about the “amazing results”. And now dropped? Appears there something up with Tenerife. And if was so amazing and clean then why not keep using it?

Via Matt Parker looks like DB is trying to regain control of the situation he cleanly lost to nefarious activities.

They may drop it because of the stigma it carries, surely?

 

[thehog]

They may drop it because of the stigma it carries, surely?

I thought Ferrari gave it the “all clear”?

 

[thehog]

Don't let the facts get in the way of protecting Sky's image. Sky absolutely dominated 2012 stage racing when they showed up.



So, Armstrong's "everyone did it" defense is raised from the dead once more?


You are pretending the UCI doesn't suppress positives. Which they do and have done so multiple times with multiple riders. Pretending testing is a consistent process inside Pro Cycling is dishonest.


Which makes Sky's 2012 doping a grand tour squad entirely likely. But, you seem to draw a circle around Sky as the exception to the probability.



So, replacing clearly tainted coaching staff with very, very, very likely tainted staff from another discipline is the new anti-doping? The way the DS is talking, they may well be cleaner for 2013. Their UCI protection deal may be complete.

Do you see how serpentine the logic becomes defending your position? It's a weak defense.

It’s just becoming even more ridiculous by the minute.

I honestly can’t keep up. If you’re pretending to be ZT then you have to make all this stuff up.

Why don’t they just be like QS or Saxo and just be a regular team without all the ZT? Then when Froome goes off-piste and they win every event from January to July they don’t need to make up marginal gains stories.

Armstrong would be shaking his head at Sky. “Sound more convincing. Don’t say “no” – say “absolutely not”

 

[Libertine Seguros]

They may drop it because of the stigma it carries, surely?

If the stigma it carries is the reason behind dropping it, they could hardly have suggested a worse replacement than Girona. Therefore I am reluctant to say that the stigma is the only reason to drop it.

 

[Froome19]

If the stigma it carries is the reason behind dropping it, they could hardly have suggested a worse replacement than Girona. Therefore I am reluctant to say that the stigma is the only reason to drop it.

From the article it seems more of recommendation that actually what Sky are planning. Just the musings of the author.

 

[thehog]

From the article it seems more of recommendation that actually what Sky are planning. Just the musings of the author.

Come on Froome19.

The Sky gang were telling us about the ‘amazing results’ achieved in Tenerife and now its dropped? What the?

Yates was telling us that training was harder than racing in Tenerife and now dropped.

Many here were not happy for the ZT team to be going to the dopers paradise and we were all assured it was just coincidence and it has “nice weather”.

And now dropped?

Even the most ardent Sky fan must be confused.