Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[coinneach]

. To this end I will pick fictitious rider Mitchie Froogins. Mitchie Froogins' times on all of the climbs are within the realm of plausibility unaided, however he has completely decimated a whole bunch of riders - including some who had better results than him prior to this year and who tested positive at the race. We then have to decide - and this will be different for each of us - whether we can believe that Mitchie Froogins, unaided, is capable of riding at that level relative to the competition, i.e. that he is, all things considered, in the top 1% natural talents in the péloton.

The péloton is cleaner than it was, the possibility of dominating the race clean is ever higher, Sky talk a good talk, and this thread would never have grown to this size if people didn't believe them, and others didn't want to believe them... but these pigs are starting to walk on their hind legs, and Napoleon's starting to revise his commandments.

LS does his usual good job of pulling much of the arguements together.

But I think the reduction of 4 riders to 1 misses two important points:
#1 Sky were able to buy all 4 riders: they are the richest team and invested in quality (albeit not in line with previously stated policy)
#2 Four is better than 1: not just in drafting (obviously) but in terms of morale. I know team morale doesn't always make it high on the list of performance enhancing effects on the clinic pages, but that is a mistake.
Those 4 + EBH made a formidable team that developed as they won races together.
So those pigs are firmly on all 4s in my book, and the length of this thread is more an indication of how Sky doesn't talk the talk, or rather they didn't walk the talk they talked.
Doesn't mean to say they won't do better in 2013, but that will depend as much on the quality of the opposition as anything Sky can control.
Oh aye, and that includes how much effort other teams put into time trialling properly.

 

[ferryman]

If your BS filter hasn't been tweaked yet, you need to recalibrate it, because Sky have been spewing all sorts of crap that is not related to whether or not you believe they won the Tour de France clean.

Stuff like:
- they will be transparent
- they will not hire anyone with any known links to doping
- they didn't know about the history of Mick Rogers or Michael Barry before hiring them
- Sean Yates told them he'd never been involved with or seen doping... and Dave Brailsford believed him.

If we credit Dave Brailsford with even the most modest level of intelligence, then he can't have been so naïve he believed these riders and DSs' words. Stuff was in the public domain about them, people who follow cycling beyond the so-called twelve apostles of the Clinic knew about them, so it's not exactly demanding too much of Dave Brailsford to do his research, especially bearing in mind that "attention to detail" is one of his mantras that he uses to explain the improvements in British cycling in the last decade. And while Brailsford himself, in his role within British Cycling the organisation, may have overseen the developments of riders like Wiggins and Thomas and help with the improvements in British cyclists over the last decade to this point... I have my suspicions about riders from outside that development nest making extremely sudden and convenient improvements to become major challengers at the top level, when realistically Britain hasn't created a rider at that kind of level since Robert Millar; Boardman was fairly close, but the next was Millar's namesake who was, of course, arrested in connection with doping - along with a certain D. Brailsford. And Britain just happens to chance upon these guys who would have hit the top anyway (since they didn't need the comforting developmental arm of British Cycling) at the same time as the national development project has hit full gas despite a pathetically small national calendar. Very convenient.

But hey, I'm getting off my intended topic.

Basically, Sky came in to this sport flaunting their all-singing, all-dancing zero tolerance policy. They struggled to adjust to the road in their first year. That's fine, they did about as well in their first Tour de France as US Postal or Team Telekom did. The thing is, all the marginal gains and attention to detail stuff from the launch... it didn't really work when confronted by road cycling the way it did on the track - the road has a much deeper field of contenders, and has far more variables involved. It took Sky a while to adjust their marginal gains approach to account for that. Again, that's no problem.

What was a problem, however, was finding experienced staff who were able to fit into their zero tolerance policy. Finding riders who are clean is ever easier nowadays, although to be fair ones with 8-10 years experience at the top level may be harder. But finding DSes, mechanics, soigneurs, and so on, who had experience at the right level but hadn't been around in the bad old days of the EPO era, that proved harder. It seemed like Garmin's policy was far more pragmatic; take riders who are committed to riding clean now, even if their past is chequered, and use them to mentor the new clean generation. And what ended up happening? The zero tolerance policy was relaxed. Sure, guys like Yates had been making a mockery of it from the start, but it did become less clearly enforced. Sky even openly stated that they were needing to relax it to be more pragmatic, although this was announced far more quietly than the "all singing, all dancing, super clean" launch propaganda, for that was what it was, and so the casual fan could be forgiven for not knowing that was the case.

But even within this atmosphere, the hiring of Leinders was kept hush-hush. Even if we accept the excuse for hiring him up to a point (that after soigneur Txema González died during the 2010 Vuelta they realised that they needed someone with experience treating cycling-related illnesses and injuries... come to think of it, that's another thing that should have set your BS detector off, even if you don't think Leinders did anything untoward at Sky), the question then comes, why Geert Leinders? Could no other doctors with any experience in cycling and less of a doping taint do that job (Leinders' connection to doping was in the public domain at the time. He wasn't exactly a notorious doping doc or anything, and is little mentioned in the Clinic before the middle of this year, but again, surely Brailsford's attention to detail should have seen some red flags raised. After all, we in the Clinic are mostly fans - for him it is his job, and his reputation is strong and potentially fragile)? Did no other experienced doctors apply?

Fast forward a while. Take in the amazing 2012, breathe in the winds of change. But even then, there are murmurs of dissent, not just from those hyenas in the Clinic, hissing, snarling and laughing at each other, but elsewhere. Perhaps they thought the Olympic fervour would kill off the questions, but they persisted. Brailsford could hardly have inspired less confidence when he ran away from questions about Leinders asked by Cyclingnews at the World Championships. And sure enough, they got rid of him. Conveniently, too - just one day before the "reasoned decision". Which should have buried Sky's awkward news and allowed them to move on trouble-free, except for more of their guys (and former guys, of course) being mentioned. This then led to more questions, especially bearing in mind casual fans may not have been aware that the original zero tolerance policy was shelved, or at least placed on the backburner until it could be more realistically achieved. And some of the excuse-making may have been bought by a mostly complicit press, but it required some leaps of faith, which many are not willing to take.

This all creates the issue: Sky announced a zero tolerance policy in 2009-10, but here we are in 2012-13 watching them jettison DSes, doctors and riders who have been shown to have those connections to doping the team was adamant they would not allow, while Sky announce to us their "new" zero tolerance policy. How could anybody hold it against those who argue "well, you said that you'd do that last time, and three years later it was shown to be a lie. Why should we believe you this time?"

All of this doesn't mean Sky were doping, of course. It does, however, mean that it's difficult to buy a lot of what comes out of their PR department, because it's been shown to be self-serving propagandistic falsehoods in the past. And in your initial postulate you included a key statement:

(emphasis mine)
This is correct, and falls into line with the understanding - which even the most ardent of cynics need to accept - that doping is less prevalent and less extreme than it was 15 years ago. Riding at Pantani-speed is no longer feasible; all of Sky's numbers and times on the climbs were comfortably within the boundaries of realistic human possibility. But this is where it becomes ever more subjective. Firstly, while the péloton is cleaner than it was, it still isn't clean by any stretch of the imagination. After all, we saw Rémy di Gregorio taken away by the gendarmerie and Fränk Schleck test positive during the Tour. And secondly, we have to put a level on where we think a rider can be clean and then extrapolate from that whether we think that they personally are capable of achieving that. To this end I will pick fictitious rider Mitchie Froogins. Mitchie Froogins' times on all of the climbs are within the realm of plausibility unaided, however he has completely decimated a whole bunch of riders - including some who had better results than him prior to this year and who tested positive at the race. We then have to decide - and this will be different for each of us - whether we can believe that Mitchie Froogins, unaided, is capable of riding at that level relative to the competition, i.e. that he is, all things considered, in the top 1% natural talents in the péloton.

The péloton is cleaner than it was, the possibility of dominating the race clean is ever higher, Sky talk a good talk, and this thread would never have grown to this size if people didn't believe them, and others didn't want to believe them... but these pigs are starting to walk on their hind legs, and Napoleon's starting to revise his commandments.

If we had awards on here, we have the post of the year right here.

LS, we salute you

 

[Dear Wiggo]

LS does his usual good job of pulling much of the arguements together.

But I think the reduction of 4 riders to 1 misses two important points:
#1 Sky were able to buy all 4 riders: they are the richest team and invested in quality (albeit not in line with previously stated policy)
#2 Four is better than 1: not just in drafting (obviously) but in terms of morale. I know team morale doesn't always make it high on the list of performance enhancing effects on the clinic pages, but that is a mistake.
Those 4 + EBH made a formidable team that developed as they won races together.

Yes morale was so high Wiggins nearly quit the race after Froome dropped him.

Amazing morale.

The subsequent Wiggins biography where this event is reiterated for everyone in the UK to read has recently been published and is setting the tone for Sky's morale in 2013.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

LS does his usual good job of pulling much of the arguements together.

But I think the reduction of 4 riders to 1 misses two important points:
#1 Sky were able to buy all 4 riders: they are the richest team and invested in quality (albeit not in line with previously stated policy)
#2 Four is better than 1: not just in drafting (obviously) but in terms of morale. I know team morale doesn't always make it high on the list of performance enhancing effects on the clinic pages, but that is a mistake.
Those 4 + EBH made a formidable team that developed as they won races together.
So those pigs are firmly on all 4s in my book, and the length of this thread is more an indication of how Sky doesn't talk the talk, or rather they didn't walk the talk they talked.
Doesn't mean to say they won't do better in 2013, but that will depend as much on the quality of the opposition as anything Sky can control.
Oh aye, and that includes how much effort other teams put into time trialling properly.

The reduction of four riders into one also makes them look less suspicious, because it is easier to buy one rider performing at hitherto unexpected levels, than four, all from the same team, all peaking at the same time, and all doing it. Are all four in that top percentile? This is why it's subjective. That's why I do my Rogers/Karpets compare and contrast exercises.

The thing is, Sky didn't just use their budget to buy up the top talents. That's what BMC did. You could argue that makes them less suspicious, in that they only bought riders of quality who suited what they were trying to achieve, so they could concentrate on achieving it, not treading on each other's toes... but you could then also argue that it makes them more suspicious, because the riders that are dominating the race are those who had been hitherto not considered to be on that level.

 

[Parker]

The reduction of four riders into one also makes them look less suspicious, because it is easier to buy one rider performing at hitherto unexpected levels, than four, all from the same team, all peaking at the same time, and all doing it. Are all four in that top percentile? This is why it's subjective. That's why I do my Rogers/Karpets compare and contrast exercises.

The thing is, Sky didn't just use their budget to buy up the top talents. That's what BMC did. You could argue that makes them less suspicious, in that they only bought riders of quality who suited what they were trying to achieve, so they could concentrate on achieving it, not treading on each other's toes... but you could then also argue that it makes them more suspicious, because the riders that are dominating the race are those who had been hitherto not considered to be on that level.

Rogers and Porte weren't in the top percentile. That's because there's a massive difference between riding as a pacemaker and riding for GC.
If an identical Rogers and Porte had been in the Tour, but riding for GC, they would have been dropped because if they had continued at that pace they would have blown up half way up the climb and finished an hour or more down on GC outside the top 20, just like the real Rogers and Porte did.

At my peak fitness (a long time ago) I would have been able to lead an 1500m Olympic final after the first 400m by quite some margin if I didn't care where I eventually finished. It doesn't mean I was at their level though because they would soon lap me when I blew up.

 

[Tinman]

If your BS filter hasn't been tweaked yet, you need to recalibrate it, because Sky have been spewing all sorts of crap that is not related to whether or not you believe they won the Tour de France clean.

Stuff like:
- they will be transparent
- they will not hire anyone with any known links to doping
- they didn't know about the history of Mick Rogers or Michael Barry before hiring them
- Sean Yates told them he'd never been involved with or seen doping... and Dave Brailsford believed him.

If we credit Dave Brailsford with even the most modest level of intelligence, then he can't have been so naïve he believed these riders and DSs' words. Stuff was in the public domain about them, people who follow cycling beyond the so-called twelve apostles of the Clinic knew about them, so it's not exactly demanding too much of Dave Brailsford to do his research, especially bearing in mind that "attention to detail" is one of his mantras that he uses to explain the improvements in British cycling in the last decade. And while Brailsford himself, in his role within British Cycling the organisation, may have overseen the developments of riders like Wiggins and Thomas and help with the improvements in British cyclists over the last decade to this point... I have my suspicions about riders from outside that development nest making extremely sudden and convenient improvements to become major challengers at the top level, when realistically Britain hasn't created a rider at that kind of level since Robert Millar; Boardman was fairly close, but the next was Millar's namesake who was, of course, arrested in connection with doping - along with a certain D. Brailsford. And Britain just happens to chance upon these guys who would have hit the top anyway (since they didn't need the comforting developmental arm of British Cycling) at the same time as the national development project has hit full gas despite a pathetically small national calendar. Very convenient.

But hey, I'm getting off my intended topic.

Basically, Sky came in to this sport flaunting their all-singing, all-dancing zero tolerance policy. They struggled to adjust to the road in their first year. That's fine, they did about as well in their first Tour de France as US Postal or Team Telekom did. The thing is, all the marginal gains and attention to detail stuff from the launch... it didn't really work when confronted by road cycling the way it did on the track - the road has a much deeper field of contenders, and has far more variables involved. It took Sky a while to adjust their marginal gains approach to account for that. Again, that's no problem.

What was a problem, however, was finding experienced staff who were able to fit into their zero tolerance policy. Finding riders who are clean is ever easier nowadays, although to be fair ones with 8-10 years experience at the top level may be harder. But finding DSes, mechanics, soigneurs, and so on, who had experience at the right level but hadn't been around in the bad old days of the EPO era, that proved harder. It seemed like Garmin's policy was far more pragmatic; take riders who are committed to riding clean now, even if their past is chequered, and use them to mentor the new clean generation. And what ended up happening? The zero tolerance policy was relaxed. Sure, guys like Yates had been making a mockery of it from the start, but it did become less clearly enforced. Sky even openly stated that they were needing to relax it to be more pragmatic, although this was announced far more quietly than the "all singing, all dancing, super clean" launch propaganda, for that was what it was, and so the casual fan could be forgiven for not knowing that was the case.

But even within this atmosphere, the hiring of Leinders was kept hush-hush. Even if we accept the excuse for hiring him up to a point (that after soigneur Txema González died during the 2010 Vuelta they realised that they needed someone with experience treating cycling-related illnesses and injuries... come to think of it, that's another thing that should have set your BS detector off, even if you don't think Leinders did anything untoward at Sky), the question then comes, why Geert Leinders? Could no other doctors with any experience in cycling and less of a doping taint do that job (Leinders' connection to doping was in the public domain at the time. He wasn't exactly a notorious doping doc or anything, and is little mentioned in the Clinic before the middle of this year, but again, surely Brailsford's attention to detail should have seen some red flags raised. After all, we in the Clinic are mostly fans - for him it is his job, and his reputation is strong and potentially fragile)? Did no other experienced doctors apply?

Fast forward a while. Take in the amazing 2012, breathe in the winds of change. But even then, there are murmurs of dissent, not just from those hyenas in the Clinic, hissing, snarling and laughing at each other, but elsewhere. Perhaps they thought the Olympic fervour would kill off the questions, but they persisted. Brailsford could hardly have inspired less confidence when he ran away from questions about Leinders asked by Cyclingnews at the World Championships. And sure enough, they got rid of him. Conveniently, too - just one day before the "reasoned decision". Which should have buried Sky's awkward news and allowed them to move on trouble-free, except for more of their guys (and former guys, of course) being mentioned. This then led to more questions, especially bearing in mind casual fans may not have been aware that the original zero tolerance policy was shelved, or at least placed on the backburner until it could be more realistically achieved. And some of the excuse-making may have been bought by a mostly complicit press, but it required some leaps of faith, which many are not willing to take.

This all creates the issue: Sky announced a zero tolerance policy in 2009-10, but here we are in 2012-13 watching them jettison DSes, doctors and riders who have been shown to have those connections to doping the team was adamant they would not allow, while Sky announce to us their "new" zero tolerance policy. How could anybody hold it against those who argue "well, you said that you'd do that last time, and three years later it was shown to be a lie. Why should we believe you this time?"

All of this doesn't mean Sky were doping, of course. It does, however, mean that it's difficult to buy a lot of what comes out of their PR department, because it's been shown to be self-serving propagandistic falsehoods in the past. And in your initial postulate you included a key statement:

Quote:
There is absolutely no reason why Sky would have had to dope their riders to perform as they have this season

(emphasis mine)
This is correct, and falls into line with the understanding - which even the most ardent of cynics need to accept - that doping is less prevalent and less extreme than it was 15 years ago. Riding at Pantani-speed is no longer feasible; all of Sky's numbers and times on the climbs were comfortably within the boundaries of realistic human possibility. But this is where it becomes ever more subjective. Firstly, while the péloton is cleaner than it was, it still isn't clean by any stretch of the imagination. After all, we saw Rémy di Gregorio taken away by the gendarmerie and Fränk Schleck test positive during the Tour. And secondly, we have to put a level on where we think a rider can be clean and then extrapolate from that whether we think that they personally are capable of achieving that. To this end I will pick fictitious rider Mitchie Froogins. Mitchie Froogins' times on all of the climbs are within the realm of plausibility unaided, however he has completely decimated a whole bunch of riders - including some who had better results than him prior to this year and who tested positive at the race. We then have to decide - and this will be different for each of us - whether we can believe that Mitchie Froogins, unaided, is capable of riding at that level relative to the competition, i.e. that he is, all things considered, in the top 1% natural talents in the péloton.

The péloton is cleaner than it was, the possibility of dominating the race clean is ever higher, Sky talk a good talk, and this thread would never have grown to this size if people didn't believe them, and others didn't want to believe them... but these pigs are starting to walk on their hind legs, and Napoleon's starting to revise his commandments.

Thank you (and congrats) LS for taking the time to write this outstanding summary of the situation and the thread. And reducing the noise in the system to its core essence. Sky post of the year for me, and deserves to be picked up somewhere more mainstream.

 

[Cycle Chic]

If your BS filter hasn't been tweaked yet, you need to recalibrate it, because Sky have been spewing all sorts of crap that is not related to whether or not you believe they won the Tour de France clean.

Stuff like:
- they will be transparent
- they will not hire anyone with any known links to doping
- they didn't know about the history of Mick Rogers or Michael Barry before hiring them
- Sean Yates told them he'd never been involved with or seen doping... and Dave Brailsford believed him.

If we credit Dave Brailsford with even the most modest level of intelligence, then he can't have been so naïve he believed these riders and DSs' words. Stuff was in the public domain about them, people who follow cycling beyond the so-called twelve apostles of the Clinic knew about them, so it's not exactly demanding too much of Dave Brailsford to do his research, especially bearing in mind that "attention to detail" is one of his mantras that he uses to explain the improvements in British cycling in the last decade. And while Brailsford himself, in his role within British Cycling the organisation, may have overseen the developments of riders like Wiggins and Thomas and help with the improvements in British cyclists over the last decade to this point... I have my suspicions about riders from outside that development nest making extremely sudden and convenient improvements to become major challengers at the top level, when realistically Britain hasn't created a rider at that kind of level since Robert Millar; Boardman was fairly close, but the next was Millar's namesake who was, of course, arrested in connection with doping - along with a certain D. Brailsford. And Britain just happens to chance upon these guys who would have hit the top anyway (since they didn't need the comforting developmental arm of British Cycling) at the same time as the national development project has hit full gas despite a pathetically small national calendar. Very convenient.

But hey, I'm getting off my intended topic.

Basically, Sky came in to this sport flaunting their all-singing, all-dancing zero tolerance policy. They struggled to adjust to the road in their first year. That's fine, they did about as well in their first Tour de France as US Postal or Team Telekom did. The thing is, all the marginal gains and attention to detail stuff from the launch... it didn't really work when confronted by road cycling the way it did on the track - the road has a much deeper field of contenders, and has far more variables involved. It took Sky a while to adjust their marginal gains approach to account for that. Again, that's no problem.

What was a problem, however, was finding experienced staff who were able to fit into their zero tolerance policy. Finding riders who are clean is ever easier nowadays, although to be fair ones with 8-10 years experience at the top level may be harder. But finding DSes, mechanics, soigneurs, and so on, who had experience at the right level but hadn't been around in the bad old days of the EPO era, that proved harder. It seemed like Garmin's policy was far more pragmatic; take riders who are committed to riding clean now, even if their past is chequered, and use them to mentor the new clean generation. And what ended up happening? The zero tolerance policy was relaxed. Sure, guys like Yates had been making a mockery of it from the start, but it did become less clearly enforced. Sky even openly stated that they were needing to relax it to be more pragmatic, although this was announced far more quietly than the "all singing, all dancing, super clean" launch propaganda, for that was what it was, and so the casual fan could be forgiven for not knowing that was the case.

But even within this atmosphere, the hiring of Leinders was kept hush-hush. Even if we accept the excuse for hiring him up to a point (that after soigneur Txema González died during the 2010 Vuelta they realised that they needed someone with experience treating cycling-related illnesses and injuries... come to think of it, that's another thing that should have set your BS detector off, even if you don't think Leinders did anything untoward at Sky), the question then comes, why Geert Leinders? Could no other doctors with any experience in cycling and less of a doping taint do that job (Leinders' connection to doping was in the public domain at the time. He wasn't exactly a notorious doping doc or anything, and is little mentioned in the Clinic before the middle of this year, but again, surely Brailsford's attention to detail should have seen some red flags raised. After all, we in the Clinic are mostly fans - for him it is his job, and his reputation is strong and potentially fragile)? Did no other experienced doctors apply?

Fast forward a while. Take in the amazing 2012, breathe in the winds of change. But even then, there are murmurs of dissent, not just from those hyenas in the Clinic, hissing, snarling and laughing at each other, but elsewhere. Perhaps they thought the Olympic fervour would kill off the questions, but they persisted. Brailsford could hardly have inspired less confidence when he ran away from questions about Leinders asked by Cyclingnews at the World Championships. And sure enough, they got rid of him. Conveniently, too - just one day before the "reasoned decision". Which should have buried Sky's awkward news and allowed them to move on trouble-free, except for more of their guys (and former guys, of course) being mentioned. This then led to more questions, especially bearing in mind casual fans may not have been aware that the original zero tolerance policy was shelved, or at least placed on the backburner until it could be more realistically achieved. And some of the excuse-making may have been bought by a mostly complicit press, but it required some leaps of faith, which many are not willing to take.

This all creates the issue: Sky announced a zero tolerance policy in 2009-10, but here we are in 2012-13 watching them jettison DSes, doctors and riders who have been shown to have those connections to doping the team was adamant they would not allow, while Sky announce to us their "new" zero tolerance policy. How could anybody hold it against those who argue "well, you said that you'd do that last time, and three years later it was shown to be a lie. Why should we believe you this time?"

All of this doesn't mean Sky were doping, of course. It does, however, mean that it's difficult to buy a lot of what comes out of their PR department, because it's been shown to be self-serving propagandistic falsehoods in the past. And in your initial postulate you included a key statement:

(emphasis mine)
This is correct, and falls into line with the understanding - which even the most ardent of cynics need to accept - that doping is less prevalent and less extreme than it was 15 years ago. Riding at Pantani-speed is no longer feasible; all of Sky's numbers and times on the climbs were comfortably within the boundaries of realistic human possibility. But this is where it becomes ever more subjective. Firstly, while the péloton is cleaner than it was, it still isn't clean by any stretch of the imagination. After all, we saw Rémy di Gregorio taken away by the gendarmerie and Fränk Schleck test positive during the Tour. And secondly, we have to put a level on where we think a rider can be clean and then extrapolate from that whether we think that they personally are capable of achieving that. To this end I will pick fictitious rider Mitchie Froogins. Mitchie Froogins' times on all of the climbs are within the realm of plausibility unaided, however he has completely decimated a whole bunch of riders - including some who had better results than him prior to this year and who tested positive at the race. We then have to decide - and this will be different for each of us - whether we can believe that Mitchie Froogins, unaided, is capable of riding at that level relative to the competition, i.e. that he is, all things considered, in the top 1% natural talents in the péloton.

The péloton is cleaner than it was, the possibility of dominating the race clean is ever higher, Sky talk a good talk, and this thread would never have grown to this size if people didn't believe them, and others didn't want to believe them... but these pigs are starting to walk on their hind legs, and Napoleon's starting to revise his commandments.

Complimenti Lib Seguros that was an outstanding post.

I notice none of our lil Sky fans have responded to it yet. They,ll be sat round the table with Dave thinking of their next PR strategy.

 

[MartinGT]

Thank you (and congrats) LS for taking the time to write this outstanding summary of the situation and the thread. And reducing the noise in the system to its core essence. Sky post of the year for me, and deserves to be picked up somewhere more mainstream.

Here Here Tinny

 

[JimmyFingers]

I'll respond. It is indeed an outstanding summation of the situation and there is nothing there I would take major issue with. There is no lying, no exaggeration, no hyperbole and no nastiness and sneering. Which makes it an unusual post for this thread. Scratch that, forum

It is also nothing that's not been said before, but a very effective dressing down of Sky's mistakes.

All of this doesn't mean Sky were doping, of course. It does, however, mean that it's difficult to buy a lot of what comes out of their PR department, because it's been shown to be self-serving propagandistic falsehoods in the past.

And this is the crux of it. Everything you list is circumstancial at best, and certainly good reason to be suspicious of Sky. Lets face it, being a pro-cyclist is enough to warrant suspicion. None of it represents definitive proof which means you draw your own conclusions, as the poster did. And really that is all this thread is: a back and forth exchange of opinions. We may never get the smoking gun that so many expect or want, an exposure of Lance-esque proportions, but usually the truth will out eventually, so if something untoward has happened at Sky then we will know at some point.

Lance said to his soigneur Emma Reilly 'you know enough to finish me' or words to that effect. And here in is the nub: team-wide doping is a big undertaking, and by necessity there are plenty of people in the know. That translates to a lot of potential whistle-blowers. Several of which have just been fired of ushered out the back door, an arguably suicidal move if you have something to hide. Moreover the logistics of moving these things around, and across national boundaries, adds vast complications and potential pitfalls, requiring a very spohisticated and clever set up.

As Libertine points out, very little Sky do beyond racing bikes is sophisticated or clever. The opposite in fact.


I'm often quoted as saying Sky couldn't have made themselves look more suspicious if they tried. This is true, for most of the reason Libertine lists, but logic dictates that if you were undertaking such a nefarious and dangerous method to win races that involves so many people, you would be doing everything you possibly could to divert attention from that, rather than invite lazy speculation and moreover a guilty conviction via internet trial. To me Sky come across as a team not long part of the pro-tour scene, run by people lacking in experience running a road-race team.

Which is precisely what they are.

The head of BC expressed relunctance to launch a British road team, precisely because of the taint of doping. And on the evidence of all of this he was right on the money. Of course to accuse Sky of team-wide doping is to indirectly accuse BC as well, and the entire track programme, since they are so closely linked and many riders ride for both. Of course plenty here are comfortable with that, particularly if you are French ('magic wheels') but while Libertine questions the sudden explosion of British cycling talent, it is precisely that track programme that has developed that. Somewhere else on this forum someone listed what BC were doing to find and develop talent. Laura Trott was found by talent spotters going into schools and identifying potential for example, then with plenty of lottery money to nurture and support them. Britian has 4 indoor velodromes, France has none. We have a central centre of excellence in Manchester where we develop track and BMX riders, and now Brailsford is talking about a European one for road riders.

Cycling was identified by British Sport as an area where we could win medals and so an all-out assault was launched and we are seeing the results of that. It is churlish to suggest this talent has come out of nowhere or worse to suggest it is born from soley from a test tube

Lastly there's this, from a recent interview with David Walsh:

If Bradley Wiggins is clean, and I think that there’s very good reasons that he is, there shouldn’t be any questions. He should be able to enjoy the moment without feeling that there’s anybody out there that questions him

Note the 'if' but also note the 'very good reason that he is'. This isn't a black and white issue, and its silly to portray it as such. The forum is full of conjecture presented as fact, that is wrong. I seriously doubt Sky doped as a team. If they doped at all it is individual riders doing it independently, so while they have made a pig's ear of their PR, a more reasoned look at them shows they shouldn't be condemned out of hand either.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Yes morale was so high Wiggins nearly quit the race after Froome dropped him.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that the only thing that would have forced Wiggo to voluntarily out if this year's Tour would have been serious illness to his children. No-one but no-one gives up on the Yellow Jersey unless it's ripped off them!

If he's written that he was seriously considering pulling out due to Froome's actions then he's either taking the p*ss or making stuff up to sell copies of his book.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

The fact that the triage of doping; Rogers, Yates and Tenerife have now been dropped make the Ferrari connection just spooky.

Could it be? or not?

No one has said Tenerife will not be used anymore have they? I thought it was just plans for a central base. Besides, I really don't see how that changes things?

If a midfield ranker like Scarponi is consulting then you have to wonder...... the template is worryingly similar.

Time will tell.

Is Giro winner Scarponi really a midfield ranker? The problem is we will never know how good most riders are because all riders are affected by doping regardless if they victims or offenders.

Like Martin said; saying Wiggins and Froome(!) are 100% clean is a stretch beyond reach.

The jury is out.

Tony Martin? Did he say this on Twitter or in an interview?

 

[RownhamHill]

Complimenti Lib Seguros that was an outstanding post.

I notice none of our lil Sky fans have responded to it yet. They,ll be sat round the table with Dave thinking of their next PR strategy.

See, this is what completely annoys the living daylights out of me on this thread, and this 'debate' around Sky. There is just far too much absolute, straight-up, unambiguous BS posted. Stuff that just is demonstrably not true.

You notice that none of the Sky fans have responded to the post, and yet prior to your post I've just read the following posts (out of about 20 or so since LS posted):

Absolutely wondrous post.
Sums up the whole situation really nicely and when this thread gets off topic it would be nice to refer back to this back as a basis for what really all this is about.

What I would say though generally is that the bad PR which has come out of Sky generally gets associated with them doping, at least in the clinic it does. I really don't get that though because it is obvious that Brailsford is coming from a position where he came into the sport with Sky and was attempting to draw attention and is indeed continuing to attempt to draw attraction through his PR and those stances. To see them as an indication of anything else but PR foolishness does not seem to ring true with me. Any logical poster here would admit that the whole situation was a PR stunt gone wrong by Sky and particularly Brailsford and therefore to attempt to infer subsidiary points really seems to be a bit wishful. It does seem to imply that we can not trust what comes off the Sky propaganda machine and I am fine with that as we need to use our rationale in order to decide whether what Sky says makes sense or not.

Amazingly good post. In awe.

I think you could almost take the whole rest of the thread away and just Sticky this post instead.

(Is it just me or does Mitchie Froogins sound like a hobbit?)

LS does his usual good job of pulling much of the arguements together.

But I think the reduction of 4 riders to 1 misses two important points:
#1 Sky were able to buy all 4 riders: they are the richest team and invested in quality (albeit not in line with previously stated policy)
#2 Four is better than 1: not just in drafting (obviously) but in terms of morale. I know team morale doesn't always make it high on the list of performance enhancing effects on the clinic pages, but that is a mistake.
Those 4 + EBH made a formidable team that developed as they won races together.
So those pigs are firmly on all 4s in my book, and the length of this thread is more an indication of how Sky doesn't talk the talk, or rather they didn't walk the talk they talked.
Doesn't mean to say they won't do better in 2013, but that will depend as much on the quality of the opposition as anything Sky can control.
Oh aye, and that includes how much effort other teams put into time trialling properly.

Oh, and then immediately afterwards another one of the 'lil Sky' fans responds. If you care to see anything other than you want to, you might see there's actually a decent conversation going on here.

But no. Why deal with the world as it is, when you can deal with the world as you want it be.

 

[RownhamHill]

Anyway.

Libertine's post, is very good. Personally though, I often think he overstates the all-knowingness of Sky/Dave Brailsford.

Take Leinders, I'm not an expert on this, but I seem to recall there's a chap who posts here who often points out that there were claims reported against Leinders in the Dutch media (from a Rasmussen court case?) before Sky hired him, (which I take to be true). This is thus presented as evidence that Sky 'must have' known he was dodgy.

Yet when asked by Walsh recently, Brailsford says they had five doctors recommended them, the psychologist guy interviewed them all (including the subject of doping), they were satisfied he was a good pick, and then only in May this year they became aware of Theo De R(sp?) saying about the Rabo management structure. Now, obviously it's possible that Sky had trawled every foreign language media source in Europe, knew about the pre-existing Dutch stuff, and they're just spinning us a line - I get that. But isn't it also possible that they didn't? Likewise, though they kept his hiring 'hush-hush', they were posting about him on their own website during the Classics in 2011, when they explicitly mention Leinders by name as their Doctor (treating EBH when he fell off, or something). So, it wasn't that hush-hush, was it?

No-one in the Clinic managed to put two and two together (the Dutch media reports, the Sky website) until earlier this year - at least a year later. (Pretty obviously because we're talking about two very obscure references!) So it's obvious that sometimes people with an interest in finding stuff can miss that stuff, even when it's already 'out there'. Yet we can't imagine that Sky isn't some omnipotent, omniscient being that knows everything about everyone, and never makes mistakes or misjudgements.

I don't know either way, but based on what I know about the world, and how people actually operate when they're busy and under-pressure, and have to make decisions, and based on the evidence I've seen presented about Sky I find it more plausible that they're less cynical than you do. And that doesn't mean I'm being willfully naive, or that I remove the possibility of being wrong, just I've made a different judgement to you based on the same information.

 

[JimmyFingers]

The simple fact about Leeinders is that he was a doctor on the squad when doping was going on and tolerated. As Libertine himself points out this puts him fairly low down on the hit-list of notorious doping doctors. There are teams out there employing doctors that are a lot dodgier

 

[thehog]

No one has said Tenerife will not be used anymore have they? I thought it was just plans for a central base. Besides, I really don't see how that changes things?


Is Giro winner Scarponi really a midfield ranker? The problem is we will never know how good most riders are because all riders are affected by doping regardless if they victims or offenders.

Tony Martin? Did he say this on Twitter or in an interview?

Scarponi Giro winner, correct! Then at the Tour couldn't even keep up with little Richie Porte! Goh Blimey! Scarponi beaten by little Rich! Scarponi e doper couldn't keep up with the clean team.

No, not Clean Tony. Martin from is forum!

Calm down.

 

[thehog]

There are teams out there employing doctors that are a lot dodgier

Sure they are.

Like who?

Answers on postage stamp.

Name 3.

 

[Tinman]

Couple of quick comments:

Sky has had something like 4 doctors on staff when they were looking for another one. Brailsford said they could not find a suitable doctor. Suitable for what? Saddlesore treatment? Then they ended up with Leinders...

If there is doping at Sky, and I firmly believe there was in 2012, it is likely to be a individually based program with as few as possible staff in the know, a doctor (for bag supervision, etc), a DS (for logistics eg motoman), and a coach (for performance management). Leinders, Yates and Sutton. More than those are not required and don't need to know, and that includes Brailsford who can sit behind his PC and direct the clean PR spin. The riders most likely were Rogers, Froome and Wiggins, and it would be better if they did not have confirmation verbally or visually of each others' doping. Unspoken rules only. Saves hassles later.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Scarponi Giro winner, correct! Then at the Tour couldn't even keep up with little Richie Porte! Goh Blimey! Scarponi beaten by little Rich! Scarponi e doper couldn't keep up with the clean team.

No, not Clean Tony. Martin from is forum!

Calm down.

Are you seriously suggesting that Scarponi was either at or close to peak form in the Giro? There are plenty of good enough reasons to argue Sky are doping without resulting to one as bad as this.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Scarponi Giro winner, correct! Then at the Tour couldn't even keep up with little Richie Porte! Goh Blimey! Scarponi beaten by little Rich! Scarponi e doper couldn't keep up with the clean team.

No, not Clean Tony. Martin from is forum!

Calm down.

You seem to have failed to have read the post. Scarponi may have won the Giro but how doped up was he? Perhaps he is a top rider, perhaps he needed a little help and perhaps he needed a lot of help.

How much help, if, any did he have on the Tour? You have no idea.

So why not say MartinVickers or whomever the Martin from the forum was. Someone mistaking Martin for Tony Martin on a cycling forum. I am sure that is not what you intended...not like you to try and obfuscate.

Oh, and have you found that twitter from Tyler Hamilton (The professional cyclist) where he was mocking Bradley Wiggins (The professional cyclist)?

 

[Avoriaz]

Scarponi Giro winner, correct! Then at the Tour couldn't even keep up with little Richie Porte! Goh Blimey! Scarponi beaten by little Rich!

Calm down.

Calm down indeed.

Scarponi finished the Tour in 24th place. Richie Porte 22 minutes behind him in 34th place.

Poor Richie must have been too small for the finish line cameras and sensors to correctly place him given MS couldn't keep up.....

 

[The Hitch]

ut usually the truth will out eventually, so if something untoward has happened at Sky then we will know at some point.

if big mig indurain can 21 years after his first win still be universaly ( outside of these nutjobs in the clinic) be remembered as a clean winner then absolutely anyone can get away with it.

 

[The Hitch]

You seem to have failed to have read the post. Scarponi may have won the Giro but how doped up was he? Perhaps he is a top rider, perhaps he needed a little help and perhaps he needed a lot of help.

How much help, if, any did he have on the Tour? You have no idea.

So why not say MartinVickers or whomever the Martin from the forum was. Someone mistaking Martin for Tony Martin on a cycling forum. I am sure that is not what you intended...not like you to try and obfuscate.

Oh, and have you found that twitter from Tyler Hamilton (The professional cyclist) where he was mocking Bradley Wiggins (The professional cyclist)?

Also scarponi did the giro before the tour and only rode the tour for the thrill of it anyway, so he cannot have been at his best.

 

[maltiv]

Calm down indeed.

Scarponi finished the Tour in 24th place. Richie Porte 22 minutes behind him in 34th place.

Poor Richie must have been too small for the finish line cameras and sensors to correctly place him given MS couldn't keep up.....

Unfortunately some people think that if a domestique hits the front, and a leader gets dropped, then said leader was "outclimbed" by the domestique... without taking into account that the domestique's goal was half-way up the climb, whilst the leader's goal surely is at the finish line.

Nonetheless, implying that Porte is doped because/if he outclimbed Scarponi is ridiculous, Scarponi had just done the Giro and wasn't close to top form. Also, he always sucks in whatever GT he does that isn't the Giro...

 

[The Hitch]

The simple fact about Leeinders is that he was a doctor on the squad when doping was going on and tolerated. As Libertine himself points out this puts him fairly low down on the hit-list of notorious doping doctors. There are teams out there employing doctors that are a lot dodgier

As I recall there was more to Lienders than that. Not sure though. And didnt libertine say that there are doctors more notorious, not neccesarily dodgier. The dodgiest usually arent the most famous.

 

[JimmyFingers]

if big mig indurain can 21 years after his first win still be universaly ( outside of these nutjobs in the clinic) be remembered as a clean winner then absolutely anyone can get away with it.

I was anticipating whistle-blowing at some point given people think that Sky are doping on a USPS-level. My take is it is impossible to keep a lid on these things forever. Lance's doping was so obvious, and there were so many rumours, anecdotal evidence and eye-witness accounts that meant it was only a matter of time while he tried to protect his legacy through mafia-style enforcement and court action. There's really none of that from Sky, beyond the performance and conspiracy theorists, but if it has been going on I'm sure whispers will start to emerge, kiss-and-tell stories in the press, then maybe dissaffected ex-staff members, and given the way Sky are ushering them out of the set-up I feel if there is a story it will emerge.

My opinion of course.