Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[JRanton]

Clearly, Sky should have interviewed Levi for their screening process instead of Leinders.

Next.

Erm, hang on a minute...

Brailsford has said that Leinders came ''highly recommended''. Wouldn't you like to know who recommended him to Sky and Brailsford and why he was recommended?

This is a guy (Leinders) who had been involved with doping in cycling for over a decade, the doping ''mastermind'' at Rabobank, and we're supposed to believe that Sky, after an extremely poor 2010 season (certainly in GC terms), just happended to innocently stumble across his services?

Do you really believe that? What an incredibly bad bit of luck for a team that set out to hire British doctors who hadn't previously worked in cycling that they just so happened to hire Geert Leinders...

Do you realise that Matt Hayman, a Sky stalwart since the launch of the team, will have worked with Leinders for years at Rabobank (nine years to be exact). Flecha too (for 4 years). Oh and then there's Steven de Jongh. You'll know him. He was a Sky DS since 2010 until recently leaving the team after admitting drug use during his career. He was at Rabobank as a rider for five years with Mr Leinders.

The professional cycling world is an incredibly small one. The idea that Sky and Brailsford weren't perfectly aware of Geert Leinders' reputation when they hired him is utterly ludicrous.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[JRanton]

I think, in fairness, you should apply the same standard of evidence to every team in the peloton and see how it works out for you.

Those would be the other teams in the peloton who haven't just smashed the record CQ team score (previously Team CSC 2006) in the 2012 season?

And people wonder why there's a lot of focus on Sky. For goodness sake...

 

[wirral]

Thank you J Ranton for injecting a bit of realism into proceedings and debunking the preposterous claim that Sky were unaware of who they were hiring.

 

[Mellow Velo]

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=16835

Dr J also comes up some in the Gilbert thread

Thanks for that. Somewhat late, I know.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Erm, hang on a minute...

Brailsford has said that Leinders came ''highly recommended''. Wouldn't you like to know who recommended him to Sky and Brailsford and why he was recommended?

This is a guy (Leinders) who had been involved with doping in cycling for over a decade, the doping ''mastermind'' at Rabobank, and we're supposed to believe that Sky, after an extremely poor 2010 season (certainly in GC terms), just happended to innocently stumble across his services?

Do you really believe that? What an incredibly bad bit of luck for a team that set out to hire British doctors who hadn't previously worked in cycling that they just so happened to hire Geert Leinders...

Do you realise that Matt Hayman, a Sky stalwart since the launch of the team, will have worked with Leinders for years at Rabobank (nine years to be exact). Flecha too (for 4 years). Oh and then there's Steven de Jongh. You'll know him. He was a Sky DS since 2010 until recently leaving the team after admitting drug use during his career. He was at Rabobank as a rider for five years with Mr Leinders.

The professional cycling world is an incredibly small one. The idea that Sky and Brailsford weren't perfectly aware of Geert Leinders' reputation when they hired him is utterly ludicrous.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Your post is far more constructive in it's condemnation of Sky's links to Leinders.
Don't know if Flecha De Jongh or Hayman are directly linked by name to GL in the Rabo release, but one would assume they had suspicion as to what was going on, at the very least.

 

[JRanton]

Thank you J Ranton for injecting a bit of realism into proceedings and debunking the preposterous claim that Sky were unaware of who they were hiring.

I fancy it was De Jongh who recommended Leinders to Brailsford (although you certainly can't rule out Flecha and Hayman).

A nice touch is that De Jongh was Sky's DS at the 2011 Vuelta when Wiggins ''confirmed'' and Froome burst onto the scene in stunning style.

Sky's team doctor at the 2011 Vuelta? Well that would be none other than our friend Geert Leinders.

http://www.teamsky.com/article/0,27290,22762_7122061,00.html

 

[simo1733]

If Leinders was well knownas a doping mastermind you would have to wonder why he wasn't snapped up by someone else as soon as he left Rabo.

 

[Joachim]

Erm, hang on a minute...
This is a guy (Leinders) who had been involved with doping in cycling for over a decade, the doping ''mastermind'' at Rabobank, and we're supposed to believe that Sky, after an extremely poor 2010 season (certainly in GC terms), just happended to innocently stumble across his services?

Do you really believe that? What an incredibly bad bit of luck for a team that set out to hire British doctors who hadn't previously worked in cycling that they just so happened to hire Geert Leinders...

Do you realise that Matt Hayman, a Sky stalwart since the launch of the team, will have worked with Leinders for years at Rabobank (nine years to be exact). Flecha too (for 4 years). Oh and then there's Steven de Jongh. You'll know him. He was a Sky DS since 2010 until recently leaving the team after admitting drug use during his career. He was at Rabobank as a rider for five years with Mr Leinders.

Well argued point

Going back to the notion of Sky's improvement 2010-2012, two points. Firstly, factor in Wiggins 2009 TdF performance. Bear in mind that Vaughters is willing to put his credibility on the line when he states this was a clean placing for Wiggins. If we assume Vaughters is correct, then Wiggins movement is not so spectacular, especially given the paucity of rivals in 2012.

Secondly, would you not expect a crappy season from a new team with a manager who has no GT experience?

Take your point about asking questions about Sky. I agree, it has to be done. Let's not confuse questions with answers though.

 

[sniper]

I fancy it was De Jongh who recommended Leinders to Brailsford (although you certainly can't rule out Flecha and Hayman).

A nice touch is that De Jongh was Sky's DS at the 2011 Vuelta when Wiggins ''confirmed'' and Froome burst onto the scene in stunning style.

Sky's team doctor at the 2011 Vuelta? Well that would be none other than our friend Geert Leinders.

http://www.teamsky.com/article/0,27290,22762_7122061,00.html

Here's to Paul Kimmage (or any other serious journalist) picking up these dots and connecting them in press sooner than later.

 

[Froome19]

I fancy it was De Jongh who recommended Leinders to Brailsford (although you certainly can't rule out Flecha and Hayman).

A nice touch is that De Jongh was Sky's DS at the 2011 Vuelta when Wiggins ''confirmed'' and Froome burst onto the scene in stunning style.

Sky's team doctor at the 2011 Vuelta? Well that would be none other than our friend Geert Leinders.

http://www.teamsky.com/article/0,27290,22762_7122061,00.html

What about the 2011 Tour?

 

[Benotti69]

If Leinders was well knownas a doping mastermind you would have to wonder why he wasn't snapped up by someone else as soon as he left Rabo.

I guess he freelances aswell so might have been waiting for the right, chaching, team.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Going back to the notion of Sky's improvement 2010-2012, two points. Firstly, factor in Wiggins 2009 TdF performance. Bear in mind that Vaughters is willing to put his credibility on the line when he states this was a clean placing for Wiggins. If we assume Vaughters is correct, then Wiggins movement is not so spectacular, especially given the paucity of rivals in 2012.

As much as Garmin / JV will deny caring about it in 2012, their relationship with Sky is symbiotic.

If Brad's performance in 2009 is clean, 2012 is more believable, as you point out.

If Brad's performance in 2009 is dirty then
1. Sky's 2012 performance is a travesty
2. Garmin's "we're clean" message - based purely on JV's word, is a travesty

JV is depending on people accepting Brad's 2009 4th was clean. That's where it all starts. It paves the way for a "clean" Ryder win in 2012 at the Giro, and allows JV to confidently state Dekker will lose weight and increase his absolute power in 2013, which is what Brad did in 2011/12.

Vaughters and his team's credibility is so closely tied to that 2009 4th place, that he has no other option than saying, "Brad was clean".

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

What about the 2011 Tour?

If I am correct Leinders has avoided most of France since the 1998 Tour.

 

[Joachim]

@dear wiggo

I'm not sure that is the case, and that is indicative of the kind of fallacious thinking that goes on here on this board, where assumptions are made, and then whole arguments and conclusions are posited upon them.

That is not to say that the conclusions may not, through sheer chance, coincide with the truth, but we may never know that.

I'll go for actual hard evidence, even a bit of hearsay would be nice, but if there is anything fishy it would take a while for it to surface.

 

[sniper]

Well argued point

Going back to the notion of Sky's improvement 2010-2012, two points. Firstly, factor in Wiggins 2009 TdF performance. Bear in mind that Vaughters is willing to put his credibility on the line when he states this was a clean placing for Wiggins. If we assume Vaughters is correct, then Wiggins movement is not so spectacular, especially given the paucity of rivals in 2012.

Secondly, would you not expect a crappy season from a new team with a manager who has no GT experience?

Take your point about asking questions about Sky. I agree, it has to be done. Let's not confuse questions with answers though.

if you give me one good reason, I just might.
just one.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

@dear wiggo

I'm not sure that is the case, and that is indicative of the kind of fallacious thinking that goes on here on this board, where assumptions are made, and then whole arguments and conclusions are posited upon them.

That is not to say that the conclusions may not, through sheer chance, coincide with the truth, but we may never know that.

I'll go for actual hard evidence, even a bit of hearsay would be nice, but if there is anything fishy it would take a while for it to surface.

Not sure what is the case? What is fallacious about the thinking? Fallacious to agree with you? Can you expand? I thought I made myself pretty clear. Perhaps you could repay the courtesy?

 

[JRanton]

Here's to Paul Kimmage (or any other serious journalist) picking up these dots and connecting them in press sooner than later.

I've emailed Des Kelly (Daily Mail columnist) with the relevant information and recent developments about Leinders. He wrote a couple of articles in the aftermath of the USADA report in which he questioned Sky and made reference to their doping connections. I remember him asking the question as to whether Leinders was with Sky's Tour squad in Tenerife on the training camps. I'd like an answer to that question too.

Just as an aside, it's interesting to note that whilst at Rabobank Leinders was reported as saying that there's no room for a zero tolerance approach in cycling. Funny how things turn out.

 

[ebandit]

fans

To be honest. I'm not surprised by the latest revelation from Sky.

It confirms everything I knew about their nefarious activities.

One worries me most is there is defence of their actions on this very forum. Especially those stating "there's nothing to see here".

After the 'Armstrong affair' it beggars belief some are trying to defend the indefensible.

The fans only have themselves to blame for what it served up.

Sad day for the sport. Sad day for true cycling fans

hoggie i really don't believe your posts................again!

oh! your not surprised only yesterday you were saying how shocked you were?

any actions of team sky are the doing of team management and can not be blamed on fans

if indeed team sky are doping who are going to be defending them? so far
members have questioned unproven claims...........most of all your outrageous
claims of zero substance

again you mention 'little richie porte talks' without saying what he said?

and don't worry you will be watching the 2013 tdf........you will be too
worried that you might miss something to talk about

personally i stated i would not watch another tour if cadel went on to win in 2011 and similarly if brad went on to win in 2012

 

[JRanton]

What about the 2011 Tour?

Do we know for a fact that he wasn't? Richard Freeman was mentioned as the team doctor on that race but Sky regularly have two doctors at races.

What we do know is that Leinders was the team doctor at every pre-Tour 2012 stage race that the Tenerife gang attended. What do you think about that?

 

[sniper]

Dont worry, sky has gotten rid of all the dirty apples, and this time they are really serious about being a clean team.

indeed,
if 2012 was clean as everybody at Sky assures us, why get rid of those guys? Or reversely, if they don't trust those guys, how can they assure us 2012 was clean?
It's so obviously a smokescreen, and such a lousy (and fan-insulting) one, that it is sad to see how few journalists are actually picking holes in it.

Some or all of them may yet prove to be doping.

But you don't know anything about it.

the burden of the proof lies with the racers and teams. they should start putting out some evidence of being clean. should be relatively easy when you really are clean.

 

[JRanton]

Well argued point

Going back to the notion of Sky's improvement 2010-2012, two points. Firstly, factor in Wiggins 2009 TdF performance. Bear in mind that Vaughters is willing to put his credibility on the line when he states this was a clean placing for Wiggins. If we assume Vaughters is correct, then Wiggins movement is not so spectacular, especially given the paucity of rivals in 2012.

Secondly, would you not expect a crappy season from a new team with a manager who has no GT experience?

Take your point about asking questions about Sky. I agree, it has to be done. Let's not confuse questions with answers though.

Wiggins worked with Rod Ellingworth (who was GB coach at the time and has worked for Sky since 2010) in his preparation for the 2009 Tour so I doubt that Vaughters is sure either way. Let's be honest, Vaughters has to say that Wiggins was clean in 2009.

You're right that I would expect a relatively crappy season from a new team with an inexperienced team principal. What I wouldn't then expect is for that team to then transform itself so quickly into the most successful team in the peloton, smashing the record CQ ranking team score in 2012 (a record that was previously held by the 2006 CSC team...). Sky also had the highest CQ ranking team score in 2011 after a very strong second half to the season (Vuelta et al).

 

[Joachim]

Not sure what is the case? What is fallacious about the thinking? Fallacious to agree with you? Can you expand? I thought I made myself pretty clear. Perhaps you could repay the courtesy?

Anti-forensic method. Serious weaknesses in the way in which you construct arguments. If you understood what that meant you wouldn't be doing it.

Not meaning to offend you. Just saying.

 

[The Hitch]

@dear wiggo

I'm not sure that is the case, and that is indicative of the kind of fallacious thinking that goes on here on this board, where assumptions are made, and then whole arguments and conclusions are posited upon them.

.

No that is.indicative of the thinking that went into dear.wiggos post and no.one else's. Another reason why this thread is 10 000 posts is because half the new posters go through a multi page process of tying any post made against wiggins into some sort of collective responsibility and using it to bash anyone sceptical of.sky and even the whole forum.

If you don't like the post then criticise the poster, not everyone you imagine to be on their side.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Anti-forensic method. Serious weaknesses in the way in which you construct arguments. If you understood what that meant you wouldn't be doing it.

Not meaning to offend you. Just saying.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? No, I do not understand what you mean.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

If you don't like the post then criticise the poster, not everyone you imagine to be on their side.

Criticising the post would be far more useful. Just because you have decided you don't like a poster, doesn't mean you have to spread your hate around.