Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[cineteq]

Is there a summary of points for/against SKY doping? There’s certainly no evidence but I’ll try to arrange from strong to weak points. I can think of the following, feel free to add.

For doping:
1) Dr. Geert Leinders and Dr. Fabio Bartalucci. We know the story, both dope doctors hired after SKY’s abysmal 2010 performance.
2) Their dismissal. If SKY had nothing to hide, why fire them AFTER they won the tour?
3) Their performance. This seems like a major point in some people’s arguments, it’s sad in a way that our sport has come to this, questioning performance. We all saw it, dominant in the mountains, dominant in the time trials. People say Wiggins never attacked like a doper, but certainly he didn’t need to. Froome TTing faster than Cancellara was weird for me.
4) Undedectable AICAR. No one can argue that SKY had the skinniest riders, personally I can’t think of any riders with lower BMI’s.
5) Team policy, more importantly changes of policy. Not hiring from outside UK, not hiring personnel with known doping past, certainly changed quickly.

Neither here nor there:
1) Froome’s ‘incurable’ bilharzia, making his blood passport useless. Praziquantel cures more than 85 percent of individuals, retreatment of patients with residual infections results in cure in more than 80 percent.
2) Wiggins’s behaviour also seems a big issue for some. Eg. Calling trolls the C word, ‘never raced against Armstrong’, trying to pay less taxes etc.

Against doping:
1) Everything else.
2) No evidence.
3) British riders don’t dope.

+1 Thisˆˆˆ

"None are more blind than those who refuse to see"

 

[thehog]

Is there a summary of points for/against SKY doping? There’s certainly no evidence but I’ll try to arrange from strong to weak points. I can think of the following, feel free to add.

For doping:
1) Dr. Geert Leinders and Dr. Fabio Bartalucci. We know the story, both dope doctors hired after SKY’s abysmal 2010 performance.
2) Their dismissal. If SKY had nothing to hide, why fire them AFTER they won the tour?
3) Their performance. This seems like a major point in some people’s arguments, it’s sad in a way that our sport has come to this, questioning performance. We all saw it, dominant in the mountains, dominant in the time trials. People say Wiggins never attacked like a doper, but certainly he didn’t need to. Froome TTing faster than Cancellara was weird for me.
4) Undedectable AICAR. No one can argue that SKY had the skinniest riders, personally I can’t think of any riders with lower BMI’s.
5) Team policy, more importantly changes of policy. Not hiring from outside UK, not hiring personnel with known doping past, certainly changed quickly.

Neither here nor there:
1) Froome’s ‘incurable’ bilharzia, making his blood passport useless. Praziquantel cures more than 85 percent of individuals, retreatment of patients with residual infections results in cure in more than 80 percent.
2) Wiggins’s behaviour also seems a big issue for some. Eg. Calling trolls the C word, ‘never raced against Armstrong’, trying to pay less taxes etc.

Against doping:
1) Everything else.
2) No evidence.
3) British riders don’t dope.

I would add to 'for doping' point 4) not only were they've skinnest but could produce the most power. That was strange. Very strange. Not normal. Froome's ITT was out of this world.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

And yes, I'm the powerless don quichotte, but as long as more people feell like me, chances are we get heard. Ad yes, this forum does carry a tiny bit of weight.

No, it will go on and on and on untill the grand public will not stand at the side of the roads cheering for the riders, when the grand public will not tune in to hear the BS of Mart Smeets/Maarten Ducrot/Erik Breukink/Michael Boogerd [will he be invited next year ]/Phil Ligett et all on tv. The grand public doesn't give a rats a@@ on doping, they want to be entertained. It's just like the Romans, bread and games...

This forum is good at one thing; letting of steam because no one else wants to hear it. Even my wife says to me: 'why do you even watch when you know what is going on?' Like at my favourite course, Liege - Bastogne - Liege when an absolute nobody suddenly is able to make Nibbles look like a schoolboy; I just turned of the tv. I will not repeat the swearing, that would get me banned, and rightfully so.

One of the reasons I registered on this site is to discuss these - in my eyes - sick things in cycling.

I still do not have a clear answer to her, I must be a sado masochist, and, I still cannot turn of the tv. My bad.

And, SKY? Really, seen it before, time after time.

edit: forgot to compliment the post of sideshadow

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

I would add to 'for doping' point 4) not only were they've skinnest but could produce the most power. That was strange. Very strange. Not normal. Froome's ITT was out of this world.

out of this world? how do you know? brajkovic is 12 kg lighter than froome and isn't much worse.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I would add to 'for doping' point 4) not only were they've skinnest but could produce the most power. That was strange. Very strange. Not normal. Froome's ITT was out of this world.

It is not proven they took Aicar Hog!

 

[Parrulo]

that's even more stupid. pre 1990 riders rode entire seasons. gt riders all had bmi's that are now impossible to win gt's with except evans. the 90s not only gave doping, it also gave specalisation for certain races. now riders select the races they want to win and build around that. you can't compare the 80s to now in anything except that both era's are relatively clean

what has any of you just said to do with attacking on mountain stages?

are you saying that because riders were overall heavier back on the 80's they couldn't attack on a mountain? you do realize how little sense you are making don't you?

 

[the sceptic]

out of this world? how do you know? brajkovic is 12 kg lighter than froome and isn't much worse.

Let med know when Brajkovic isnt 2-3 minutes behind Froome. How much lighter is Froome than Cancellara again?

 

[thehog]

It is not proven they took Aicar Hog!

Do you have a link for that accusation?

 

[martinvickers]

Miguel Indurain is clean since he didn't attack in the mountains.
Menchov is clean since he doesn't attack in the mountains.

Laurent Fignon was full on Epo in 1984 and 1989

doesn't work this way.

But let me be very clear about one thng as you obviously didn;t watch cycling back then: In the 80's there were a ton more attacks in the mountains. What you saw in the Epo era was a completely different ball game.

To be honest, there were typically fewer days in the high mountains, especially in the early '80s, and far more time trial miles. Mountain experts had to attack, because there were fewer opportunities overall to do so.


e.g. 1980 - over 240 km of time trial, 4 days in the mountains with one hilly/medium mountain.

1981 - 4 days in thr mountains, 3 long TT's, 2! Team TTs

by 1997 - less than 100km TT, 4 days in the high mountains, but almost a week in the hills

by 2003, 7 stages! in the high mountains.

2009 7 days in the high mountains

2010, 6 days in the high mountains, 3 more in the hills

Even last years, supposedly 'TT friendly course' had 5 days in the high mountains, 4 in the hills including the Wall at Les Belles Filles and only 100km of TT, prologue included.

That sort of change is not accidental.

Considering a lot of that was Amphetamines it's extremely and utterly questionable how that would have helped. The most effective drug might have been cortico-steroids, but that has it's limited use (recovery!).

Cycling isn't an explosive sport, which is why steroids don't do what they did for other sports. Epo was the first drug that had an impact on the cardiovascular system, which affects endurance.

EPO directly increased endurance performance potential, but other drugs, like painkillers and the like have clear indirect benefits in terms of endurance. I think it's very dangerous to sanitize per EPO doping just because EPo was a gamechanger. Tommy Simpson didn't die of EPO.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Do you have a link for that accusation?

Here you go:

It is proven they took Aicar Hog!

Nevertheless, power going up, weight going down, I want the same, where does Wiggo boy get his bread?

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Let med know when Brajkovic isnt 2-3 minutes behind Froome. How much lighter is Froome than Cancellara again?

if weight was a factor/the factor, than brajkovic would've been the worst itt rider in the world almost, but it isn't that's my whole point. same with contador, clement and countless other examples. if it was all about weight than why was backstedt never world champion?

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Here you go:

Nevertheless, power going up, weight going down, I want the same, where does Wiggo boy get his bread?

my god. people like you make the clinic go even lower in quality than it already was.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

what has any of you just said to do with attacking on mountain stages?

are you saying that because riders were overall heavier back on the 80's they couldn't attack on a mountain? you do realize how little sense you are making don't you?

my bad, don't know why I said that. must've read it wrongly

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

my god. people like you make the clinic go even lower in quality than it already was.

You are on my ignore list so I will politely ignore your [again] comedy capers act.

Cheers.

 

[the sceptic]

if weight was a factor/the factor, than brajkovic would've been the worst itt rider in the world almost, but it isn't that's my whole point. same with contador, clement and countless other examples. if it was all about weight than why was backstedt never world champion?

Its not all about weight, but it is a big factor. Someone weighing 50kg is a lot less likely to be a good time trialist than someone weighing 75kg. That should be obvious.

 

[ferryman]

A heads up for any Sky fans out there who have access to Sky Sports 2. Tune in at 7 and enjoy

 

[thehog]

Here you go:

Nevertheless, power going up, weight going down, I want the same, where does Wiggo boy get his bread?

Proof is in the puddin'... I agree. They were strange. Really strange. They looked bizarre. Reminded of Ben Johnson's yellow eyes in 1988. Froome all scaley thin but produces more power than Cancellera.

Try explaining that to an alien from outta space.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

There were a lot of those 'mountain attacks we all enjoy' in the full on EPO era, weren't there. Can't think why. Curiously, Wiggins can't launch those attacks, he has to let them go and then grind his way up at a consistent pace, staying out of the red and limiting his losses. For this, he is condemned as having no panache and being boring and yet apparently this is also the style of the archetypal doper.

You couldn't make it up if you tried

You know that time trial specialists can dope too? After all, I don't think Moser won his Giro by launching off the front on a 10% incline.

To use the "attacking cycling is because of doping" argument leads to two conclusions that I am not willing to draw:
1) David Moncoutié is one of the most likely to be doping
2) Levi Leipheimer is one of the most likely to be clean

Let's go back to Levi's affidavit to see how clean he has been.

To be honest, there were typically fewer days in the high mountains, especially in the early '80s, and far more time trial miles. Mountain experts had to attack, because there were fewer opportunities overall to do so.


e.g. 1980 - over 240 km of time trial, 4 days in the mountains with one hilly/medium mountain.

1981 - 4 days in thr mountains, 3 long TT's, 2! Team TTs

by 1997 - less than 100km TT, 4 days in the high mountains, but almost a week in the hills

by 2003, 7 stages! in the high mountains.

2009 7 days in the high mountains

2010, 6 days in the high mountains, 3 more in the hills

Even last years, supposedly 'TT friendly course' had 5 days in the high mountains, 4 in the hills including the Wall at Les Belles Filles and only 100km of TT, prologue included.

That sort of change is not accidental.

It was a response to TV coverage and to the way cycling changed; increased professionalism means flat stages no longer provide the same chances for the race to break up as the difference between the strongest and weakest in the péloton is far lower now. Also audience figures are much higher for mountain stages than for sprints and time trials (this is especially obvious in Spain and Italy, hence why Zomegnan went ballistic on the Giro routes at times and the Vuelta has gone MTF crazy). Also, because of this and also because the onset of the EPO era meant that doped up time triallists could suddenly compete in the mountains, the days of 200+ TT km had to be brought to an end because they were simply too much for the climbers to be able to offer balance. Also, the increase in the amount of teams opting for the superdomestiques and the build-up of the 'train' template that had been pioneered long before, but was brought to major attention by Banesto and perfected by US Postal meant that strong teams could control the race with more ease than ever before, so giving them a 70km TTT and an 80s-level of ITT mileage would make it pretty much impossible for a climber to contend.

Also, stages like the ones we see today with the final mountain 40, 50 or 60km from the line, might have seen more action in the days before the péloton could be controlled so well (race radio as well as increased professionalism have a role to play in this). Nowadays, those are high mountain stages in little but name; they have the high mountains but their chances of impacting the GC at the sharp end are limited. Hence the Vuelta's policy of all-MTFs all-the-time that has been lampooned (and deservedly so); the mountains were producing smaller gaps, so rather than design tougher stages to increase those gaps, then increasing the time trial mileage to then create larger gaps that needed to be defended and attacked in those tougher stages, they simply decided "we'll just have more of those stages that created small gaps in order to create big gaps". And then you get a situation like 2012, where you got lots of exciting finales, but apart from one stage you could just watch the last half an hour.

Certainly legendary climbers like Lucho Herrera and José Manuel Fuente could perhaps have won more than a measly three Vueltas between them if they'd been around for the kind of routes being served up in the last 5-10 years, but then cycling isn't the same as it was in the pre-EPO era, when amateur teams could ride the Tour de France and so on. What constitutes a bias in favour of one type of cyclist has changed, because so much more of the race has been rendered GC-irrelevant due to the improvement in teams' ability to control the races; total breakdowns of control outside of major mountain stages (like Gardeccia) are rare now, and I can only think of L'Aquila in 2010 as a really obvious example of where control of the race was completely and totally lost.

 

[ebandit]

wow hoggie

Froome all scaley thin but produces more power than Cancellera.

Try explaining that to an alien from outta space.

wow! hoggie..........you know everything.........what?...........

you just made it up...........................

 

[sniper]

Is there a summary of points for/against SKY doping? There’s certainly no evidence but I’ll try to arrange from strong to weak points. I can think of the following, feel free to add.

For doping:
1) Dr. Geert Leinders and Dr. Fabio Bartalucci. We know the story, both dope doctors hired after SKY’s abysmal 2010 performance.
2) Their dismissal. If SKY had nothing to hide, why fire them AFTER they won the tour?
3) Their performance. This seems like a major point in some people’s arguments, it’s sad in a way that our sport has come to this, questioning performance. We all saw it, dominant in the mountains, dominant in the time trials. People say Wiggins never attacked like a doper, but certainly he didn’t need to. Froome TTing faster than Cancellara was weird for me.
4) Undedectable AICAR. No one can argue that SKY had the skinniest riders, personally I can’t think of any riders with lower BMI’s.
5) Team policy, more importantly changes of policy. Not hiring from outside UK, not hiring personnel with known doping past, certainly changed quickly.

Neither here nor there:
1) Froome’s ‘incurable’ bilharzia, making his blood passport useless. Praziquantel cures more than 85 percent of individuals, retreatment of patients with residual infections results in cure in more than 80 percent.
2) Wiggins’s behaviour also seems a big issue for some. Eg. Calling trolls the C word, ‘never raced against Armstrong’, trying to pay less taxes etc.

Against doping:
1) Everything else.
2) No evidence.
3) British riders don’t dope.

pro-doping:
6) They're McQuaid's best friends. Phat 'predicted' Wiggo's TdF victory long before they had reached Paris.
7) Wiggo not publishing his passport data
8) Wiggo refusing to take Kimmage on board during the TdF
and tenerife hasn't even been mentioned yet.

you've missed very important points against doping:
4) Because Vaughters says so
5) Because Millar says so

 

[Joachim]

pro-doping:
6) They're McQuaid's best friends. Phat 'predicted' Wiggo's TdF victory long before they had reached Paris.

So, with the heat on him from the USADA case, Landis, and Hamilton's accusations of UCI complicit not only in covering up Armstrong's doping, but also targeting Armstrong's rivals for dope fit-ups, Phat does exactly the same with Sky. Yes, of course he did.

Wiggo refusing to take Kimmage on board during the TdF

Yes, because Wiggins didn't really have much else to do those three weeks did he, other than attend to Kimmage's questions. It's not like Wiggins had anything important to focus on, is it.

On that note, Kimmage isn't a saint. He's a journalist trying to make a living. No reason why Wiggins should devote any of his precious energies on that. Besides, Kimmage is an abrasive character. Its no wonder Kimmage is p1ssed at this. He failed to secure the gig that might have kept him his job. Is it any surprise that he is now, in his unemployed state, trying to grab a few headlines and generate a bit of work for himself, as well as getting some revenge in on Wiggins for snubbing him.

And I say this as someone who donated money to Kimmage's legal fund to fu@k over the UCI.

 

[sniper]

So, with the heat on him from the USADA case, Landis, and Hamilton's accusations of UCI complicit not only in covering up Armstrong's doping, but also targeting Armstrong's rivals for dope fit-ups, Phat does exactly the same with Sky. Yes, of course he did.



Yes, because Wiggins didn't really have much else to do those three weeks did he, other than attend to Kimmage's questions. It's not like Wiggins had anything important to focus on, is it.

On that note, Kimmage isn't a saint. He's a journalist trying to make a living. No reason why Wiggins should devote any of his precious energies on that. Besides, Kimmage is an abrasive character. Its no wonder Kimmage is p1ssed at this. He failed to secure the gig that might have kept him his job. Is it any surprise that he is now, in his unemployed state, trying to grab a few headlines and generate a bit of work for himself?

And I say this as someone who donated money to Kimmage's legal fund to fu@k over the UCI.

no matter how you spin it, it fits into the picture of a doper much more than of a clean racer.

 

[Joachim]

You can only use the word 'spin' if you are in the priviledged position of knowing the truth. Which you don't.

Probably would have been better if you'd actually thought about it, rather than an instant retort.

 

[xcleigh]

6) They're McQuaid's best friends. Phat 'predicted' Wiggo's TdF victory long before they had reached Paris.

McQuaid is good at cover ups. Apart from when asked straight questions. 'Is Wiggins going to win the Tour, Pat?' Yes. Doh!

 

[sniper]

Funny also that there is nobody representating Sky at CCN.
May not be a coincidence though considering Ashenden's recent observation that sophisticated microdoping is widespread among the peloton's new age teams.

On that topic: has anybody at Sky made any official or unofficial statements wrt CCN? Something like "Way to go boys", "Keep up the good work guys", or a variation thereof?