Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[blackcat]

Zero tolerance. They had no idea he was a doping Doctor. He was there to treat saddle sores. That's why we saw so much of him at Sky. The were very proud of him.

Just imagine if those clean riders leant about doping when Lienders was there!

Swift work by Johan Brailsford to move him on to protect the clean riders.

that aint a good post hog.

THATS A GREAT POST HOG.

NYVelocity-Schmaltz-Worthy!!!

 

[will10]

You reckon? Have you had your eyes closed these past 20 years?


It's not easy to find someone who hasn't

Maybe a doctor from outside the sport? You know, like Sky told us would be the plan way back in 2009.

Do you really think Dekker didn't get a place on that team knowing full well what pro cycling involved? Come on...

I suspect he was naive enough to be thinking what guys like Dombrowski, Huffman, Edmondson are saying as neos now - hoping things have improved and that they never have to make that choice.

 

[will10]

Do you really think Dekker didn't get a place on that team knowing full well what pro cycling involved? Come on...

I suspect he was naive enough to be thinking what guys like Dombrowski, Huffman, Edmondson are saying as neos now - hoping things have improved and that they never have to make that choice.

 

[thehog]

Angry? Which posters would that be then?

Here's how it works. I state the truth about Lienders.

It's followed by 28 posts telling me I'm lying. Then the usual suspects mail the mods telling them I have no evidence and I should be banned.

Then the mods reply to post and say "Hog if you don't provide evidence we'll ban you".

So I provide evidence. Evidence given under oath and in court no less.

That's what I mean by people trying to silence me.

I have my own style. It's deliberate. I faced the same from 1999 to 2005 and 2009 to 2012. I know what to expect. Seen it all before.

Question is; if you had a son who was entering the Pro ranks at 21 would you want his employer injecting him with chemicals and when he tests positive abandon him?

I know I wouldn't want that for my son.

That's sick.

I'm sorry no one will convince me any different. Young men don't deserve to be brainwashed like they were.

The fact that some are trying to excuse Leinders behaviour because they don't want it to look bad for Sky shows how skewed some people's moral compass has become.

Sad.

 

[Parker]

Question is; if you had a son who was entering the Pro ranks at 21 would you want his employer injecting him with chemicals and when he tests positive abandon him?

I know I wouldn't want that for my son.

That's sick.

I'm sorry no one will convince me any different. Young men don't deserve to be brainwashed like they were.

Who says he was brainwashed? Away from cycling there are thousands of 21 year olds doing drugs - E, coke, whatever they can get their hands on. They don't seem too bothered by the risks (with no doctor) or the morality, so why is a cyclist any different?

 

[Caruut]

Who says he was brainwashed? Away from cycling there are thousands of 21 year olds doing drugs - E, coke, whatever they can get their hands on. They don't seem too bothered by the risks (with no doctor) or the morality, so why is a cyclist any different?

Doing recreational drugs is largely a personal affair. Certainly it can lead to dependence but at its core it is intensely personal - you are manipulating your own consciousness for no particular reason other than the joy you derive from that. Performance enhancing drugs are totally different - they are designed to enhance your physical state in order for you to achieve something you otherwise wouldn't.

Even if you know the guy you "take" the result from immediately is on the gear too, deep down they all know that if it weren't for this sordid mess, there would be a proper winner. Over time I guess that eats away at some people. Personally I don't think it's fair to put people in the situation Dekker was in. Just because Dekker knew that the system was messed up doesn't excuse those who constructed the system - the administrators, managers and doctors - from blame for messing it all up.

 

[Ferminal]

It seems that everyone agrees that Leinder's was a massive mistake: a huge, stinky turd in the middle of Sky's PR clean plate.

So it's all still PR? Aren't you genuinely concerned that people have been exposed to characters known to be involved in doping. Let's just assume that no one at Sky had any idea who Leinders was, and certainly didn't want him doping at Sky. That is not to say that Leinders may have been of no influence, what does he do when someone approaches him? What if he sees someone on the brink of greatness that he can't resist offering "advice" to?

The same goes for Yates, Rogers etc and all the dodgy names on every team. These people know how to coordinate doping programs or can point people in the right direction. This isn't just PR, this is the single biggest issue in anti-doping.

 

[thehog]

Who says he was brainwashed? Away from cycling there are thousands of 21 year olds doing drugs - E, coke, whatever they can get their hands on. They don't seem too bothered by the risks (with no doctor) or the morality, so why is a cyclist any different?

This is not the street. It was his employer. Do you think cycling has industrial relations or a HR department?

I'm sorry but if you went to work as a 21 year old and everyone around you including management expected you to dope then that's very serious issue. It's disgusting and sick. There's not a choice and there's no way to say no or take it to a higher authority. Not even a union. Zip the lips and don't spit in the soup. If you speak out you end the way of Bassons.

Surely you're not telling me this is acceptable?

Sad fact is Lienders still had a career. Dekker did not. That's how it works.

Dekker is very fortunate to be employed others were not so lucky.

Steven de Jongh could have told Sky all about Lienders. But something tells me they all knew exactly what they were doing.

 

[Joachim]

Here's how it works. I state the truth about Lienders.
.

No, you stated a truth about Leinders. The rest was conjecture. That's why the mods objected. Try to understand the difference.

 

[red_flanders]

Then the mods reply to post and say "Hog if you don't provide evidence we'll ban you".

Who threatened to ban you?

You've been asked to move on from inflammatory language. Accuracy matters. I think this is a good conversation that can be had without the hyperbole and exaggeration, and it's meaning will not be at all diluted.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Here's how it works. I state the truth about Lienders.

It's followed by 28 posts telling me I'm lying. Then the usual suspects mail the mods telling them I have no evidence and I should be banned.

Then the mods reply to post and say "Hog if you don't provide evidence we'll ban you".

So I provide evidence. Evidence given under oath and in court no less.

That's what I mean by people trying to silence me.

I have my own style. It's deliberate. I faced the same from 1999 to 2005 and 2009 to 2012. I know what to expect. Seen it all before.

Question is; if you had a son who was entering the Pro ranks at 21 would you want his employer injecting him with chemicals and when he tests positive abandon him?

I know I wouldn't want that for my son.

That's sick.

I'm sorry no one will convince me any different. Young men don't deserve to be brainwashed like they were.

The fact that some are trying to excuse Leinders behaviour because they don't want it to look bad for Sky shows how skewed some people's moral compass has become.

Sad.

Somehow you again managed to make it about yourself. And yet you like to state it is not about you, don't you?

Did you also state the truth about Ferrari (100% guaranteed)?
What about someone at Sky failing a drug test at the Vuelta?
Cav protecting Lance?

Trying to pass speculation as fact so if it turns out to be true you can pretend you had inside knowledge.

You make up stuff and try to bait people.

Even now I get the impression you are doing the same so much so that it seems pointless to try and respond to your posts anymore.


On the plus side at least you had a break between 2005 and 2009.

 

[Joachim]

Let's move this on from the Hog nonsense.

We have some very damning rider evidence that Leinders administered dope whilst at Rabo. We don't know if Leinders administered dope at Sky.

Let's make the contrary assumption to the predominant one on this thread. Let's not assume that he did.

Given that, what questions would you like to ask Sky, and bearing in mind for a moment that we are not assume Leinders facilitated doping at Sky, consider whether Sky could give a meaningful answer to your questions.

What I'm getting at here is a more forensic approach, not hyperbolic questions that predetermine the answer.

 

[Mr.38%]

Knees is clean. At least in 2009 when he finished 20th.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

The fact that they have not even bothered to address the issue makes it look even more suspicious regardless of anything else.

You would hope that after the Armstrong saga the media would hold them more accountable but it seems that certainly in Britain that is not the case.

 

[coinneach]

So it's all still PR? Aren't you genuinely concerned that people have been exposed to characters known to be involved in doping. Let's just assume that no one at Sky had any idea who Leinders was, and certainly didn't want him doping at Sky. That is not to say that Leinders may have been of no influence, what does he do when someone approaches him? What if he sees someone on the brink of greatness that he can't resist offering "advice" to?

The same goes for Yates, Rogers etc and all the dodgy names on every team. These people know how to coordinate doping programs or can point people in the right direction. This isn't just PR, this is the single biggest issue in anti-doping.

As usual with Sky, you can read this both ways:
Way 1: Leinders + Bertolucci are recruited because the team want to improve their results and now realizes doping (+ associated borderline practices, which we know very little about, but include healthy weight loss) is the only way to do it
Way 2: Brailsford leaves the screening of docs down to Peters. Peters, normally adept at seeing straight though people (cf books by Pendelton &Moore) gets fooled by Leinders, who is actually keen to get away from doping and into a clean setup (as may be riders like Rogers & Van der Velde etc).

In support of Way 1 is just about everything we know and continue to hear about procycling

In support of Way 2 is (a) that Peters was moved from cycling to Athletics a month or two back: I thought it strange at the time, considering how dependent Brailsford seemed on him, but now one read more into that move.
(b) Doctors, I have observed, treat other doctors different from the rest of the population: they are more likely to trust them.
(c) The Walsh-Brailsford interview a few weeks back: obviously he would have asked about Leinders: he didn't include the answer in the article he wrote but said something like "I was reassured about what I heard"

Sad thing is, whatever you believe, this leaves a question mark over Wiggins season in 12, and its hard to imagine how this now could go away.

Well done JimmyFingers for moving position in light of evidence: an example to us all, on either side of the debate

 

[will10]

Knees is clean. At least in 2009 when he finished 20th.

Big George was 18th in 2009

 

[Mr.38%]

Big George was 18th in 2009

Everybody knows he was clean after 2006.

 

[Netserk]

Everybody knows he was clean after 2006.

Everybody knows that everybody was clean after 2006. Except Ricco and Contador. But the rest were/are clean!

 

[Ferminal]

As usual with Sky, you can read this both ways:
Way 1: Leinders + Bertolucci are recruited because the team want to improve their results and now realizes doping (+ associated borderline practices, which we know very little about, but include healthy weight loss) is the only way to do it
Way 2: Brailsford leaves the screening of docs down to Peters. Peters, normally adept at seeing straight though people (cf books by Pendelton &Moore) gets fooled by Leinders, who is actually keen to get away from doping and into a clean setup (as may be riders like Rogers & Van der Velde etc).

In support of Way 2 is (a) that Peters was moved from cycling to Athletics a month or two back: I thought it strange at the time, considering how dependent Brailsford seemed on him, but now one read more into that move.
(b) Doctors, I have observed, treat other doctors different from the rest of the population: they are more likely to trust them.
(c) The Walsh-Brailsford interview a few weeks back: obviously he would have asked about Leinders: he didn't include the answer in the article he wrote but said something like "I was reassured about what I heard"

Sad thing is, whatever you believe, this leaves a question mark over Wiggins season in 12, and its hard to imagine how this now could go away.

Well done JimmyFingers for moving position in light of evidence: an example to us all, on either side of the debate

I think it's more the fact that the "ZTP" wasn't taken seriously until 6 months ago. They didn't bother screening staff (or didn't find their history an issue). It's not like hiring people with a history is extraordinary - it happens all the time and most teams are involved. Why should Sky be any different.

I prefer to separate the issue from the matter of "do Sky dope". Having Leinders et al on their team is a problem regardless of whether or not they were hired to dope. As of now they have gone some way to addressing this problem which is commendable (it may be a PR exercise but it's still a positive).

 

[Joachim]

I think it's more the fact that the "ZTP" wasn't taken seriously until 6 months ago. They didn't bother screening staff (or didn't find their history an issue). It's not like hiring people with a history is extraordinary - it happens all the time and most teams are involved. Why should Sky be any different.

I prefer to separate the issue from the matter of "do Sky dope". Having Leinders et al on their team is a problem regardless of whether or not they were hired to dope. As of now they have gone some way to addressing this problem which is commendable (it may be a PR exercise but it's still a positive).

I think that is an intelligent assessment. I think Sky dug their own hole with promises made that they couldn't keep. They more or less left an open goal for all the sniping and chants of hypocrisy. They would have done better to do what other teams do and just keep silent on the whole issue.

 

[coinneach]

I think that is an intelligent assessment. I think Sky dug their own hole with promises made that they couldn't keep. They more or less left an open goal for all the sniping and chants of hypocrisy. They would have done better to do what other teams do and just keep silent on the whole issue.

They could keep those promises: they chose not to.
I recall an interview with Brialsford after the Vuelta 09 when he tried to cut himself a bit of slack...looks like that was a major mistake.
And lets not encourage teams to keep silent; we need more openness, not less.

 

[Joachim]

Your last sentence is what I'm getting at. You might say Sky are just making the right noises but at least they are making noises. Don't forget who it was that laid themselves open for accusations of hypocrisy.

As to the first part, well that is to be seen.

 

[Benotti69]

I think it's more the fact that the "ZTP" wasn't taken seriously until 6 months ago. They didn't bother screening staff (or didn't find their history an issue). It's not like hiring people with a history is extraordinary - it happens all the time and most teams are involved. Why should Sky be any different.

I prefer to separate the issue from the matter of "do Sky dope". Having Leinders et al on their team is a problem regardless of whether or not they were hired to dope. As of now they have gone some way to addressing this problem which is commendable (it may be a PR exercise but it's still a positive).

How do you seperate the issue?

Sky might have been a doping team from the get go and were failing miserably because the people they were using did not have the right experience. (Just like Motorola before it morphed into USPS)

So what do they do? they get experience, Leinders et al. Now they won all that they wanted to win, except the Olympic RR for Cav and have given their sponsors a huge payback for the investment.

They then turnaround and jettison all the 'experienced' staff who have no doubt handed down that knowledge to the 'ZTP staff' and bob's yer uncle.

This year the 'ZTP staff' have the know how.

Or it might be that Leinders got himself a camper van for his holidays in the Alps.

To seperate the issue is exactly what Braislford's pr is trying to do as well as trying to bury it.

 

[MartinGT]

Love it, Sky hire a dodgy doctor and its nothing more than Bad PR thats all

 

[Froome19]

Of course if Sky are doping why are they so much better at it than all the other teams?
Leinders worked for Rabo..