Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Froome19]

Knowing Leinders was dodgy. Of course he bloody knew.

So it is an assumption?

 

[WinterRider]

Congratulations. You've just described doping at Rabobank.

When you can tell us something about Sky, please do.

Well they had a well known doping doctor, and with at least two ex rabos on the team everyone there must have known this. And they kept his presence there off the radar for 2 years.

Did they seriously think it was a good idea? The most reasonable explanation for his presence is if he was teaching them to dope.

 

[Mellow Velo]

But it doesn't hinge on that. That is definitely important, but look at who else they removed from the team, Yates, Jullich, Sutton and others. It also hinges on the amazing season they had, Wigins won every stage race he entered last year. 1st rider to win PN, DL and TdF in the same season. Look at the Sky train in the mountains during the TdF. There are lots and lots of dots to the 'Sky are doping'. If you were told after his 4th at the TdF in 2009 that Wiggins would have a 2012 like that would you have believed it? No way.

If Sky were/are clean, why sack all these guys? Why not say he had his own personal T&R with them and the past is the past. At Sky we are doing it differently.

It would appear that Leinders was Rabo's Michele frickin Ferrari

Ferminal has it right.
It does hinge on Leinders. He is the lynchpin.
Heck, you have hammered away with his name, ever since you found out he was involved in the Rabo ring.
You can't now turn around and argue that he isn't fundamental to any fraud.

Julich and Yates would not be capable of running a full medical programme.
Sutton? Again you drop his name in as proof of nefarious acts, but not even Dopology can help you there.

Other than that, you fall back on that one rule of doping that you are so fond of and used just yesterday. 'Proof of doping is by winning a race.'

 

[the asian]

This is the big question for me. Sky need to be completely open about his time there at this stage if they want to be taken seriously as a non-doping team.

Which races/camps did he attend? What was his role there? If he was hired to give a cycling doctor's perspective on health in grand tours, which tours was he at?

He was the listed team doctor in PN, Romandie & Dauphine but was left out of the Tour.
(It has been mentioned previously in this thread)

 

[the asian]

Well they had a well known doping doctor, and with at least two ex rabos on the team everyone there must have known this. And they kept his presence there off the radar for 2 years.

Did they seriously think it was a good idea? The most reasonable explanation for his presence is if he was teaching them to dope.

They also had an ex Rabo rider as a DS.

 

[thehog]

So it is an assumption?

Froome19 semantics will get you nowhere.

But you are doing a good Phil Liggett impression with Sky!

“There’s no proof, 500, 500….”

 

[Mellow Velo]

Dodgy? He's a lot worse than that!

He managed a team-wide systematic doping program at Rabobank for years on end. He must have been good at it. Because no one tested positive in that time. 1996-2009

Thus it makes sense he was hired by Sky for his expertise with saddle sores

Brailsford didn't commit bad PR. He lied.

Lienders barely appeared at races.

What was he doing there at Sky?

This is the big question for me. Sky need to be completely open about his time there at this stage if they want to be taken seriously as a non-doping team.

Which races/camps did he attend? What was his role there? If he was hired to give a cycling doctor's perspective on health in grand tours, which tours was he at?

I'm afraid you are asking the wrong person for facts.
The hog hard at it, washing, once again.

JRanton, ( a Sky sceptic) answered this question in full and with actual links to the evidence.
Leinders appeared as team doc, at all the races that the Sky "A" team rode, bar the TDF.
So, an actual bit of silver lining in the clouded truth, this time.

 

[sniper]

Ferminal has it right.
It does hinge on Leinders. He is the lynchpin.
Heck, you have hammered away with his name, ever since you found out he was involved in the Rabo ring.
You can't now turn around and argue that he isn't fundamental to any fraud.

Julich and Yates would not be capable of running a full medical programme.
Sutton? Again you drop his name in as proof of nefarious acts, but not even Dopology can help you there.

Other than that, you fall back on that one rule of doping that you are so fond of and used just yesterday. 'Proof of doping is by winning a race.'

It doesn't hinge on Leinders.
If you win the Tour in the fashion Sky did, in a sport such as cycling, a simple, justified, common sense inference is to assume doping is involved. It's about learning from historical facts. Inference. Deduction.
Then, and only then, the 'Leinders'-dot becomes relevant. And the only thing it does is confirm what common sense stipulated way before his name surfaced.
Winning the TdF in that fashion is no more proof of doping than going to war is proof of the claim that innocent people will get killed. It's about learning from history and historical facts. A legitimate technique in many sciences. Not considered empirical proof, but historical evidence strong enough to draw plausible conclusions about a current state of affairs.

 

[Darryl Webster]

No matter how ya cut it, dodgy staff, dodgy riders, dodgy excuses, dodgy levels of domination, dodgy levels of improvement... dodgy levels of " transparency"....to deny there is nothing "iffy" about Sky..and BC for that matter is to deny the sports history that in almost all cases of domination in most every decade the dominating team has not been clean.
And unless your one those naive fools that believes doping ended circa 2005 then its totally defying all logic that today,s most dominating team is doing it all clean.
The drugs DO work and work well.
The " marginal gains" explanations have more holes in em than a bloody sieve.

 

[ebandit]

wind up hog chronicle

But you are doing a good Phil Liggett impression with Sky!

“There’s no proof, 500, 500….”

wrong again............no-one here is saying no proof...............what is essential to finding out the truth is more information

as much as members hope team sky are unlikely to be responding to issues
raised here.............will it be long before someone like kimmage / walsh
ask precisely what was leinders role at team sky

still no evidence of team sky being doped but not good for their image

saying team sky are doping because of leinder's presence is like saying
all ex-dopers at garmin are still doping

leinders would not call the shots........just carry out instructions

 

[sniper]

No matter how ya cut it, dodgy staff, dodgy riders, dodgy excuses, dodgy levels of domination, dodgy levels of improvement... dodgy levels of " transparency"....to deny there is nothing "iffy" about Sky..and BC for that matter is to deny the sports history that in almost all cases of domination in most every decade the dominating team has not been clean.
And unless your one those naive fools that believes doping ended circa 2005 then its totally defying all logic that today,s most dominating team is doing it all clean.
The drugs DO work and work well.
The " marginal gains" explanations have more holes in em than a bloody sieve.

thanks Darryl, excellent elaboration on my previous post
The boldface is really key here.

 

[pmcg76]

wrong again............no-one here is saying no proof...............what is essential to finding out the truth is more information

as much as members hope team sky are unlikely to be responding to issues
raised here.............will it be long before someone like kimmage / walsh
ask precisely what was leinders role at team sky

still no evidence of team sky being doped but not good for their image

saying team sky are doping because of leinder's presence is like saying
all ex-dopers at garmin are still doping

leinders would not call the shots........just carry out instructions

I think Kimmage is already asking those questions which is why Wiggins's has been getting so snarky. This is what raises people's suspicions even more.

Yes, perhaps Leinders is not doing any doping at SKY but it doesn't look good at all.

 

[The Hitch]

Ferminal has it right.
It does hinge on Leinders. He is the lynchpin..'

So.Chris froome. Who in.a year went from not even.being considered for.the tour de France to strongest rider in the race.

According to you if.lienders doesn't.confess to.doping sky, all questions surrounding that improvement disappear? And dodgers and portes performances too for that matter. Without.lienders those.performances cease to be eybrow raising and shame on anyone who dares think-" hang on..."

?

 

[Joachim]

Overwhelming? So Johan Brailsford confession.



You have got to admit dude it stinks?

Any kind of witness testimony would do. Any.

 

[Parker]

If Sky hired Leinders to do doping then they would have known about what he did at Rabobank. So they would have known at the time of hiring that Rabo were facing a couple of investigations and court cases and he would almost certainly be exposed.
So why of all the doctors available pick the one they knew was the most likely to be exposed?

And knowing this why make sure he was widely mentioned on their website and quoted in the press.

And after all that they didn't even take him to the Grand Tours where on site doping is needed most.

If they were hiring him for doping they did everything wrong. Stupidly and recklessly. It doesn't make sense.

Somebody screwing up the background check is far easier to understand.

 

[WinterRider]

If Sky hired Leinders to do doping then they would have known about what he did at Rabobank. So they would have known at the time of hiring that Rabo were facing a couple of investigations and court cases and he would almost certainly be exposed.
So why of all the doctors available pick the one they knew was the most likely to be exposed?

And knowing this why make sure he was widely mentioned on their website and quoted in the press.

And after all that they didn't even take him to the Grand Tours where on site doping is needed most.

If they were hiring him for doping they did everything wrong. Stupidly and recklessly. It doesn't make sense.

Somebody screwing up the background check is far easier to understand.

Was Lance Armstrong's behaviour any less reckless? Working with Ferarri, even after he was publicly called out on is, and Ferarri banned in Italy?

People seem to think that cyclists and their managers are geniuses for evading anti-doping, but given who is in charge even a monkey could run a successful doping program in procycling, so why be surprised when they do stupid things?

 

[Parker]

Was Lance Armstrong's behaviour any less reckless? Working with Ferarri, even after he was publicly called out on is, and Ferarri banned in Italy?

First of all that was a decade ago. Times and attitudes change. Secondly he worked with him for a couple of year's before anyone found out. He didn't willingly make it public. And he wasn't officially with the team like Leinders was.

 

[The Hitch]

And after all that they didn't even take him to the Grand Tours where on site doping is needed most.

If anti doping really is getting better then riders may begin to start relying more on ooc doping than in competition. Kind of like the east Germans stopped doping in competition after one of their athletes failed a test.

If they were hiring him for doping they did everything wrong. Stupidly and recklessly. It doesn't make sense.
Somebody screwing up the background check is far easier to understand.

If we are talking what does and doesn't make sense now, explain how wiggos immense change of attitude towards doping, from wondering if he will ever come.back to the sport in 2007 to.denying its a.problem from 2009 onwards, makes any sense of he doesn't have something to hide?

 

[thehog]

I’m wrong.

Leinders assisted in implementing zero tolerance whilst at Sky. He ignored the 12 years of doping experience he gained at Rabobank and only his skill in other areas…. like saddelsores.

Sky are not doping. 100% clean. The fact that Froome came from nowhere is completely normal. The fact that no one could attack or even out last Rogers is down to clean riding and Leinders ignoring his expertise in doping and riding the team of pesky saddle sores.

 

[Parker]

€
If we are talking what does and doesn't make sense now, explain how wiggos immense change of attitude towards doping, from wondering if he will ever come.back to the sport in 2007 to.denying its a.problem from 2009 onwards, makes any sense of he doesn't have something to hide?

There's been no immense change. In 2007 his comments were a mostly emotional reaction to his Cofidis being kicked off the Tour. They were also informed by having the "deux vitesse" mantra drummed into him by a succession of unambitious French teams.
By 2009 he had seen clean success at more progressive HTC and Garmin and started to make an effort himself. Realising that things weren't as bad as his previously said, not having the anger of 2007 and not wanting to be 'the designated anti-doping spokesman' he preferred to talk about his own cycling which was now worth talking about.

Of course he may have decided to start doping, taken a look at all the teams and decided Garmin was the best place to do it.

 

[will10]

Congratulations. You've just described doping at Rabobank.

When you can tell us something about Sky, please do.

Do you think Leinders' past is relevant to his time at Sky?

 

[ebandit]

indeed

I’m wrong.

yes! hoggie you could be completely wrong..................shame you keep
delivering posts stating thoughts as fact

better to steer a middle ground until all facts are known

if sky are doping sooner or later we will know................until then i see no
reason not to believe team sky's statement of no doping

but they could be feeding us all lies?

 

[pmcg76]

If Sky hired Leinders to do doping then they would have known about what he did at Rabobank. So they would have known at the time of hiring that Rabo were facing a couple of investigations and court cases and he would almost certainly be exposed.
So why of all the doctors available pick the one they knew was the most likely to be exposed?

And knowing this why make sure he was widely mentioned on their website and quoted in the press.

And after all that they didn't even take him to the Grand Tours where on site doping is needed most.

If they were hiring him for doping they did everything wrong. Stupidly and recklessly. It doesn't make sense.

Somebody screwing up the background check is far easier to understand.

For a team of SKYs status, that is one monumental ****-up of a background check.

SKY had two riders and a DS (Hayman, Flecha & De Jongh) who all were at Rabobank with Leinders so I find it incredibly hard to believe they were not consulted. Even the most basic business would have the common sense to do that.

Now maybe the former Rabos lied about Leinders or claimed to have no knowledge but they were all at Rabobank at a time when doping was acceptable in the team so to claim ignorance seems a bit far-fetched.

To be honest, somebody was not telling the truth at some point which does not reflect well on SKY.

 

[Parker]

For a team of SKYs status, that is one monumental ****-up of a background check.

SKY had two riders and a DS (Hayman, Flecha & De Jongh) who all were at Rabobank with Leinders so I find it incredibly hard to believe they were not consulted. Even the most basic business would have the common sense to do that.

Now maybe the former Rabos lied about Leinders or claimed to have no knowledge but they were all at Rabobank at a time when doping was acceptable in the team so to claim ignorance seems a bit far-fetched.

To be honest, somebody was not telling the truth at some point which does not reflect well on SKY.

All quite possible. Of the three Rabo, one has since admitted to doping and another has moved teams. It's possible that Hayman, who has never riden the Tour, and very few GTs was completely out of the loop.

 

[thehog]

I'm glad so many here are comfortable with the fact that Dr. Lienders injected riders with EPO. Here's me thinking cycling moved on. Apparently it's ok that young cyclists were injected a dangerous and illegal substance by a medial Doctor.

Cycling had come a long way....