Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[RownhamHill]

Very true. You had JV dropping hints that Horner's profile looked like a Tour pancours.

He releases it and silence.

Where are all the pseudo scientists?

Now Norner is doping but his bio said jack and not conclusive on a whole lot other than the passport is a big fat joke.

So Froome needs to pony up as does Brailsford.

Come on lads, lets 'ave it!

I'm a bit lost. If the passport is a great big joke, and as Froome has never had any action taken against him on accounts of his passport, then it's probably a safe assumption that if he did release his data there would be no smoking gun there. Right?

But's it's also a safe assumption that releasing the data wouldn't stop the accusations him from people like TheHog who believe he is doping. (See the Horner example above as to why I've made that assumption.)

So with that in mind, exactly where is the benefit from Froome releasing his data? At best he's going to prove to people who already believe he's doping that the passport is a 'joke' (because it doesn't give the answer they want).

 

[sniper]

I'm a bit lost. If the passport is a great big joke, and as Froome has never had any action taken against him on accounts of his passport, then it's probably a safe assumption that if he did release his data there would be no smoking gun there. Right?

wrong assumption, obviously.

 

[RownhamHill]

wrong assumption, obviously.

So you think that he'd release a profile that showed he'd been doping, and that the UCI had either completely missed that or covered it up?

 

[JRanton]

I'm a bit lost. If the passport is a great big joke, and as Froome has never had any action taken against him on accounts of his passport, then it's probably a safe assumption that if he did release his data there would be no smoking gun there. Right?

But's it's also a safe assumption that releasing the data wouldn't stop the accusations him from people like TheHog who believe he is doping. (See the Horner example above as to why I've made that assumption.)

So with that in mind, exactly where is the benefit from Froome releasing his data? At best he's going to prove to people who already believe he's doping that the passport is a 'joke' (because it doesn't give the answer they want).

Maybe he's been called to explain his values and we just haven't heard about it? He has good old Badzhilla as his excuse.

 

[sniper]

So you think that he'd release a profile that showed he'd been doping, and that the UCI had either completely missed that or covered it up?

i don't know, but your assumption, imo, was clearly wrong.
the fact that a heavy duty doper like horner has more or less unsuspicious BP values doesn't automaticaly imply Froome's pre-2011vuelta data are unsuspicious as well.
It's a safer assumption that Froome's pre2011vuelta values are suspicious (when put against his post2011vuelta data). That's the only plausible explanation for why Sky don't make them public.

 

[The Hitch]

So you think that he'd release a profile that showed he'd been doping, and that the UCI had either completely missed that or covered it up?

The former gt winner who got mentioned by the secret pro and later by Alex oates, seems to have gotten away with dodgy blood values.

 

[JimmyFingers]

i don't know, but your assumption, imo, was clearly wrong.
the fact that a heavy duty doper like horner has more or less unsuspicious BP values doesn't automaticaly imply Froome's pre-2011vuelta data are unsuspicious as well.
It's a safer assumption that Froome's pre2011vuelta values are suspicious (when put against his post2011vuelta data). That's the only plausible explanation for why Sky don't make them public.

That and the fact they're in no way obliged to release his records, I'm sure information like that are subject to strict confidentiality and are only released on a rider's say so. As has been pointed out, there's little gain for them to be made public and even if he did, as well as his power data, it wouldn't change opinion.

 

[sniper]

That and the fact they're in no way obliged to release his records, I'm sure information like that are subject to strict confidentiality and are only released on a rider's say so. As has been pointed out, there's little gain for them to be made public and even if he did, as well as his power data, it wouldn't change opinion.

of course there's little gain if the values are suspicious.

if Freeman is right, however, the values aren't suspicious and rather are in line with the data Grappe analyzed.
If Freeman is right, you'd always expect Sky to release the data.

 

[del1962]

The BP data is held by WADA without knowledge of who the rider is, if they think there is anything suspicious then they ask the UCI to inform the rider, apparently this has happened 40 times, of which one has been a SKY rider, who was not Froome. So it is fair to assume that there is nothing suspicious about his values.

 

[Digger]

The BP data is held by WADA without knowledge of who the rider is, if they think there is anything suspicious then they ask the UCI to inform the rider, apparently this has happened 40 times, of which one has been a SKY rider, who was not Froome. So it is fair to assume that there is nothing suspicious about his values.

Yea that worked well for lance and his 2009 values...

 

[sniper]

The BP data is held by WADA without knowledge of who the rider is, if they think there is anything suspicious then they ask the UCI to inform the rider, apparently this has happened 40 times, of which one has been a SKY rider, who was not Froome. So it is fair to assume that there is nothing suspicious about his values.

come on, del1962. don't insult our intelligence (or your own).

 

[JimmyFingers]

This forum demands blood values and SRM data yet it is clear that releasing these wouldn't do anything for the rider's credibity, yet the calls remain.

Most people here convict Froome on performance alone. Whether he rides well or not. Quite frankly on that basis I struggle to see why the team or the rider should engage in these activities at all.

 

[MatParker117]

This forum demands blood values and SRM data yet it is clear that releasing these wouldn't do anything for the rider's credibity, yet the calls remain.

Most people here convict Froome on performance alone. Whether he rides well or not. Quite frankly on that basis I struggle to see why the team or the rider should engage in these activities at all.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[del1962]

So in the light of Cooksons challege to PMQ ppl think the UCI would cover up a British riders biopassport data, makes no sense to me

 

[Catwhoorg]

of course there's little gain if the values are suspicious.

if Freeman is right, however, the values aren't suspicious and rather are in line with the data Grappe analyzed.
If Freeman is right, you'd always expect Sky to release the data.

There's little to gain if they aren't

As then people could point to 'too stable' a profile as evidence of a "well managed" blood doping program.


It really is damned if you do damned if you don't.

But in the interests of openness/transparency I do think Froome should. (and Nibali, in fact every GT podium (and sprint classification winner) since the passport began should)

 

[sniper]

This forum demands blood values and SRM data yet it is clear that releasing these wouldn't do anything for the rider's credibity, yet the calls remain.

Most people here convict Froome on performance alone. Whether he rides well or not. Quite frankly on that basis I struggle to see why the team or the rider should engage in these activities at all.

his post-vuelta2011 data didn't do much for his cred either.
why were those released? why not the whole batch?
big red flag.
don't insult me by saying you don't see that.

 

[sniper]

There's little to gain if they aren't

As then people could point to 'too stable' a profile as evidence of a "well managed" blood doping program.


It really is damned if you do damned if you don't.

But in the interests of openness/transparency I do think Froome should. (and Nibali, in fact every GT podium (and sprint classification winner) since the passport began should)

it's damned if you do half.
either release nothing or release the whole batch. to release half of it is just plain ridicule.

 

[MatParker117]

his post-vuelta2011 data didn't do much for his cred either.
why were those released? why not the whole batch?
big red flag.
don't insult me by saying you don't see that.

Sky may simply junk data after a certain amount of time.

 

[RownhamHill]

of course there's little gain if the values are suspicious.

if Freeman is right, however, the values aren't suspicious and rather are in line with the data Grappe analyzed.
If Freeman is right, you'd always expect Sky to release the data.

The point bolded is what I'm trying to explore.

Obviously I don't know what Froome's profile is like, and obviously it could be as dodgy as hell, aided and abetted by a corrupt governing body.

But I'm asking you to assume it isn't - just as a thought experiment - and imagine that he released a profile that was clean as a whistle. As Horner has just done by most accounts (please note I'm not a blood expert, I have no opinion on Horner's profile, I just note the absence of any credible blood experts seizing on anything out of the ordinary in his profile).

So imagine that.

What would happen - in my opinion - is that all the people who are accusing of Froome of doping would continue to do so, and simply use the (at this point imaginary) non-suspicious profile as proof of the blood passport's ineffectiveness, and therefore evidence of corruption and omerta permeating the sport and governing body. (As per theHog's original post about Horner that I'm responding to)

Leaving aside whether or not that would be a sound judgement call, seen from the perspective of Chris Froome/TeamSky you can see why they lack motivation to do that - they're being asked to do something that they don't need to do, by people who are already openly accusing them of cheating, in order to probably face exactly the same accusations of cheating from the same people. So a bit of hassle for no real upside.

When faced with that calculus, regardless of whether they're clean or dirty, I'd always expect Sky not to bother, to be honest.

 

[JimmyFingers]

it's damned if you do half.
either release nothing or release the whole batch. to release half of it is just plain ridicule.

Personally I think you're just looking for another stick to beat Sky with. It won't affect your opinion of the team and whether they dope or not, so why call for the data? So you can question why they don't release it, or only half of it, when if they did release it the internet conspiracists would interpret the numbers dozens of different ways.

I realise Sky try to hold themselves up as a super-clean team, it's amusing to see on the back of that they get a frequent moral examination from the fans, much more than is expected of other teams. If you're Katusha and you win a race, many might assume they're doping, shrug their shoulders and move on. With Sky the teeth start to gnash and there's calls from blood and power data, and then dark whispers about why they don't release it.

 

[RownhamHill]

Maybe he's been called to explain his values and we just haven't heard about it? He has good old Badzhilla as his excuse.

Maybe. But what's your point?

 

[sniper]

Personally I think you're just looking for another stick to beat Sky with. It won't affect your opinion of the team and whether they dope or not, so why call for the data?

i think my point is clear.
either the whole set of data, or no data.
don't insult my/your own intelligence by suggesting you don't see the red flag here.

 

[Catwhoorg]

it's damned if you do half.
either release nothing or release the whole batch. to release half of it is just plain ridicule.

I agree thats actually the worst option.

Much like Garmin did with Wiggo and Hesjedal.
three/four points plus a baseline is not a good data set.

Both should have released their entire data set if they were going to do anything.


All I can hope for is with Horner's unique move, that the future will be different.

 

[sniper]

If you're Katusha and you win a race, many might assume they're doping, shrug their shoulders and move on. With Sky the teeth start to gnash and there's calls from blood and power data, and then dark whispers about why they don't release it.

(this has been spelled out to you tons of times, but here we go again: )
katusha isn't on the high horse claiming transparency.

 

[Parker]

his post-vuelta2011 data didn't do much for his cred either.
why were those released? why not the whole batch?
big red flag.
don't insult me by saying you don't see that.

The power data from before the Vuelta is irrelevant. It's going to be lower - you just need to look at his results to know that. The extra data will tell you nothing that you can't learn from looking at CQ Ranking.
A couple of files from his best performances at Barloworld may add something, but nothing Sky has will.

Power data tells you very little about doping. Regardless of what data is released by anyone, the handful of people who will pay attention to it will continue to believe what they did before anyway. So why bother?