Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[sittingbison]

When I saw Wiggins proudly telling the world his "love" for Lance & G Thomas telling the world that USADA should just leave Lance alone I knew the world had lost itself....

Link please thehog.

Del1984 and Pedro took me to task for this outrageous statement three weeks after a post I made as a generic poster and before I was a mod. Mysteriously all references were no longer on google, although I have no doubt Rupert's oily tentacles can't reach that far

 

[nomapnocompass]

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/jul/25/tour-de-france-2010-lance-armstrong

"I love him," Wiggins said. "I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense. Even his strongest critics have benefitted from him. I don't think this sport will ever realise what he's brought it or how big he's made it.

 

[bobbins]

I'm just frustrated for Brailsford, who clearly could not have known about Rogers' background. Only a few insiders close to the team had ever heard of Freiburg or had suspicions about T-Mobile.

Dave B knew full well. Whilst watching the Tour when Rogers was riding for T-mobile, Dave B called him a cheat in a room full of people so wasn't particularly subtle about it either.

 

[Biggut]

Can anybody explain to me why the "evidence" against Rodgers is that he must have been doping at Sky because he had his best year there. Yet with JTL people are arguing his doping was under Sky when he had already won Het Var and Mediterranean well before they were involved. Surely either the Rodgers evidence is invalid or those who rely on this statement must also believe that JTL was doping prior to Sky.

 

[Ferminal]

Not sure of anyone who thinks JTL has doped in 2013, would have to be very few. Obviously when you have a brilliant (relative) season and then can't finish a race it smells like doping one season and not the next.

Rogers "must have" been doping at Sky because he is a long-term doper (as per working with Ferrari 2005/2006) so when he reproduced his best form from 2005/2006/2009 in 2012 there is only really one conclusion (unless you believe in the Sky miracle).

Not that either of these cases suggest management instructed doping at Sky, just that signing pretty obvious dopers (well maybe JTL wasn't obvious to "everyone" though they should have sought his UCI blood results) does not align well with their publicly stated position(s).

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Dave B knew full well. Whilst watching the Tour when Rogers was riding for T-mobile, Dave B called him a cheat in a room full of people so wasn't particularly subtle about it either.

Link ?

 

[RownhamHill]

I don't agree with everything Roy Keane says, but there was never a more true comment he said regarding Keys.

What did Roy Keane say?

EDIT: Sorry just seen that you posted it later in the thread! I kind of love Roy Keane in a slightly uncomfortable way.

Is also funny some of the other posts on this. Rogers getting a positive for Clen in China, when riding for a different team, 10 months after Sky unceremoniously pushed him out, is now stone cold evidence of him doping at Sky, as is JTL getting popped for a passport violation for a blood value from round about the time when, riding for a British conti-team, he won Sky's home tour, which at that point they were desperate to win, a result which wasn't at all completely embarrassing for Team Sky, and after coming off a string of great results over the last six months, and shortly before winning a big contract with Team Sky and subsequently declining into pack fodder that could barely win a race.

Maybe Sky fans are 'silent' because they're too busy laughing at the logic?

 

[Avoriaz]

I don't think anyone can argue that, because Keys covered the TdF for C4 for many years he must know about cycling. Were this the case then the threads on Harmon and Kirkby in the PRR section would be very short indeed....

 

[Avoriaz]

Can anybody explain to me why the "evidence" against Rodgers is that he must have been doping at Sky because he had his best year there. Yet with JTL people are arguing his doping was under Sky when he had already won Het Var and Mediterranean well before they were involved. Surely either the Rodgers evidence is invalid or those who rely on this statement must also believe that JTL was doping prior to Sky.

Rogers: best year at Sky = doping at Sky

Tiernan-Locke: worst year at sky = doping at Sky

So obvious, how can you miss this?

 

[Benotti69]

Link please thehog.

Del1984 and Pedro took me to task for this outrageous statement three weeks after a post I made as a generic poster and before I was a mod. Mysteriously all references were no longer on google, although I have no doubt Rupert's oily tentacles can't reach that far

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/jul/25/tour-de-france-2010-lance-armstrong

"I love him," Wiggins said. "I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense. Even his strongest critics have benefitted from him. I don't think this sport will ever realise what he's brought it or how big he's made it.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/wales/18442349

Geraint Thomas hopes seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong clears his name of doping allegations to protect cycling from further damage to its reputation.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Rogers: best year at Sky = doping at Sky

Tiernan-Locke: worst year at sky = doping at Sky

So obvious, how can you miss this?

I know you read english so if you could care to read with your stiff upper lip and all read what ferminal posted.

 

[del1962]

I know you read english so if you could care to read with your stiff upper lip and all read what ferminal posted.

Ferminal posts a lot of this, Avioraz wasn't replying to him, perhaps you could explain what your are on about?

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

This post ...

Not sure of anyone who thinks JTL has doped in 2013, would have to be very few. Obviously when you have a brilliant (relative) season and then can't finish a race it smells like doping one season and not the next.

Rogers "must have" been doping at Sky because he is a long-term doper (as per working with Ferrari 2005/2006) so when he reproduced his best form from 2005/2006/2009 in 2012 there is only really one conclusion (unless you believe in the Sky miracle).

Not that either of these cases suggest management instructed doping at Sky, just that signing pretty obvious dopers (well maybe JTL wasn't obvious to "everyone" though they should have sought his UCI blood results) does not align well with their publicly stated position(s).

 

[Benotti69]

Rogers: best year at Sky = doping at Sky

Tiernan-Locke: worst year at sky = doping at Sky

So obvious, how can you miss this?

If only it was that simple.

 

[Benotti69]

Not sure of anyone who thinks JTL has doped in 2013, would have to be very few. Obviously when you have a brilliant (relative) season and then can't finish a race it smells like doping one season and not the next.

Rogers "must have" been doping at Sky because he is a long-term doper (as per working with Ferrari 2005/2006) so when he reproduced his best form from 2005/2006/2009 in 2012 there is only really one conclusion (unless you believe in the Sky miracle).

Not that either of these cases suggest management instructed doping at Sky, just that signing pretty obvious dopers (well maybe JTL wasn't obvious to "everyone" though they should have sought his UCI blood results) does not align well with their publicly stated position(s).

JTL could have been a poor responder to the Sky 'marignal gains'. Or maybe he is on a trial season before getting the 'full gains'.

Either way plenty have responded well to 'programs' and others have needed much more of a 'program' than others to get the benefit, e.g. Riis.

 

[Avoriaz]

I know you read english so if you could care to read with your stiff upper lip and all read what ferminal posted.

One was actually replying to Biggut, old chap.

 

[Biggut]

I'm a bit perplexed as to why ferminal would make reference to "well maybe JTL wasn't obvious to "everyone" though they should have sought his UCI blood results)", he didn't have any bl;ood results for them to obtain to be suspicious about.

 

[the sceptic]

Rogers: best year at Sky = doping at Sky

Tiernan-Locke: worst year at sky = doping at Sky

So obvious, how can you miss this?

Stop trolling and deflecting.

I am still waiting for a skybot to say whether they think he was dopings at sky or not.

 

[The Hitch]

Can anybody explain to me why the "evidence" against Rodgers is that he must have been doping at Sky because he had his best year there. Yet with JTL people are arguing his doping was under Sky when he had already won Het Var and Mediterranean well before they were involved. Surely either the Rodgers evidence is invalid or those who rely on this statement must also believe that JTL was doping prior to Sky.

No one has argued jtl must have been doping at sky. The issue with jtl is that they hired someone who their own research should have identified as suspicious and it therefore challenges the point that they really are this leave no stone unturned 100% anti doping team they claim to be.

 

[The Hitch]

Some of these posts are making important adjustments to what has actually been said in order to make a point.

Is also funny some of the other posts on this. Rogers getting a positive for Clen in China, when riding for a different team, 10 months after Sky unceremoniously pushed him out, is now stone cold evidence of him doping at Sky, l

The case against Rogers was already there and has nothing to do with his clen.

The clenbuterol positives only means anything to those who choose to play by the "innocent until proven positive" rules. To me Rogers was always guilty as ****. But for all those who would

 

[simoni]

No one has argued jtl must have been doping at sky. The issue with jtl is that they hired someone who their own research should have identified as suspicious and it therefore challenges the point that they really are this leave no stone unturned 100% anti doping team they claim to be.

Exactly.

And as a brit (which presumably makes me a skybot although I'm on the fence and always have been), I think he was doping at Sky and strongly suspect that others were/are too. However, I'd be very surprised if it was with the knowledge of the management/employed coaching staff. I think Sky are guilty of naivity and incompetence rather than being bent from the top down.

 

[Franklin]

Can anybody explain to me why the "evidence" against Rodgers is that he must have been doping at Sky because he had his best year there.

The argument against Michael Rogers is a bit more complex than you say it is
But the answer is as usual... let's look at the facts now shal we?

1. MR was named in Freiburg scandal.
2. He rode in two teams that have been very suspect with doping (Mapei/Q-Step, T-Mobile)
3. In the year on the cleanest team of them all he posts the best numbers of his life.
4. The year he leaves the cleanest team ever he starts doping again.

Yet with JTL people are arguing his doping was under Sky when he had already won Het Var and Mediterranean well before they were involved. Surely either the Rodgers evidence is invalid or those who rely on this statement must also believe that JTL was doping prior to Sky.

Again let's look at the facts.

1. Everyone here knows and discusses that JTL almost certainly doped prior to he was involved with Sky. You know this or you are not really up to date with the whole story.
2. The rumors and the fingers towards JTL were already there when he was hired. Yet DB in the goodness of his heart decided to hire yet another controversial rider.

That you try to lump these cases on one heap is a nice try, but this is not supported by this thread. So either you are provoking or you should actually try to read it and check the cold hard facts.

It's not so hard

 

[Morbius]

4. The year he leaves the cleanest team ever he starts doping again.

Have his performances this year demonstrated this? Whatever his previous doping history, the accidental contamination theory is not that far-fetched.

 

[Franklin]

Have his performances this year demonstrated this? Whatever his previous doping history, the accidental contamination theory is not that far-fetched.

True enough

 

[SundayRider]

Have his performances this year demonstrated this? Whatever his previous doping history, the accidental contamination theory is not that far-fetched.

This time he 'might' have an excuse. Probably passed loads of tests that he should not have. Look athe 2004 olympic TT everyone in the top 10 has a chequered history.