Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 990 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
proof

DirtyWorks said:
Lienders left Rabbobank because management decided they weren't going to dope any more. Oh, but I'm sure that's not proof of anything.

this proves that leinders did not call the shots

he worked to team protocol........................DB / sky decided ZTP

leinders did his job within those guidelines

Mark L
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Benotti69 said:
Your hair splitting will just go the same way all your thread back forths go. Yawn.
It already has.

And always will if you cannot come up with a plausible scenario - do not blame me because your argument is so weak it falls apart like a cheap suit.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Perhaps - but then that would require a fair degree of expertise, expense and a lot of deceit to implement.
that brings us back to who and how is it being done?

I agree with most of what you are saying, but I find the idea that if one doesn't know how they are doing it then (and I'm inferring here) their argument falls apart to be specious.

I have never known how teams doped their riders until well after the fact, yet it remains true that ultimately all of those riders were doping. Any number of previously known frameworks for doping could apply, or a new one we don't know about.

Just doesn't stand up to an examination of the logic. Maybe my inference is wrong, but I don't think it is.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
red_flanders said:
I agree with most of what you are saying, but I find the idea that if one doesn't know how they are doing it then (and I'm inferring here) their argument falls apart to be specious.

I have never known how teams doped their riders until well after the fact, yet it remains true that ultimately all of those riders were doping. Any number of previously known frameworks for doping could apply, or a new one we don't know about.

Just doesn't stand up to an examination of the logic. Maybe my inference is wrong, but I don't think it is.

I will let you decide on what to infer. All I can do is be as clear as I can in my view.

I think Sky are doping, like you it defies logic and eh, see that's all I have.
So I am quite happy to say my arguement is pretty weak and does not stand up to scrutiny.

What I find odd is that the people who are adamant cannot then articulate a reasonable scenario - pretty much all they have is that it's a no brainer, etc etc and slam anyone who does not agree.
Not a very convincing argument and worse it actually makes it easier to dismiss people as crazy or conspiracy theorists.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
The sport has a culture of doping, it always has and to race claan was an extreme exception so for anyone to call what major teams are doing conspiracy theories is really ignoring what we already know about this sport and that is it is dirty from top to bottom.

The people running this sport were there all through some of the most incredulous doping era and expect fans to believe they dropped their syringes for bread and water.

Please stop feeding the BS PR machine that gets rolled out to dismiss people when a doped performance is questioned.

Fans dont have access to the in and outs of the teams and their programs, why should we be expected to have evidence of Froome's (or any other) doping.

What we have to go on is pretty solid stuff. The sport never changed its spots and for those who believe that since Armstrong left the stage the sport experienced a clean revolution really are the ones who the barking conspiracy theorists.
 
ebandit said:
this proves that leinders did not call the shots

he worked to team protocol........................DB / sky decided ZTP

leinders did his job within those guidelines

Mark L

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion.

If it was true Leinders was indifferent about PED's, he would have just gone about whatever a team doctor does with no PED assistance at Rabbo/Blanco. Instead, Rabbo changes policy and Leinders leaves.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Benotti69 said:
The sport has a culture of doping, it always has and to race claan was an extreme exception so for anyone to call what major teams are doing conspiracy theories is really ignoring what we already know about this sport and that is it is dirty from top to bottom.

The people running this sport were there all through some of the most incredulous doping era and expect fans to believe they dropped their syringes for bread and water.

Please stop feeding the BS PR machine that gets rolled out to dismiss people when a doped performance is questioned.

Fans dont have access to the in and outs of the teams and their programs, why should we be expected to have evidence of Froome's (or any other) doping.

What we have to go on is pretty solid stuff. The sport never changed its spots and for those who believe that since Armstrong left the stage the sport experienced a clean revolution really are the ones who the barking conspiracy theorists.

Hi Benotti - just a reminder, I believe Sky are doping and I am trying to tease out how they are doing it.

I pointed out that your type of argument makes it easy for people to dismiss those who believe Sky are doping (people like me) as crazy or a conspiracy theory. I am starting to think you are a double-agent.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
lol at the Leinders worked to the ZTP guidelines.

Like saying Ferrari could work to ZTP guidelines.

Or that Lance could sign a ZTP declaration and not still win races with the help of same.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Hi Benotti - just a reminder, I believe Sky are doping and I am trying to tease out how they are doing it.

The Clinic is not the judge, jury and jailor of the sport. I dont care too much to waste my time trying to tease out the how. That they are, is obvious.

Dr. Maserati said:
I pointed out that your type of argument makes it easy for people to dismiss those who believe Sky are doping (people like me) as crazy or a conspiracy theory. I am starting to think you are a double-agent.

Those people who wish to believe their heros are clean will until the positive test (even then some will try and dismiss that) or the 'Oprah' moment when their hero spills the beans.

Those who do recognise the reality of what they are watching either accept the dark side of the sport and give it a 'meh' at best, ignore it or like those in here post their opinions on the doping.

Looking to the clinic to tease out serious facts to prove who is doing what is for the birds. The clinic does get the odd poster like RR with some inside info, but they are as rare as a clean TdF winner.

So i post my personal opinion. If you dont like my 'style' ignore it, because i will not bother with the vortex in the future.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
I will let you decide on what to infer. All I can do is be as clear as I can in my view.

I think Sky are doping, like you it defies logic and eh, see that's all I have.
So I am quite happy to say my arguement is pretty weak and does not stand up to scrutiny.

What I find odd is that the people who are adamant cannot then articulate a reasonable scenario - pretty much all they have is that it's a no brainer, etc etc and slam anyone who does not agree.
Not a very convincing argument and worse it actually makes it easier to dismiss people as crazy or conspiracy theorists.

And there you have it. Twenty thousand posts perfectly distilled into three paragraphs. I think Dr Mas has just finally emerged as the winner of this thread!
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Benotti69 said:
The Clinic is not the judge, jury and jailor of the sport. I dont care too much to waste my time trying to tease out the how. That they are, is obvious.
Indeed - the Clinic is a forum. A place to discuss cyclings dark side.

The highlighted is noted - then you have given your statement of opinion, we get it. Now let me and the other members try and actually see how Sky are doing it.

Benotti69 said:
Those people who wish to believe their heros are clean will until the positive test (even then some will try and dismiss that) or the 'Oprah' moment when their hero spills the beans.

Those who do recognise the reality of what they are watching either accept the dark side of the sport and give it a 'meh' at best, ignore it or like those in here post their opinions on the doping.

Looking to the clinic to tease out serious facts to prove who is doing what is for the birds. The clinic does get the odd poster like RR with some inside info, but they are as rare as a clean TdF winner.

So i post my personal opinion. If you dont like my 'style' ignore it, because i will not bother with the vortex in the future.
You are more than entitled to post your personal opinion.

In fact, that is what I hope to encourage - more participation in this thread.
But when you do post, I am more than entitled to query it. that is exactly how forums work. If you do not like it, then tough.
If you wish to post random statements that no-one can question, then start up a blog or something.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
3
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Indeed - the Clinic is a forum. A place to discuss cyclings dark side.

The highlighted is noted - then you have given your statement of opinion, we get it. Now let me and the other members try and actually see how Sky are doing it.


You are more than entitled to post your personal opinion.

In fact, that is what I hope to encourage - more participation in this thread.
But when you do post, I am more than entitled to query it. that is exactly how forums work. If you do not like it, then tough.
If you wish to post random statements that no-one can question, then start up a blog or something.

So how do you think they are doing it?

Isnt the freelance doc more risky if the team dont know what you are doing and also police investigations more likely?
 
RownhamHill said:
And there you have it. Twenty thousand posts perfectly distilled into three paragraphs. I think Dr Mas has just finally emerged as the winner of this thread!

So all posts which say sky dope are the same? Libertine Seguros's award winning essays are the equivalent of the Bennoti posts to which Dr Mas is responding?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
the sceptic said:
So how do you think they are doing it?
I don't know - thats what I am trying to work out, but...
the sceptic said:
Isnt the freelance doc more risky if the team dont know what you are doing and also police investigations more likely?
We know who the Docs are that are employed by Sky, I don't see an obvious candidate as a needle man there.

If - a big if - the management are in on the doping then since Leinders has been outed I would presume they would put an extra bit of distance between the doping Doc and them. Therefore if a rider gets caught, they are hung out on their own. And if the management are not in on the doping, then obviously the riders have to use outside contacts.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
The Hitch said:
So all posts which say sky dope are the same? Libertine Seguros's award winning essays are the equivalent of the Bennoti posts to which Dr Mas is responding?

Agree. Libertine and guys like Hrotha and RR yesterday put credible reasoning behind their strong doubts about Sky/Froome and are well worth reading. I take their points on board and they could easily be bang on the money.

I know the sport isn't clean to a sufficient standard but I just don't believe in the mantra "everyone now is a doper because of the history of the sport." There is no reasoning behind saying it, just a statement of faith, knowing full well you can never be proved wrong even if a rider is indeed clean. It's a doping only view to sport and I don't think you can be credible with your opinion when it's so predictable and repetitive, for me it eventually just loses it's effect. There's nothing constructive to it.
 
gooner said:
Agree. Libertine and guys like Hrotha and RR yesterday put credible reasoning behind their strong doubts about Sky/Froome and are well worth reading. I take their points on board and they could easily be bang on the money.

I know the sport isn't clean to a sufficient standard but I just don't believe in the mantra "everyone now is a doper because of the history of the sport." There is no reasoning behind saying it, just a statement of faith, knowing full well you can never be proved wrong even if a rider is indeed clean. It's a doping only view to sport and I don't think you can be credible with your opinion when it's so predictable and repetitive, for me it eventually just loses it's effect. There's nothing constructive to it.
You could perhaps be right about that. But really, that has nothing to do with the truth about Sky.
 
Jan 30, 2014
46
0
0
gooner said:
Agree. Libertine and guys like Hrotha and RR yesterday put credible reasoning behind their strong doubts about Sky/Froome and are well worth reading. I take their points on board and they could easily be bang on the money.

I know the sport isn't clean to a sufficient standard but I just don't believe in the mantra "everyone now is a doper because of the history of the sport." There is no reasoning behind saying it, just a statement of faith, knowing full well you can never be proved wrong even if a rider is indeed clean. It's a doping only view to sport and I don't think you can be credible with your opinion when it's so predictable and repetitive, for me it eventually just loses it's effect. There's nothing constructive to it.[/QUOTE

If the sport is not clean to a sufficient standard isn't it reasonable to assume that the teams/riders who have been the most successful are the more likely candidates to be doping, add into that the transformations of Froome, Porte and to a slightly lesser extent Wiggins and I just don't see how if you accept doping is still a problem Sky are not part of that problem.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
Col Okey said:
gooner said:
Agree. Libertine and guys like Hrotha and RR yesterday put credible reasoning behind their strong doubts about Sky/Froome and are well worth reading. I take their points on board and they could easily be bang on the money.

I know the sport isn't clean to a sufficient standard but I just don't believe in the mantra "everyone now is a doper because of the history of the sport." There is no reasoning behind saying it, just a statement of faith, knowing full well you can never be proved wrong even if a rider is indeed clean. It's a doping only view to sport and I don't think you can be credible with your opinion when it's so predictable and repetitive, for me it eventually just loses it's effect. There's nothing constructive to it.[/QUOTE

If the sport is not clean to a sufficient standard isn't it reasonable to assume that the teams/riders who have been the most successful are the more likely candidates to be doping, add into that the transformations of Froome, Porte and to a slightly lesser extent Wiggins and I just don't see how if you accept doping is still a problem Sky are not part of that problem.[/QUOTE

Agreed......
 
Generally...

People that are known to have doped are not at their previous level.

People that were suspected to have doped are not at their previous level.

Are there any convicted dopers who have in the last year or two remained absolutely at the top of their game? I wouldn't count 2012 Contador as he came into the Vuelta to win it on the back of a lengthy layoff, and that was as much of a tactical win as a show of strength - Purito was the one who blew it.

The only Sky rider facing a passport violation was seemingly at an unnaturally high level before he signed for them, taken at Limburg ahead of the 2012 Worlds. If a doped JTL could finish a hilly classic type of race only a matter of seconds down on his first ever 250km+ distance, why didn't Sky put him on their programme for the Ardennes classics? Why did his blood passport figures show 'normal' levels for 2013 compared to 2012?

If people are doping LESS, then cleanER athletes will rise up the order. Ok, Horner uses that as his own defence but in his case surely it also raises a few questions. If he is doping, and Nibali is too (as everyone is, right?) surely Nibbles should be getting a refund on his own programme if someone 50% older than him can beat him.
 
argyllflyer said:
Are there any convicted dopers who have in the last year or two remained absolutely at the top of their game?

alejandro-valverde-167.jpg
 
Jan 30, 2014
46
0
0
argyllflyer said:
Generally...

People that are known to have doped are not at their previous level.

People that were suspected to have doped are not at their previous level.

Are there any convicted dopers who have in the last year or two remained absolutely at the top of their game? I wouldn't count 2012 Contador as he came into the Vuelta to win it on the back of a lengthy layoff, and that was as much of a tactical win as a show of strength - Purito was the one who blew it.

The only Sky rider facing a passport violation was seemingly at an unnaturally high level before he signed for them, taken at Limburg ahead of the 2012 Worlds. If a doped JTL could finish a hilly classic type of race only a matter of seconds down on his first ever 250km+ distance, why didn't Sky put him on their programme for the Ardennes classics? Why did his blood passport figures show 'normal' levels for 2013 compared to 2012?

If people are doping LESS, then cleanER athletes will rise up the order. Ok, Horner uses that as his own defence but in his case surely it also raises a few questions. If he is doping, and Nibali is too (as everyone is, right?) surely Nibbles should be getting a refund on his own programme if someone 50% older than him can beat him.

JTL as I understand it was a Sky rider in all but name from Aug/Sept 2012 and if he was doping at the worlds then Sky/BC have questions to answer, as for the rest of your question I don't know but it does strike me that JTL had criticised SKY's training methods claiming overtraining had made him unwell.
If (and I cant believe I wrote if)Horner is doping and getting away with it why would everybody else ride clean?
If you compare Horner and Nibali I think them both doping and Horner winning is more believable than them both being clean and Horner winning.
Finally how do we know cleaner athletes are winning as Froome said "if I am winning it shows cycling is clean" but Froome post transformation could have climbed with the heads of state in some of the dirtiest tours ever. Climbing speeds and overall average speeds have not fallen Froome just speeded up
 
Jan 30, 2014
46
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Pat McQuaid was President in 2012 & 2013. This is indeed a fact.
Also a fact, he no longer is President. Does this mean there will be a significant drop off in performance for Sky? Yes or no.

If it is yes, then thats cool. The cheaters have been thwarted.
If no - then the introduction of McQuaid in to this convo has been a complete waste of time.

Do I think Cookson is going to clean up cycling? I'm going to say no.
Was McQuaid corrupt? yes or no Did SKY dominate under a corrupt UCI president? yes or no
 
Col Okey said:
If the sport is not clean to a sufficient standard isn't it reasonable to assume that the teams/riders who have been the most successful are the more likely candidates to be doping, add into that the transformations of Froome, Porte and to a slightly lesser extent Wiggins and I just don't see how if you accept doping is still a problem Sky are not part of that problem.

Why to a lesser extent Wiggins? His was the most extreme of the lot.