Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Benotti69]

Netserk posted this link in the Barry thread

Inner Ring had a decent article on it:
http://inrng.com/2014/04/tramadol/


I found it interesting that it referenced a Humans Invent podcast saying the Thomas did not use Tramadol during the last TdF.

Sky have admitted that it is occasionally used, and that seemed an obvious case for it to be legitimately used.


I still strongly believe that if you need a painkiller this strong to race, you probably should be withdrawn on medical grounds.

They dont 'need' the pain killer, but are using it as a PED .

 

[JimmyFingers]

1. Could you, please, respond to my earlier point, thanks.

2. I'm not looking a source. I'm looking a name of a cheat. And preferably, an explanation how he knows UKAD were informed, and how he knows they weren't interested. No sources required.

It's a strawman, Digger. And you're more than a smart enough guy to know that.

Look at who has actually attacked riders for speaking out in this very forum about what they know. Look at what happened Kittel when he spoke out, as it turned out absolutely f***ing correctly. Look at who told him to shut up and not be so nasty to the Turks, because they aren't 'big fish'.

That's not anti-doping, Digger (and I'm not saying you were one of them, but look who was) - that's celeb-hunting. That's not a search for truth. that's a hunt for excitement. Doping as entertainment.+

I don't find doping entertaining. I find it disgusting. and I remember rather too many of the tragedies to change my mind on that.

Some people in this forum think Sky, or parts of Sky, are doping. and that's absolutely fine and fair. Some don't, equally, fine and fair. More still genuinely don't know and publically admit as much (and I'm in that group). Equally fine and fair.

But there are some posters in here who WANT them to be doping, because its tittilating, and if they can't prove it, they entertain themselves. Not you, I suspect, you have a real passion for this stuff - but you know I'm right, if you're honest. They want the excitement, the fun - especially if it can be at the expense of riders or teams they don't like. Which is the main reason why thread gets filled with so much snarky sarcastic meaningless bullsh*t, day after god forsaken day.

I don't like Tinkoff. I don't trust the owner, I don't trust Riis (though I much prefer him to Bruyneel) and I don't trust Contador. given the latter two are proven and convicted cheats, I think that distrust is well earned. Contador has come back this year with a vengence, with the aid of a former SKY coach who i have repeted suggested should be investigated - and did before he joined Tinkoff. If de Jongh went down with Berti and Tinkoff, Sky would almost certainly fall too.

But you wil find NO post - not one - where I sarcastically assert they're doping now. Where I make accusations with no evidence, and sarcatically call out a naysayer, or someone not sure if they are back at it. Same goes for Valverde, who for inexplicable reasons I warm to (he should be life banned, like all dopers, but given that's not how it works, I just find the guy a fun racer to watch). And that is CONVICTED dopers, Digger.

I may not believe they are clean. I don't assume my hunches are evidence.

I've a bad temper, and a hair trigger on some subjects, Digger. You know that. You ASLO know that I can be pretty fair minded, and I know the lines.

I want Dopers named, and gone. Permanantly. But it's not a gameshow to me. And too many posters in here seem rather disinterested in actual anti-doping to be taking such a high horse attitude about it.

Posted for posterity, and because it's a very neat summation of the excesses of this place. There are people interested in the truth, and there are people that simply come here for a ****ing contest. And there are plenty that choose their accusations along team/rider/national alliances or bias. In that way it reminds me of the football forums I used to use. Anything was used to try to denigrate a rival team.

This place needs to work at cutting through the chaf, and not seeking arguments along 'party lines', so we ask Bobbins for a name, and various others come in on his side, even though if you're interested in anti-doping you should be asking him the same question.

And the reaction here to Kittel was shameful.

 

[Catwhoorg]

They dont 'need' the pain killer, but are using it as a PED .

They why are they using it only "occasionally" ?
That was a direct quote from the Sky Docs.


WADA is for sure seeing an uptick in its use, presumably as a PED, and I fully expect it to move to the banned list soon, but is there any specific reason you assume SKY are using it illegitimately ?

 

[Benotti69]

They why are they using it only "occasionally" ?
That was a direct quote from the Sky Docs.

I dont believe the Sky Docs.

WADA is for sure seeing an uptick in its use, presumably as a PED, and I fully expect it to move to the banned list soon, but is there any specific reason you assume SKY are using it illegitimately ?

Why would sky not use it if it is not on WADA's list.

 

[martinvickers]

Again missing the point...keeping mouth shut is one thing. He actively praised and defended a lie.

Also Wiggins has subsequently said he knew lance was doping in 2009...anyway is Wiggins braindead to think lance was came back clean, after dropping catlin...god these cyclists sure are naïve.

Not sure this is true. As I remember, he has recently said he SUSPECTED something wasn't right after Ventoux. I don't think he claimed he Knew. I am happy to be corrected with a link, but we should be accurate, no?

As for Wiggins being brain dead...I'd say he believes what he wants to believe. Especially if its coming from your new rich famous best friend.

All of which of course misses the earlier point. Wiggins is an utter, unapologetic c*ck. And what he said was stupid, and nasty, and perverse. Which I have accepted. Repeatedly. I'm not defending him in the slightest.

But the jump from there to he's a doper himself is not born of logic, but emnity. He VERY WELL MAY BE A DOPER. Absolutely But that interview isn't the proof of that. Not really even close. That's the point.

 

[martinvickers]

Still seen it many times...guy names someone...other person says what's your source.
Person replies I can't name my source.
Person then says well I call BS.

you could have seen 7 x 70 times. It doesn't mean I'm not right. You know that I am. Your original point doesn't stand up.

And again I know Bobbins and have spoken to him...he's no liar. And knows more than almost anyone else on here regarding BC.

Digger, you know your 'recommendation' not really enough here, dont'ya?

 

[bobbins]

Hey, if this guy actually has evidence, we'd love to hear it, really. Even me and MartinGT seem to agree on that. Some of us actually want dopers out. You just enjoy watching the doping game. A game that has killed young men.

I find our position rather more defensible.

This guy just said a major athlete won a competition doped, and that UKAD have been informed and deliberately did nothing. So the guy not only claims he has info on a cheat, but info on UKAD conspiracy to protect him.

Bobbins is anonymous; no comeback against him, so why not name him? Why not got to the media. Doesn't even have to be British media to begin with - You think Kimmage isn't interested in evidence of a UKAD conspiracy to silence positives? Yeah, right

He has all this info... but he won't tell UKAD anonymously, no, no, no
And he won't tell the media anonymously ...no, no, no
And now he won't tell the clinic anonymously...no, no, no

hmmm...what to think, what to think...

Not sure where you got major athlete from? Maybe you're getting carried away with yourself. I said athlete. I know UKAD have been tipped off and I know they haven't done anything. How I know is for me to know.

Take a look at how Landis got on when he came clean. Take a look at how he's doing now.

Now tell me why anyone would go public with what they know. They would never work in cycling again.

Unlike most convicted 'good guy' dopers.

Now remind me why riders shouldn't dope again?

 

[Catwhoorg]

I dont believe the Sky Docs.

Fair enough. They would have little reason to lie in this case, but that is your prerogative

Why would sky not use it if it is not on WADA's list.

Its a dangerous drug, at least habituating if not full on addictive, affects a persons senses and reasoning ability, and a person fairly quickly develops a tolerance, requiring increasing doses to get the same response.

Used cautiously a decent tool. Used injudiciously dangerous.

Mind you there are plenty of reasons not to take most drugs used as PEDs, along similar lines.

 

[JimmyFingers]

They dont 'need' the pain killer, but are using it as a PED .

Until it's on the banned list it isn't cheating, so until then the use of tramadol is a moot point. Like caffeine it is a drug that enhance performance, but at the moment it's not one that causes such an advantage or risk to health or a moral anathema that it is banned. Whether it should be or not if an entirely different discussion, and anecdotally it's use seems to be fairly rife throughout the peloton.

 

[Benotti69]

Fair enough. They would have little reason to lie in this case, but that is your prerogative

You think Sky Socs are going to admit to over use of Tramadol? I dont think so.

Its a dangerous drug, at least habituating if not full on addictive, affects a persons senses and reasoning ability, and a person fairly quickly develops a tolerance, requiring increasing doses to get the same response.

Used cautiously a decent tool. Used injudiciously dangerous.

Mind you there are plenty of reasons not to take most drugs used as PEDs, along similar lines.

Yes it is dangerous and addictive, but legal doping is still doping, imo. A team that uses legal doping will easily find 'reasons' to dope illegally, imo.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Caffeine and tramadol are very different in their risk profile.

I agree its not currently banned.

I think it should have been on the 2014 list, and sincerely hope it is on the 2015 list.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Yes it is dangerous and addictive, but legal doping is still doping, imo. A team that uses legal doping will easily find 'reasons' to dope illegally, imo.

That much is true.

Its the same gateway behavior from injectable 'iron supplements' to taking PEDS

 

[red_flanders]

So you think it's plausible that a clean rider would not just sit idly by and say nothing when he's beaten by dopers, but actively defend them and befriend them.

While at about the same time aggressively attacking the guy he knows to be telling the truth.

Seems likely...

 

[Benotti69]

That much is true.

Its the same gateway behavior from injectable 'iron supplements' to taking PEDS

And if Sky's results are anything to by that gateway was breached when they hired Leinders.

 

[martinvickers]

Not sure where you got major athlete from? [Maybe you're getting carried away with yourself. I said athlete. I know UKAD have been tipped off and I know they haven't done anything. How I know is for me to know.

From the original post.

They were told of a suspect competitor over the winter and ignored the warming, this competitor has just won a major event

An athlete winning a 'major event' becomes a major athlete, no?

Take a look at how Landis got on when he came clean. Take a look at how he's doing now. Now tell me why anyone would go public with what they know. They would never work in cycling again.

Landis did it under his own name. Against the most famous and litigious cyclist in history. Neither of these remotely apply to you. But good try, bobbins.

Now remind me why riders shouldn't dope again?

Knud Jensen. Tom Simpson. Roger Rivíere. Vincente Lopez. Mar Demeyer. Johannes Draaijer. Joachim Halupczok. Marco Pantani. Jesus Monzano.

Adverse effects. Costs to the sports finances.

 

[pmcg76]

That much is true.

Its the same gateway behavior from injectable 'iron supplements' to taking PEDS

Like the iron supplements that LeMond was injected with during the 89 Giro when he went from gruppetto to 2nd in the final TT. I guess LeMond didn't go through the gate to harder drugs. Without those injectable iron supplements, we might never have heard of LeMond again.

The LeMond 'exception' rule strikes again.

 

[Catwhoorg]

If you have any solid information about UKAD not following up on a lead.

I would suggest that writing to your MP* and getting a question raised during DCMS questions.

The MP would be protected under parliamentary privilege and the DCMS puts significant funds into UKAD.


*assuming you are a UK resident. Otherwise Kimmage sounds like a good person to contact. He would love to blow a story like that wide open. You would need to disclose the sources to him though.

 

[sniper]

...
Landis did it under his own name. Against the most famous and litigious cyclist in history. Neither of these remotely apply to you. But good try, bobbins.

so what.
what makes you think bobbins isn't telling the truth?
every bit of common sense and awareness of cycling's history should be informing you that the chances of bobbins being right aren't small.
why would he be making this up?

why are the sky fans the only ones who respond to bobbins with skepticism?
reminds very much of mcquaid, verbruggen, and wiggins wrt landis.
immediate defensive attitude by expressing doubts about the messenger's credibility.

 

[The Hitch]

1. Depends on whether he thinks Armstrong is STILL doping in 2009. We know the story LA has stuck to rigidly in public. Was that his story to 'new friends' back then too? We can asume there's no point Armstrong bullsh!ting Wiggins about his past; JV has at least outlined, if not detailed, what he did. Doesn't mean he can't bullsh!t him about the 'present'.

2. The handfuls of clean riders have kept their mouth shut for decades to preserve their careers. That's how omerta works. You also assume that handful of clean riders had the same attitude to dopers you do. There's no evidence that's true. Bassons certanly didn't - he just wanted to be allowed to race. Indeed, it's Wiggins 2007 outburst that's out of character for the peloton if anything.

Except Wiggins didn't keep quiet. He did the opposite- spoke up, loudly, in defense of the person you are offering reasons why he wouldn't speak up either way on.

So try again.

 

[bobbins]

If you have any solid information about UKAD not following up on a lead.

I would suggest that writing to your MP* and getting a question raised during DCMS questions.

The MP would be protected under parliamentary privilege and the DCMS puts significant funds into UKAD.


*assuming you are a UK resident. Otherwise Kimmage sounds like a good person to contact. He would love to blow a story like that wide open. You would need to disclose the sources to him though.

Surely I'm not the only one who thinks it extremely doubtful that UKAD follow up on every lead?

I'm no crusader, you guys need to realise that the odds are staked in favour of the cheats.

 

[Justinr]

It isn't the first time...and time will show him to be right in my view.

But if he is alluding to a past that will catch up he should at least point us in some direction where we can look at things, otherwise he's in danger of becoming the boy that cried wolf.

 

[bobbins]

From the original post.



An athlete winning a 'major event' becomes a major athlete, no?



Landis did it under his own name. Against the most famous and litigious cyclist in history. Neither of these remotely apply to you. But good try, bobbins.




Knud Jensen. Tom Simpson. Roger Rivíere. Vincente Lopez. Mar Demeyer. Johannes Draaijer. Joachim Halupczok. Marco Pantani. Jesus Monzano.

Adverse effects. Costs to the sports finances.

Can't work out this quote thing but no, an athlete winning a major event isn't a major athlete. They are an athlete.

The rest of your reply doesn't rurally help or add any value to these discussions. Too many assumptions and you seem to be getting far too emotionally involved. If you want to continue this just DM me rather than take this thread off topic even more.

 

[Justinr]

They dont 'need' the pain killer, but are using it as a PED .

See my post in the other thread. Tramadol is a STRONG painkiller - but thats the only thing I can think of it being used for (ie keep the pain away). Its an opiate/opiod as as such blows you off the planet a bit. As I said I could hardly string a sentence together when I first took it - I shudder to think how it would be riding down the side of the Alps having taken it.

 

[sniper]

I'm no crusader, you guys need to realise that the odds are staked in favour of the cheats.

well put.
brilliantly put, actually.
soccer, cycling, tennis.
nobody high up the ladder wants scandals.
everybody wants improved performances.
it's a nobrainer, really.

 

[martinvickers]

so what.
what makes you think bobbins isn't telling the truth?

I haven't stated that yet. I'm giving him the opportunity to out a drug cheat. He seems perversely unwilling, claiming some danger to himself that cannot realistically exist.

Every bit of common sense and awareness of cycling's history should be informing you that the chances of bobbins being right aren't small.
why would he be making this up?

I repeat, do you know what an ITK is?

A while back, Hog told us, categorically, that there was some 'bad news' coming for shane sutton. Over a year ago. Wouldn't say what the news was, but it was coming soon.

Never came. Unless his recent promotion is bad news.

You want to know the truth?

As a general rule of thumb, from earliest childhood, when another child told you "I know something you don't" and then refused to tell, they knew nothing. They just liked the attention. When they are repeatedly asked and get more and more defensive, that makes it even more likely being bullhickey.

So far, I'm giving bobbins the benefit of the doubt. i hven't called him a liar or a fantasist, or an attention seeker, and I've repeatedly given him the chance to show that's not the case. a chance he seems rather unwilling to take, for reasons that don't remotely add up. hmmm, what to think, what to think...

Upthread he claimed Rod Ellingworth's 'dodgy' past was going to come back to bite him - wouldn't say what, but it was going to get him...despite defending Cavendish some months back on the basis of the strong anti-doping culture of the Acadamy he was trained in and run by...Rod Ellingworth!

In another thread, the same vague accusations against Keen and Boardman, specifically Keen, and when put on the spot "I'm not saying, ask somebody else". As it happened, I did. Nobody had heard anything that I communicated with. But not oonly would bobbins not out the source, which is fine - he wouldn't even actually lay out the accusation.

"I know something you dont!!"

There's a pattern there, Sniper.

And all this running around, refusing to name, we are supposed to believe?

why are the sky fans the only ones who respond to bobbins with skepticism?
reminds very much of mcquaid, verbruggen, and wiggins wrt landis.
immediate defensive attitude by expressing doubts about the messenger's credibility.

Why do YOU always assume people who disagree with you are sky fans? Why do you always end up attacking the man rather than the ball?

Let's be clear - I don't know Bobbins from Adam. He therefore has NO credibility, because he hasn't built up any. that's not an insult, it's just the practical reality. You EARN credibility, you don't assume it. and you certainly don't claim another poster has it simply because he seems to share your emnities.

I would be delighted for Bobbins to earn the credibility you simply donate to him. Absolutely DELIGHTED. Not least, because IF he's telling the truth, and shared it, we might be one step closer to identifying, and excluding, a drugs cheat.

I like excluding drugs cheats. Don't you?