Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[sniper]

to be sure, i agree de jongh is an interesting figure.
plenty of eyebrowe raisers in his open letter after he'd left sky.
Shows he's full-on omerta:

...
I’ve been shocked by the stories and rumours of organised doping programmes because I’ve simply never seen anything like that.
...
I will always regret what I did.
...
This was my choice.
...
But cycling was slowly getting better and I managed to win races clean...
...
I hope very much to stay in this sport, and I’m sure I can play my part in its clean future.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/open-letter-from-steven-de-jongh-37433

 

[Benotti69]

Does Servais Knaven still work at Sky. Servais Knaven rode for Domo-Farm Frites and was winner of the 2001 Paris Roubaix Domo-Farm Frites 3 on the podium.

Knaven's teams, some pretty heavy doping programs in there
TVM
Domo-Farm Frites
Quick Step-Davitamon
T-Mobile Team
Team Milram

So much for ZTP.

 

[Justinr]

lol, you really want to start playing the - "does it make sense" game? I think you'll find there be a hell of a lot more ammunition on one side than the other, if that's the route you want to go down.

Well the argument would apply to any team. Why would any team do that? Its not about playing a game or ridiculing people (again) its about having a reasoned discussion. Now you can take part or you can choose not to, I'm not forcing you.

 

[Justinr]

Question has nothing to do with me.

Observe.



DW said the thing about the BP. I didn't. I am not going to answer a question that was never directed at me regarding comments I never made.

Then why dont you stay out of it and stop throwing irrelevant smug comments around...

 

[The Hitch]

Then why dont you stay out of it and stop throwing irrelevant smug comments around...

What was irrelevant or smug about my comment

It was perfectly valid. If you want to start looking at the sky are they clean debate from a logic angle you are going to lose.

There are plenty of things you believe in that don't make sense, so I found it funny that you would bring that into an argument.

 

[red_flanders]

Does Servais Knaven still work at Sky. Servais Knaven rode for Domo-Farm Frites and was winner of the 2001 Paris Roubaix Domo-Farm Frites 3 on the podium.

Knaven's teams, some pretty heavy doping programs in there
TVM
Domo-Farm Frites
Quick Step-Davitamon
T-Mobile Team
Team Milram

So much for ZTP.

Yes, it's laughable. Wikipedia still has him as a DS but who knows how up to date that is. Nevertheless, would be absurd for anyone to suggest or imagine Sky didn't know his background at the time of his hire (I've heard no one suggest this). ZTP is PR and it's that simple. It's meaningless, inconsistent and unworkable. Just words for the masses to feed on.

http://pelotonmagazine.com/wilcockson/zero-tolerance-policies-need-a-rethink/

Julich and De Jongh both admitted to doping in the late-1990swhile Skys newest sports director, Servais Knaven, stays with the team despite his being one of the TVM riders, along with De Jongh, who was hauled off by French police for drug testing during the Festina Affair Tour of 1998.

He was as cleans as they come.

Teams such as BMC, Garmin, Orica and Sky have different levels of zero-tolerance policies, but if they were all as stringent as Skys, its clear that pro cycling would not be able continue because the sport would lose most of its most qualified team directors. And even such an outspoken non-doper as Tour champ Brad Wiggins has been more than happy to work with sports directors Yates, Julich and De Jongh for the past two years.

Perhaps Team Skys policy is simply not workable. Thats what no less a critic than the head of the World-Anti-Doping Agency, David Howman, believes. He told Britains Daily Telegraph this week: Zero tolerance doesn’t make much sense in the overall effort to clean up sport.

Does anyone here object to "non-doper" being stated as fact? Should we get riled up about that?

 

[martinvickers]

why not bang on about the guy running team sky?
there's enough dodginess surrounding brailsford even if we ignore de jongh.
no need to repeat all the contradictions, half-truths and doping-related events that brailsford has on his CV, but its plenty.
nobody in here can honestly pretend to think brailsford didn't know who leinders was.
the best part is that, in addition, sky want us to believe that brailsford didn't know about de jongh's past (or about the others who had to leave sky due to ztp).

For the simple reason; we don't have the hard evidence - yet - to pin Brailsford. we DO have hard evidence to pin De Jongh. Now, you can continue being sarcastic, or you can try and work out a way to make progress - here's a hint, sarcasm won't make you progress, so you might want a plan B.

 

[sniper]

For the simple reason; we don't have the hard evidence - yet - to pin Brailsford. we DO have hard evidence to pin De Jongh. Now, you can continue being sarcastic, or you can try and work out a way to make progress - here's a hint, sarcasm won't make you progress, so you might want a plan B.

fair.
so can i conclude that you do consider the idea of brailsford having been 'in the know' wrt leinders a possibility, if not probablity?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Team Milram

Pretty much everybody $ucked there (Gerdemann, Terpstra, Ciolek, etc.). What did I miss?

 

[martinvickers]

And here is the version that would have been posted 15 years ago



10 years ago



5 years ago

Meaningless twaddle.

It's always the same twaddle from you on this, Hitch. Because things are not yet perfect, it must mean there's been no real progress at all. It's a ridiculous false binary that evades looking at the realities.

Realities.

15 years ago, there was no Clinic, no Twitter, no Facebook. These imaginary stories not only weren't written. they couldn't be.

15 years ago, the idea that a non-story like the vial story being straight into the sports section of a major british national paper, forcing comment from the UCI president within days, within days of being found on the road, would be laughable.

Indurain got through his 5 consecutive tours with, by todays standards, barely a whimper from the press despite actually having a positive, and winning through the heart of the early EPO age. Today, Froome wins one tour, and it is literally a daily battle with the press over doping. If you don't see the progress there, it's because you don't want to.

15 years ago, Kimmage was still a pariah for his stance on doping; Today he's a folk hero for it, and other journalists are scraping around trying to get some of his mantle.

WE have seen Riis, Ulrich, Pantani, Armstrong, Landis, Contador all caught, the last three all losing tours one way or the other. How many got caught prior to Indurain? How many lost tours? And that's no progress?

Armstrong, who won his first tour 15 years ago, held out for 13 years - or 7, counting from his last Tour win. Landis couldn't hold out a month. Landis, Contador, all caught by actual drug tests that we're told are useless. Are they perfect? No. Of course not. But it's progress. Anything else is wilful bullsh!t.

It's easy to sneer. It's easy to be smug. It's easy to attempt to patronise those who don't share your religion.

Most easy things aren't worth sh!te.

I repeat, with no problem. Hard yards. If you want doping reduced, or ended, there is no substitute. The question you have to ask yourself is, what do you want - the chance to fight doping, or the chance to sneer?

 

[martinvickers]

fair.
so can i conclude that you do consider the idea of brailsford having been 'in the know' wrt leinders a possibility, if not probablity?

Anything is possible. It is absolutely possible that Brailsford is an evil son of a b!tch who makes Bruyneel look like a f***ing choirboy.

Probable? Genuinely, however much it p***es people off, it's just hard to say. You just end up with silly maths, that aren't really maths, but just a convoluted way of saying I believe him, or I don't and then trying to pass hunch off as science.

There is absolutely what I call a "fog of mistrust" - we don't know, and we ought to admit we don't know, but we sure aren't happy. It doesn't fill with any confidence. It's a huge black mark against SDB and against that team. Which, to be fair, has been admitted by the team itself.

But, boring as the repetition is; hard yards. Sometimes you get nowhere, unless you ask the simple question, the boringly mundane one, over and over till you get a straight answer.

I want Brailsford pinned down - I don't want to hear about " we did this", or "process" or passive language like "mistakes were made"...I want, who, what named person, recommended Leinders. Was it De Jongh? Was he asked specifically to suggest someone. Who, what named individual, asked. On what date. Where. Who, what named people, were in the room at the time. etc, etc, etc...

Dare I say it, I want journos acting more like lawyers. I don't want SDB interviewed. I want him cross-examined. And if you ever get the chance, go to a workaday mundane criminal trial (not a pantomime like Oj or Pistorius, which are more about performance), watch how its done - it's not Rumpole, or Perry Mason - it's boring, grinding, undramatic, attritional, demanding of tiny discrete facts until the entire page is coloured in.

It is easy, and enjoyable for some, to stand, point and sneer. But look how USADA, finally got Armstrong - page after page of detail; boring, repetitive detail. Until there was simply nowhere for Armstrong to hide. Nowhere - every cranny had been dug into.

THAT is how winning is done. One rock at a time.

 

[red_flanders]

Again, it's a discussion forum. We're sort of limited to...discussing things.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Wiggo, genuine question. If making the BP look clean is so easy, why did Sky not do that for Henao, a valuable Tour asset?

Ignore button is your friend. I'm not.

I don't care what you think about my posts, and frankly I don't care if you read my posts. So feel free not to.

Thanks .

 

[martinvickers]

Again, it's a discussion forum. We're sort of limited to...discussing things.

Making declarations of belief, stating they are undeniable facts, and insulting those who disagree is not discussion. That's the problem.

 

[martinvickers]

Thanks .

You're welcome. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Wouldn't want you to actually face your own failings, would we. Hell, no.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Making declarations of belief, stating they are undeniable facts, and insulting those who disagree is not discussion. That's the problem.

Applause... I see it the same way.

 

[red_flanders]

Making declarations of belief, stating they are undeniable facts, and insulting those who disagree is not discussion. That's the problem.

Not what I was referring to.

 

[Granville57]

WE have seen Riis, Ulrich, Pantani, Armstrong, Landis, Contador all caught, the last three all losing tours one way or the other.

Riis and Armstrong were "caught" where and when, exactly?

Landis, Contador, all caught by actual drug tests that we're told are useless.

Yeah, all two of 'em. So that's where the bar is now set? Those two murky examples of lab work?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Riis and Armstrong were "caught" where and when, exactly?

Yeah, all two of 'em. So that's where the bar is now set? Those two murky examples of lab work?

And Contador only because it was at the Cologne lab that has higher sensitivity potential for drug detection than most other labs.

 

[BYOP88]

Riis and Armstrong were "caught" where and when, exactly?

Yeah, all two of 'em. So that's where the bar is now set? Those two murky examples of lab work?

Lets not forget regarding Contador, if THAT sample went to any other lab at that time, Bertie would still have the 2010 TdF and 2011 Giro on his palmarès.

 

[martinvickers]

Riis and Armstrong were "caught" where and when, exactly?

Yeah, all two of 'em. So that's where the bar is now set? Those two murky examples of lab work?

You may have missed the recent USADA investigation into Armstrong. Google is your friend.

I'm reasonably content that Riis' confession amounts to being found out.

AS for all two of 'em. Yeah. All two of 'em. To go with Pantani (high Haemo) and Ullrich (caught in puerto). How many Tour Winners do you think there are to catch each year?

This response of yours just comes across, as expected, as scrabbling around, not wanting to recognise progress, because you enjoy the game too much. You're not anti-doping. you're pro-tittilation.

 

[martinvickers]

Not what I was referring to.

WAS what I was referring to.

 

[martinvickers]

And Contador only because it was at the Cologne lab that has higher sensitivity potential for drug detection than most other labs.

Oh bless, he was only caught because...he was caught. If they hadn't caught him...he wouldn't have been caught.

Anyway, I thought you had me on ignore? Hate to think you came off ignore for that weak sauce answer.

Same nonsense. If it's not perfect = it's no progress at all. Bullsh!t.

 

[martinvickers]

Lets not forget regarding Contador, if THAT sample went to any other lab at that time, Bertie would still have the 2010 TdF and 2011 Giro on his palmarès.

Quite possibly, and if so, it's a flaw to arrest, further progress needed.

BUT IT DIDN'T. It went to Cologne. They got him. See how that works?

You seem almost ... well, disappointed - if only it hadn't gone there...Poor Berti.

AS the saying goes if "Ifs" and "buts" were pots and pans...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

And Contador only because it was at the Cologne lab that has higher sensitivity potential for drug detection than most other labs.

Lets not forget regarding Contador, if THAT sample went to any other lab at that time, Bertie would still have the 2010 TdF and 2011 Giro on his palmarès.

Good post, BYOP88.