Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[JimmyFingers]

Ok well you have to prove they are lying, before you can fire them for lying. Otherwise you can just say 'you're lying, you're fired' without anything to back it up. Personally I think it's a handy law, if it is proven Knaven was doping, or he admits it, Sky will fire him. QED.

Not sure what you're second point even means. 'Bought out a reasonable amount' is utter pish, try writing something intelligible if you want to make a point.

The third point is a given, so why even say it? Of course under a ZTP he shouldn't have been hired, but the flaw in the ZTP is that only riders that have been censured for doping or admit to doping are omitted, neither apply to Knaven.

And stop with the straw man, it was no lie, I was talking about the Mail on Sunday article, not what is being reported in the Netherlands.


So appreciate all the childish insults you managed to drip feed into the post, but no, you achieved little with it. Scratching my head at the chamois/nose reference, perhaps explain it to me and I'll finally appreciate your wittery.

 

[the sceptic]

the flaw of ZTP is that it's a PR tool to fool gullible fans and not actually a real thing.

 

[JimmyFingers]

It's real to the point if you are censured or admit to doping, you won't be employed, flawed simply by the fact it would be impossible to employ people with a history in cycling without being tainted by the recent excesses of the sport. It is PR, it is for the sponsors, and it is a stupid thing to have.

 

[Benotti69]

So ZTP is lie. Another Brailsford LIE. Big rich team like Sky can easily afford to dump Knaven and pay his contract out. He would probably take less than the full worth as like all the other ZTP casualties, all snapped up by other teams, he would walk into another WT team in no time.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

I have to say though that DB has to sack Knaven based on ZTP, or declare ZTP dead.

If ZTP was a real thing they wouldn't have hired him in the first place
Same with Julich and others

this.
if you look at whom sky hired in key positions, people like julich, knaven, de jongh, leinders, they're all guys of whom any insider with half a brain knew they'd been rather lucky to not get exposed earlier.

But the SKY staff weren't "insiders" as you put it when it came to the road - they were track people, not connectec with things like the Tour.

Julich and De Jongh weren't publicly known as dopers when hired (not by non road people) and to a lesser extent the same for Leinders (do the forum search otherwise you'll suffer the same embarrassment as Mr.White, sorry I mean Hog, and Sceptic) so I can see how SKY may have not known / not been convinced / thought they could ride it out. For them it seems 'no public scandal' was ok for hiring - first sign of public scandal and its sign up or you're out.

Knaven is the odd one, he had been embroiled but never charged / sanctioned. I guess at least DB could have claimed he wasn't a convicted doper but looking back, it was pretty high profile and against what had publicly been said about ZTP.

I don't agree that recruiting them means they are doping - i will agree it means ZTP is nonsense / flakey in the least. But i will reiterate what i have said many times and believe - ZTP was / is a great position to aim for but they have backed themselves in to a corner. They pushing the limits of what is 'legal' - I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were using cortisone as a weight loss substance OOC as many have claimed. Maybe the likes of those above were recruited for their experience in cycling and knowing what was legal and what wasn't. In fact - who better than a doctor who knew the UCI doctor who might be able to know right from wrong? Technically not against the rules - 'unethical' yes, 'illegal' no. I guess it comes down to where you see the line.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Spud, stop trolling. We're here to explain two of the most fantastic transformations the world of sport has ever seen, and at least one (2015 included: two) years of USPS-like team dominance.
Your theory seems born out of complete ignorance of the (recent as well as more remote) history of cycling.

...
I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were using cortisone as a weight loss substance OOC as many have claimed.

would you be surprised if Sky were microdosing EPO and using illegal weight loss drugs other than OOC cortisone?
yes or no will do.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

Spud, stop trolling. We're here to explain two of the most fantastic transformations the world of sport has ever seen, and at least one (2015 included: two) years of USPS-like team dominance.
Your theory seems born out of complete ignorance of the (recent as well as more remote) history of cycling.

...
I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were using cortisone as a weight loss substance OOC as many have claimed.

would you be surprised if Sky were microdosing EPO and using illegal weight loss drugs other than OOC cortisone?
yes or no will do.

Yes

 

[Archibald]

Re:

Who cares? The information about Knaven has been in the public domain for a few years, ZTP is a stupid policy, Brailsford can't fire someone if he is flat out denys it anyway. There's something called employment law: you can't just tear up contracts on a rumour or speculation, which I know must come to many here as a surprise. Plus it's the Mail using it as a stick to beat Murdoch.

under that "employment law", is it possible that there could be clauses in Knaven's employment contract that may mean he's in breach and result in termination?
got a copy, perchance? might tell us to what level of involvement is required to enact the termination clauses... It is 'zero tolerence', no? So maybe even factoring in a "Basso" clause, for just thinking about it

 

[Franklin]

Re: Re:

Spud, seems you are either naive or trolling.

But the SKY staff weren't "insiders" as you put it when it came to the road - they were track people, not connectec with things like the Tour.

Dave Brailsford was very much an insder. Denial is flat-out impossible.

Julich and De Jongh weren't publicly known as dopers when hired (not by non road people)

See above.

and to a lesser extent the same for Leinders (do the forum search otherwise you'll suffer the same embarrassment as Mr.White, sorry I mean Hog, and Sceptic) so I can see how SKY may have not known / not been convinced / thought they could ride it out. For them it seems 'no public scandal' was ok for hiring - first sign of public scandal and its sign up or you're out.

Flat-out impossible. To name three big red signs anyone would have seen.

1. Rabo was the team of Rasmussen.
2. Rabo was implicated in Human Plasma.
3. Rabo was the team of 3 time GT winner Dennis Mencov.

There is absolutely no chance in hell that they did not know his former position. There is also no chance in hell that they "did not know about Rasmussen"or "did not realize the reputation of Mencov". Zero chance.

This was not some obscure person on a small team, he was both main doctor and part of the Managament Team of a team was involved in one of the biggest scandals in recent history. The fall out from Rasmusen not only had immense media coverage, it also implied the Rabo Management team (hello Leinders) in a court ruling.

 

[Franklin]

Re:

Ok well you have to prove they are lying, before you can fire them for lying. Otherwise you can just say 'you're lying, you're fired' without anything to back it up. Personally I think it's a handy law, if it is proven Knaven was doping, or he admits it, Sky will fire him. QED.

Damage to image is enough to disband a contract. As I pointed out at pont two: at a cost.

If an employer wants to fire someone.. he can. It will be expensive for sure, but it's being done all the time.

Not sure what you're second point even means. 'Bought out a reasonable amount' is utter pish, try writing something intelligible if you want to make a point.

Seems I touched a nerve, now didn't I? Because you know as well as I do that contracts can be legally disbanded... at a cost. This is not something rare or arcane.

And stop with the straw man, it was no lie, I was talking about the Mail on Sunday article, not what is being reported in the Netherlands.

Nope, that one counts as a lie. I know you are blinkered into "England" but Sky is an internatonal team complying to international rules in an international sport.

It's not darts in the pub.

So appreciate all the childish insults you managed to drip feed into the post, but no, you achieved little with it. Scratching my head at the chamois/nose reference, perhaps explain it to me and I'll finally appreciate your wittery.

Thank you for enjoying it and doubling down. I would personally have admitted that I did not realize the facts and would have conceded that keeping Knaven is a deliberate choice, not a forced situation, but your stubborness runs deep.

Your idea that a contract is iron clad is just bizarre. Even you will have read about contracts being broken open with punitive damages awarded. And in the case of Knaven they certainly have enough to let him go without much beyond a firm handshake and a big check.

And lastly, to point out the silly posturing done by you (and Dave) There's nothing stopping Sky to put Servais Knaven on non-active.

Oops huh? There goes your "their hands are bound" position.

Jimmy, considering your position it's so biased and not founded on facts that even you must realize you are far away from the facts. There's nothing blocking Sky to push out Knaven if they are willing to take out their check-book.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Yes

can i ask you to back that up with at least some photographic evidence of the cave you've been living in in the past 20 odd years.

@Franklin, excellent post, solid reasoning (as always). but mind, you're talking to bots here. it's not as if they're willing to hear your arguments.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

Yes

can i ask you to back that up with at least some photographic evidence of the cave you've been living in in the past 20 odd years.

@Franklin, excellent post, solid reasoning (as always). but mind, you're talking to bots here. it's not as if they're willing to hear your arguments.

I don't need to back it up with anything - its my opinion. You asked me if I would be surprised if they were microdosing EPO and using illegal weight loss drugs. I don't believe they are doing either hence my answer. They are doing something (almost certainly a lot) in a hell of a lot of grey areas in my view (which is how they can claim to be clean) plus i'm sure all sorts of other things. And I bet Saxo are doing that now as well.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

Yes

can i ask you to back that up with at least some photographic evidence of the cave you've been living in in the past 20 odd years.

@Franklin, excellent post, solid reasoning (as always). but mind, you're talking to bots here. it's not as if they're willing to hear your arguments.

Very grown up going with the living in a cave and bots comments, really added a lot to the discussion ...

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

Who cares? The information about Knaven has been in the public domain for a few years, ZTP is a stupid policy, Brailsford can't fire someone if he is flat out denys it anyway. There's something called employment law: you can't just tear up contracts on a rumour or speculation, which I know must come to many here as a surprise. Plus it's the Mail using it as a stick to beat Murdoch.

under that "employment law", is it possible that there could be clauses in Knaven's employment contract that may mean he's in breach and result in termination?
got a copy, perchance? might tell us to what level of involvement is required to enact the termination clauses... It is 'zero tolerence', no? So maybe even factoring in a "Basso" clause, for just thinking about it

It would be easy enough to come to an arrangement - "sorry, we don't think you're suitable, etc. here is a large sum of money. You can resign citing the need to protect the Team's image, etc."

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Yes

can i ask you to back that up with at least some photographic evidence of the cave you've been living in in the past 20 odd years.

@Franklin, excellent post, solid reasoning (as always). but mind, you're talking to bots here. it's not as if they're willing to hear your arguments.

I don't need to back it up with anything - its my opinion. You asked me if I would be surprised if they were microdosing EPO and using illegal weight loss drugs. I don't believe they are doing either hence my answer. They are doing something (almost certainly a lot) in a hell of a lot of grey areas in my view (which is how they can claim to be clean) plus i'm sure all sorts of other things. And I bet Saxo are doing that now as well.

if you think "claiming to be clean" is indicative of anything, yes, i can only conclude you haven't followed the news in the past 20 years or so.

opinion, fair, but on a discussion forum it's a common habit to back up opinions with reasoning, arguments. I haven't heard any from you.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

I have to say though that DB has to sack Knaven based on ZTP, or declare ZTP dead.

If ZTP was a real thing they wouldn't have hired him in the first place
Same with Julich and others

this.
if you look at whom sky hired in key positions, people like julich, knaven, de jongh, leinders, they're all guys of whom any insider with half a brain knew they'd been rather lucky to not get exposed earlier.

But the SKY staff weren't "insiders" as you put it when it came to the road - they were track people, not connectec with things like the Tour.

Julich and De Jongh weren't publicly known as dopers when hired (not by non road people) and to a lesser extent the same for Leinders (do the forum search otherwise you'll suffer the same embarrassment as Mr.White, sorry I mean Hog, and Sceptic) so I can see how SKY may have not known / not been convinced / thought they could ride it out. For them it seems 'no public scandal' was ok for hiring - first sign of public scandal and its sign up or you're out.

Knaven is the odd one, he had been embroiled but never charged / sanctioned. I guess at least DB could have claimed he wasn't a convicted doper but looking back, it was pretty high profile and against what had publicly been said about ZTP.

I don't agree that recruiting them means they are doping - i will agree it means ZTP is nonsense / flakey in the least. But i will reiterate what i have said many times and believe - ZTP was / is a great position to aim for but they have backed themselves in to a corner. They pushing the limits of what is 'legal' - I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were using cortisone as a weight loss substance OOC as many have claimed. Maybe the likes of those above were recruited for their experience in cycling and knowing what was legal and what wasn't. In fact - who better than a doctor who knew the UCI doctor who might be able to know right from wrong? Technically not against the rules - 'unethical' yes, 'illegal' no. I guess it comes down to where you see the line.

They "weren't insiders", and were totally in the dark as to who doped, but yet these very same people within 2 years were coming up with revolutionary training methods and equipment adjustments that those who have dedicated their life to the sport, still haven't figured out.

Makes sense.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Spud, seems you are either naive or trolling.

But the SKY staff weren't "insiders" as you put it when it came to the road - they were track people, not connectec with things like the Tour.

Dave Brailsford was very much an insder. Denial is flat-out impossible.

Julich and De Jongh weren't publicly known as dopers when hired (not by non road people)

See above.

and to a lesser extent the same for Leinders (do the forum search otherwise you'll suffer the same embarrassment as Mr.White, sorry I mean Hog, and Sceptic) so I can see how SKY may have not known / not been convinced / thought they could ride it out. For them it seems 'no public scandal' was ok for hiring - first sign of public scandal and its sign up or you're out.

Flat-out impossible. To name three big red signs anyone would have seen.

1. Rabo was the team of Rasmussen.
2. Rabo was implicated in Human Plasma.
3. Rabo was the team of 3 time GT winner Dennis Mencov.

There is absolutely no chance in hell that they did not know his former position. There is also no chance in hell that they "did not know about Rasmussen"or "did not realize the reputation of Mencov". Zero chance.

This was not some obscure person on a small team, he was both main doctor and part of the Managament Team of a team was involved in one of the biggest scandals in recent history. The fall out from Rasmusen not only had immense media coverage, it also implied the Rabo Management team (hello Leinders) in a court ruling.

Don't get too emotional about it mate, he's only trying to wind you up.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Re: Re:

Who cares? The information about Knaven has been in the public domain for a few years, ZTP is a stupid policy, Brailsford can't fire someone if he is flat out denys it anyway. There's something called employment law: you can't just tear up contracts on a rumour or speculation, which I know must come to many here as a surprise. Plus it's the Mail using it as a stick to beat Murdoch.

under that "employment law", is it possible that there could be clauses in Knaven's employment contract that may mean he's in breach and result in termination?
got a copy, perchance? might tell us to what level of involvement is required to enact the termination clauses... It is 'zero tolerence', no? So maybe even factoring in a "Basso" clause, for just thinking about it

Clearly I don't have a copy of his contract, but I do know something about employment law. I would assume he would have to be in breach of contract or guilty of gross misconduct for his contract to be terminated, and there would need to be a process of investigatory meetings, disciplinary meetings and possibly employment tribunals if he contests the termination. You can also manage people out of jobs i.e. give them various warnings/performance reviews/targets until they either quit or you have good reason to fire them.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Re: Re:

Ok well you have to prove they are lying, before you can fire them for lying. Otherwise you can just say 'you're lying, you're fired' without anything to back it up. Personally I think it's a handy law, if it is proven Knaven was doping, or he admits it, Sky will fire him. QED.

Damage to image is enough to disband a contract. As I pointed out at pont two: at a cost.

If an employer wants to fire someone.. he can. It will be expensive for sure, but it's being done all the time.

Not sure what you're second point even means. 'Bought out a reasonable amount' is utter pish, try writing something intelligible if you want to make a point.

Seems I touched a nerve, now didn't I? Because you know as well as I do that contracts can be legally disbanded... at a cost. This is not something rare or arcane.

And stop with the straw man, it was no lie, I was talking about the Mail on Sunday article, not what is being reported in the Netherlands.

Nope, that one counts as a lie. I know you are blinkered into "England" but Sky is an internatonal team complying to international rules in an international sport.

It's not darts in the pub.

So appreciate all the childish insults you managed to drip feed into the post, but no, you achieved little with it. Scratching my head at the chamois/nose reference, perhaps explain it to me and I'll finally appreciate your wittery.

Thank you for enjoying it and doubling down. I would personally have admitted that I did not realize the facts and would have conceded that keeping Knaven is a deliberate choice, not a forced situation, but your stubborness runs deep.

Your idea that a contract is iron clad is just bizarre. Even you will have read about contracts being broken open with punitive damages awarded. And in the case of Knaven they certainly have enough to let him go without much beyond a firm handshake and a big check.

And lastly, to point out the silly posturing done by you (and Dave) There's nothing stopping Sky to put Servais Knaven on non-active.

Oops huh? There goes your "their hands are bound" position.

Jimmy, considering your position it's so biased and not founded on facts that even you must realize you are far away from the facts. There's nothing blocking Sky to push out Knaven if they are willing to take out their check-book.

Ah ok, thanks for deciphering the gibberish. Since you have decided the best course of debate is to mock me, it is of course something I can return in kind.

Have you seen a copy of Knaven's contract? Because you certainly talk like you have. Unlike you I have no idea what clauses have been written into it, and under what conditions they can tear it up. Damage to image is ambiguous at best, and difficult to make stick, especially since Sky admit they were aware of the court case against him.

And no, you can't simply just fire someone because you want to, there are legal measures designed to protect the employee. Sure if you are saying Sky are willing to pay the wrongful any dismissal lawsuit whoever they simply decide to fire without good reason, they can fire someone, but that is a stupid argument. If a team as high profile as Sky want to fire someone they will do it the proper way rather than it being dragged through tribunals and the courts.

Yes they could offer to buy out Knaven. I never said they couldn't, just couldn't grasp your poor turn of phrase.

Ok you say its a lie, I say it isn't, you say it is, I say it isn't, you say it is, I say it isn't...see where this is going? Thanks for little xenophobic dig at the end, a real touch of class.

Did I say it wasn't a deliberate choice? I said I don't care about Knaven working for Sky, I don't care about their ZTP, its PR for the sponsors, in pro-cycling there's no real place for it. So I don't care that Sky are keeping Knaven on, and its hilarious that this place is shouting for him to be thrown under the bus when I have read many criticisms of Sky's policy. The pro-peloton is littered with ex-dopers and doping doctors, we know this, should they all be purged? Maybe, they're wouldn't be many left standing if they were.

But I get it, this is the usual anti-Sky diatribe this place is so fond of. You hate the team, I get it, its ok, you're not alone, and perhaps you'll get over it. And everyone is biased, but thanks for trying to railroad me somewhere and misrepresent my position. It's Clinic arguing 101.

 

[Benotti69]

Col de la Madone

Richie Porte 29:40
Chris Froome 30:09
Tom Danielson 30:24
Lance Armstrong 30:45
Tony Rominger 31:30
Tyler Hamilton 32:32

So 2 Sky riders have beaten doped times up the madone, on supposedly marginal gains and people believe this?

Times are supposed to be slower, or did UCI forget to send out JVs memo to teams..

Sky = Doping.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re:

Col de la Madone

Richie Porte 29:40
Chris Froome 30:09
Tom Danielson 30:24
Lance Armstrong 30:45
Tony Rominger 31:30
Tyler Hamilton 32:32

So 2 Sky riders have beaten doped times up the madone, on supposedly marginal gains and people believe this?

Times are supposed to be slower, or did UCI forget to send out JVs memo to teams..

Sky = Doping.

I told you 2015 would be crazy.

Nobody putting down that much power is microdosing EPO. They are never tested positive, that's all. There is no other explanation to fit the facts.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Col de la Madone

Richie Porte 29:40
Chris Froome 30:09
Tom Danielson 30:24
Lance Armstrong 30:45
Tony Rominger 31:30
Tyler Hamilton 32:32

So 2 Sky riders have beaten doped times up the madone, on supposedly marginal gains and people believe this?

Times are supposed to be slower, or did UCI forget to send out JVs memo to teams..

Sky = Doping.

Any context? Are these all TT times? A mix? stage 1(?) of a three week tour? etc.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Self reported training test times

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Col de la Madone

Richie Porte 29:40
Chris Froome 30:09
Tom Danielson 30:24
Lance Armstrong 30:45
Tony Rominger 31:30
Tyler Hamilton 32:32

So 2 Sky riders have beaten doped times up the madone, on supposedly marginal gains and people believe this?

Times are supposed to be slower, or did UCI forget to send out JVs memo to teams..

Sky = Doping.

I told you 2015 would be crazy.

Nobody putting down that much power is microdosing EPO. They are never tested positive, that's all. There is no other explanation to fit the facts.

Goes to show how much these riders GAF about what those outside the sport think.

Imagine being that stupid to post your times up a known dopers mountain, PEDs must lower IQ.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Self reported training test times

Thanks.