Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Franklin]

Ummm, bad days happen, even when you dope. Please, tell me one guy in the top 10 who isn't doping? If I had to choose, I'd say TJVG.

Teejay rides for about the most corrupt management around.... it's a disgrace they are allowed a license.

I hope for Teejay, but the track record of BMC is horrifying.

 

[Von Mises]

Cute, I adressed your strawman a few times, but it seems you just love to erect it again.

There is no solid evidence of doping. But there are quite a few facts that show that Sky is intransparant, breaks own policies and have a trainer who actually is being really edging blatant lieing about it.

I hope you will stop to throw at me that I claim to have proof of doping in a few pages. It's a bit tiresome to burn down strawmen, especially since you avoid the hard questions.



Tsktsktsk... facts can't be weak or circumstantial, you are talking about evidence.



I could quote your discomfort about the intransparency

It's a bit odd you rail against this thread when you yourself have doubts

The point is that you are overvaleing your facts and downplaying other arguments (calling them faith). Wiggins and Sky could be dopers, but compared with many others there is very little evidence and not too many facts.
For instance look at Armstrong, he is not convicted doper and maybe he even escapes USADA, but there is still a very strong case against him: testimonies, failed drug test (Armstrong himself and many teammates), unbelievable performances (w/kg) etc etc. Now look at Wiggins and you can see there is much-much less against him.

It is still possible that Wiggins is doper, but you should not so arrogantly dennounce everyone who thinks differently.

 

[oldcrank]

It's time to list the undeniable facts again it seems.

Facts (as in undisputable things that happened and have been said)

All of these are facts

You have forgotten last weeks fact that Wiggo is fragile
and insecure and that giving Nibbo the evil-eye was
proof he was about to crack.

 

[Franklin]

The point is that you are overvaleing your facts and downplaying other arguments (calling them faith). Wiggins and Sky could be dopers, but compared with many others there is very little evidence and not too many facts.
For instance look at Armstrong, he is not convicted doper and maybe he even escapes USADA, but there is still a very strong case against him: testimonies, failed drug test (Armstrong himself and many teammates), unbelievable performances (w/kg) etc etc. Now look at Wiggins and you can see there is much-much less against him.

It is still possible that Wiggins is doper, but you should not so arrogantly dennounce everyone who thinks differently.

You are missrepresenting the case against Armstrong by looking at the current situation. The clinic was railing against Armstrong before the solid evidence showed up. And they have been proven pretty much completely right.

Now if we look at Sky we certainly have reason to be critical (see the facts). We can just shut up or we can speak out against it and warn for a second USPS. So yes, I arrogantly denounce every one who blindly follows Sky without demanding transparency. Cycling isn't helped by giving Sky a jubilant pass if they are so mired in the murky history of cycling.

Lastly, it's clear you just gloss over my posts. I stated that if there were places I would look for clean riders at Garmin and Sky. But my belief is unimportant in the light of the red flags raised by the facts.

 

[The Cobra]

Again, the Sky accusers are simply cherry picking 'facts' and are suffering from confirmation bias. That is, they are finding 'facts' that fit their preconceptions about Sky. Choose any rider in the top 10 and you could do exactly the same - e.g., wow, look at Evans losing so much time. That is a 'fact' that he showed a 'spike in performance' last year and must have been doping. And on it goes.

+1

If you look hard enough you can find 'evidence' against anybody. This is cycling after all.

Ok guys you can be suspicous all you want, its perfectly understandable. If you want to doubt every single performance thats up to you. A strange kind of enjoyment you must get out of watching cycling is all I can say.

 

[mastersracer]

Are you seriously noticing that now? And yet you wonder why we are so suspicious?

And before anyone brings this up: Sky was treated relatively benign in the Clinic (see the Tenerife thread) until stage 7 and Wiggins declaration of war.

you're entirely missing the point. I believe just about everyone agrees that it's reasonable to hold ANY rider who performs well under suspicion. That is not what this thread has turned into. The claim being made is that there's clear evidence Sky is systematically doping - beyond a reasonable doubt kind. Your facts are mostly silly by the way. What Wiggins says of another rider has 0 bearing on a team's doping program.

 

[Franklin]

Your facts are mostly silly by the way.

Please, explain these silly facts

What Wiggins says of another rider has 0 bearing on a team's doping program.

Ohohohoh.... we have to be respectful of Wiggins while he can do and say as he wants.

No need to be critical, move along, othing to see here

 

[Bonkstrong]

The doctor who was involved with Michael Rasmussen and accused of sporting fraud (hiding hereabouts) is hired for saddle-sores

I wonder, why would you hire someone with the benign reputation of Leinders?

I'm the first to admit they've made a massive balls up in the way they've handled it and to then gloss over it with a "he's very good with saddle sores" was very very poor. But didn't Lienders admit that he wasn't involved in the programme per se but was instructed by managment to keep the riders alive?

The man is no angel but he isn't in the same league as some famous gynocologists.

The sad truth is that *any* doctor with the level of experience of working in the pro-peleton is going to have come into the Omerta ridden world of PED's in cycling. Sky needed his experience without the baggage.

I don't believe that the hiring of Lienders was so he could create a doping program and certainly doesn't raise my suspicions that much. They needed a doctor with his experience in the peleton, the mistake they made was making the promise in the first place knowing that every single doctor with the level of experience they wanted will be tarnished in some way.

Points 1-3 are a balls up and should have been handled much better.

Point 4 is debatable and I haven't looked at Rogers in great detail, I've been too busy sitting on the fence..

Point 5 - who doesn't love Lance, he's cured Cancer and done too much good for too many people!!!!

Point 6 is merely a British trait that I've been on the recieving end many times

Point 7 Is indeed deplorable, but that's all it is. I agree they need to change their ways given the promises they've made. Still not convincing that they're dirty though.

 

[Fergoose]

I missed a lot of the final climb due to ad breaks but it looked fairly ordinary from Rogers & Porte again today.

 

[mastersracer]

Please, explain these silly facts



Ohohohoh.... we have to be respectful of Wiggins while he can do and say as he wants.

No need to be critical, move along, othing to see here

It is a fact that Canada is in the northern hemisphere, but it is not evidence that Wiggins is doping. That fact is as relevant to whether or not Wiggins is doping as what he says about Sastre. None of your 'facts' would ever be considered in an arbitration hearing because they have no bearing on the issue.

 

[Benotti69]

The point is that you are overvaleing your facts and downplaying other arguments (calling them faith). Wiggins and Sky could be dopers, but compared with many others there is very little evidence and not too many facts.
For instance look at Armstrong, he is not convicted doper and maybe he even escapes USADA, but there is still a very strong case against him: testimonies, failed drug test (Armstrong himself and many teammates), unbelievable performances (w/kg) etc etc. Now look at Wiggins and you can see there is much-much less against him.

It is still possible that Wiggins is doper, but you should not so arrogantly dennounce everyone who thinks differently.

The evidence for Armstrong's doping came to light when he failed a test for steroids in the 1999 TdF. He then produced the TUE, which was accepted because the story of a cancer survivor coming back to the Tour was to good for the UCI/ASO/Sponsors to miss out on.

There is no evidence of Wiggin's, yet. But he and TeamSky have changed the hymn book they were singing from and it sounds like this new one is a rewrite of the Bruyneel/Armstrong one.

They are refusing to answers question about their Doctor, their stance on doping, throwing Journalists out of press conferences, calling fans abusive names.

You think this is new in the sport? This has been done before and always by those doping!

We have had 1 positive and 1 arrest at this years TdF, not clean at all really is it!

We are told that the sport is clean now! Who is running the sport, the same people that ran it always.

Clean, yeah pull the other one.

 

[AcademyCC]

You are missrepresenting the case against Armstrong by looking at the current situation. The clinic was railing against Armstrong before the solid evidence showed up. And they have been proven pretty much completely right.

Now if we look at Sky we certainly have reason to be critical (see the facts). We can just shut up or we can speak out against it and warn for a second USPS. So yes, I arrogantly denounce every one who blindly follows Sky without demanding transparency. Cycling isn't helped by giving Sky a jubilant pass if they are so mired in the murky history of cycling.

Lastly, it's clear you just gloss over my posts. I stated that if there were places I would look for clean riders at Garmin and Sky. But my belief is unimportant in the light of the red flags raised by the facts.

To the bold - was the cycling news forums not set up around 2009? Plenty of strong evidence had already been raised against him by that stage Positive tests,numerous books, investigative journals by leading newspapers to name but a few. That's what I would call solid evidence

 

[Franklin]

This really needs to be adressed!

But didn't Lienders admit that he wasn't involved in the programme per se but was instructed by managment to keep the riders alive?

As riders keep falling to there death from heatstrokes it's a reasonable explanation. Especially since he isn't involved at the races at all.

Seriously, there are many experts on heat and exertion outside of cycling(ex-army, running, etc.) Sky would hire medical personel out of cycling... and when they broke that rule they hid it and chose Leinders.

Nothing to see here, move along

The man is no angel but he isn't in the same league as some famous gynocologists.

Besides his participation in doping schemes (besides.... as if it isn't enough reason))he was guilty of fraud by hiding whereabouts of Rasmussen. Saying he is no angel is really being mild.

The sad truth is that *any* doctor with the level of experience of working in the pro-peleton is going to have come into the Omerta ridden world of PED's in cycling. Sky needed his experience without the baggage.

Then why isn't he at the races? What expertise did they need? heat and saddlesores, sure, but he would have to be at the races for that. Yet where is he?

He isn't here to see, so move along?

I don't believe that the hiring of Lienders was so he could create a doping program and certainly doesn't raise my suspicions that much. They needed a doctor with his experience in the peleton, the mistake they made was making the promise in the first place knowing that every single doctor with the level of experience they wanted will be tarnished in some way.

What expertise did they need?

Points 1-3 are a balls up and should have been handled much better.

I said you agree with me

Point 4 is debatable and I haven't looked at Rogers in great detail, I've been too busy sitting on the fence..

The point is hardly debatable considering it's MR's own tweet.

Point 5 - who doesn't love Lance, he's cured Cancer and done too much good for too many people!!!!

Now we enter the realm of personal criticism. I'm the first to say it has nothing to do with Wiggins doping, but it does show how he feels about dopers.

I find it deplorable to slag colleagues and then openly support someone who he should really know is tarnished.

Point 6 is merely a British trait that I've been on the recieving end many times

Sure, you can live with it, but he won't get a free pass from me. Cycling is so tarnished that it's reasonable if the fans expect answers. He used to agree on this fullheartedly.

And really, the criticism that made him go "boom" was relatively benign. Wiggins would have fully agreed a few years ago.

Point 7 Is indeed deplorable, but that's all it is. I agree they need to change their ways given the promises they've made. Still not convincing that they're dirty though.

Didn't I say you actually agreed in my criticism?


And the bolded part: I'm sitting the fence for now. The intransparancies are really worrisome as really, it's really looking like USPS. And that is broadly stated by both followers and media, not just the clinic. The longer they keep following that role model the more worrisome it becomes.

I truly don't think cycling needs USPS v2.0

 

[Franklin]

It is a fact that Canada is in the northern hemisphere, but it is not evidence that Wiggins is doping. That fact is as relevant to whether or not Wiggins is doping as what he says about Sastre. None of your 'facts' would ever be considered in an arbitration hearing because they have no bearing on the issue.

Masterracer, you do realize that you start deserving an insult here due to the inability of reading my posts

I am clairvoyant it seems:

I hope you will stop to throw at me that I claim to have proof of doping in a few pages. It's a bit tiresome to burn down strawmen, especially since you avoid the hard questions.

 

[mastersracer]

Masterracer, you do realize that you start deserving an insult here due to the inability of reading my posts

I am clairvoyant it seems:

rounding up 'suspicious' facts in cycling is easier than shooting fish in a barrel. They are uninteresting. The entire sport is suspicious (but then so is all professional sports). If you want to move on to the game theoretic explanations Shermer and Papp are referring to, it becomes a universal feature of the species found in virtually all human interactions that involve strategic choice. Only the dwellers in this forum seem to be continually surprised, or feign moral outrage, when it rears its head in sport. Of course, if you read the posts by hog etc., you'll find this thread has been driven by much more than suspicion. That's where rational warrant (i.e. evidence) is overstepped.

 

[Benotti69]

That so many new posters have come into the clinic all guns blazing declaring the clinic as bitter and twisted with such a cynical view of cycling and how dare the clinic even think Wiggins is doping makes me believe deep down their fear is that the sport has not changed and Wiggins is doing what every one else is doing but has the unfair advantage of the ASO/UCI in its pocket like a team did that won 7 years in a row!

No one in hear has got any evidence of TeamSky doping.

What we want to know is;

Why are they training with Geert Leinders?

What did they present to ASO and why can it not be made public?

Why does Wiggin begrudge people being as suspicious/condemning/questioning as he wa in 2007?

Prove to the fans the sport is cleaner now as they say it is, 2 doping scandals to date and there are 4 stages still to go!

Why dont they publish there in house passport data and if not why don they have an independent like Ashenden analyse it?

I know i a m repeating some of What Franklin has continued to ask but all the posters supporting Wiggins/Sky has refused to address, merely quoting the Armstrong line, no evidence (in other words never tested positive).
Why is Rogers riding in the form of his life, how is this possible after he was implicated in the blood doping in Freiburg University?

Why does Wiggins think Evans was the last clean winner of the TdF, why not Sastre?

 

[blackcat]

cos Evans was before Sastre. So Sastre coulda been clean too in that statement

 

[Benotti69]

cos Evans was before Sastre. So Sastre coulda been clean too in that statement

Wiggin's ego may allow him to think he has the wit to state it in such a way but sadly he doesn't.

 

[blackcat]

well, they were both giving each a reacharound, cos Evans had previously expressed Wiggins and Sky's purity and cleanliness. and no he was not endorsing some tissues

 

[Darryl Webster]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/11/dave-brailsford-team-sky?newsfeed=true
"The Team Sky principal Dave Brailsford has defended the decision to hire a doctor who worked with Rabobank when the Dutch team were embroiled in a doping scandal.

Dr Geert Leinders left Rabobank in 2009, after being part of the team when Michael Rasmussen was kicked off the 2007 Tour de France and when Thomas Dekker tested positive for blood-boosting agent EPO.

Brailsford revealed that Team Sky are investigating Leinders' past and acknowledged that there may be a "reputational risk"
So , were expected to believe only now does Brailsford feel the need to "investigate" Leinders past?. Yet its a matter of public record?


Brailsford and Team Sky reconsidered their medical policy – initially no practitioners with a background in cycling were to be hired – after the death of the carer Txema González following a bacterial infection contracted during the 2010 Vuelta a España, citing the need for specialist knowledge to put the riders first.
Gonzalz,s death was thought to be caused by food poisoning. What about food poisoning to a support staff member requires a doctor to have a previous background in cycling?...might I suggest NOTHING.

"Leinders is not with Team Sky at the Tour, which Bradley Wiggins led entering Wednesday's 10th stage, and works for 80 days a year with the British squad, which has a zero tolerance attitude to doping."
This contradicts the first statement as Geert isn't with the team at the race and so his special knowledge of a cycling team isn't going save anyone is it?. So what of the 80 days he,s under contract. Were has he been and what exactly does he do?. Was he at the training camp in Tennerife?

Sean Yates, DS. A positive himself back in 89, was on Motorola roster in the same years as Lance 91 to 96 ( lance 92 to 96) and was management with Discovery 2005 to 2009 ( lance was there 2005).
To suggest this guy is trustworthy regards doping practices within a team is stretching things .
The other DS has never has any **** stick but unless you've lived life under a rock with ear defenders on Brailford will know that's more good fortune than the career of a mr clean.
Those who really know who is who and there past KNOW this roster of staff is as murky as many others.
Brailsford knows all this and he also knows few of the general public/ fanboy type cycling fans have a clue.

 

[Benotti69]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/11/dave-brailsford-team-sky?newsfeed=true
"The Team Sky principal Dave Brailsford has defended the decision to hire a doctor who worked with Rabobank when the Dutch team were embroiled in a doping scandal.

Dr Geert Leinders left Rabobank in 2009, after being part of the team when Michael Rasmussen was kicked off the 2007 Tour de France and when Thomas Dekker tested positive for blood-boosting agent EPO.

Brailsford revealed that Team Sky are investigating Leinders' past and acknowledged that there may be a "reputational risk"
So , were expected to believe only now does Brailsford feel the need to "investigate" Leinders past?. Yet its a matter of public record?


Brailsford and Team Sky reconsidered their medical policy – initially no practitioners with a background in cycling were to be hired – after the death of the carer Txema González following a bacterial infection contracted during the 2010 Vuelta a España, citing the need for specialist knowledge to put the riders first.
Gonzalz,s death was thought to be caused by food poisoning. What about food poisoning to a support staff member requires a doctor to have a previous background in cycling?...might I suggest NOTHING.

"Leinders is not with Team Sky at the Tour, which Bradley Wiggins led entering Wednesday's 10th stage, and works for 80 days a year with the British squad, which has a zero tolerance attitude to doping."
This contradicts the first statement as Geert isn't with the team at the race and so his special knowledge of a cycling team isn't going save anyone is it?. So what of the 80 days he,s under contract. Were has he been and what exactly does he do?. Was he at the training camp in Tennerife?

Sean Yates, DS. A positive himself back in 89, was on Motorola roster in the same years as Lance 91 to 96 ( lance 92 to 96) and was management with Discovery 2005 to 2009 ( lance was there 2005).
To suggest this guy is trustworthy regards doping practices within a team is stretching things .
The other DS has never has any **** stick but unless you've lived life under a rock with ear defenders on Brailford will know that's more good fortune than the career of a mr clean.
Those who really know who is who and there past KNOW this roster of staff is as murky as many others.
Brailsford knows all this and he also knows few of the general public/ fanboy type cycling fans have a clue.

If you go back in the post this has been posted.

I commented that Sky's use of the death of someone as justification for hiring Leinders is disgusting.

This is the richest team in cycling. They could hire anyone, why a Doctor associated with doping?

Does he have a speciality to deal with serious viral bacterias and if so why is he not on the tour now?

 

[blackcat]

I think people are missing the forrest for the trees.

It matters not.

This is not about Sky. Look at the meta. Not one team, not one tree. It just prolongs a distortion and a willingness to imbibe the misiniformation.

If you are worried, be worried about why Chris Froome may have had an esoteric illness and if this had any relationship to the pursuit of glory in the sport.

That, is a question worth asking and answering. The other stuff, just innuendo and grist to wade over in a forum. It does not matter. There is something happening, but does it matter, and are athletes' health being compromised?

 

[ferryman]

That so many new posters have come into the clinic all guns blazing declaring the clinic as bitter and twisted with such a cynical view of cycling and how dare the clinic even think Wiggins is doping makes me believe deep down their fear is that the sport has not changed and Wiggins is doing what every one else is doing but has the unfair advantage of the ASO/UCI in its pocket like a team did that won 7 years in a row!

No one in hear has got any evidence of TeamSky doping.

What we want to know is;

Why are they training with Geert Leinders?

What did they present to ASO and why can it not be made public?

Why does Wiggin begrudge people being as suspicious/condemning/questioning as he wa in 2007?

Prove to the fans the sport is cleaner now as they say it is, 2 doping scandals to date and there are 4 stages still to go!

Why dont they publish there in house passport data and if not why don they have an independent like Ashenden analyse it?

I know i a m repeating some of What Franklin has continued to ask but all the posters supporting Wiggins/Sky has refused to address, merely quoting the Armstrong line, no evidence (in other words never tested positive).
Why is Rogers riding in the form of his life, how is this possible after he was implicated in the blood doping in Freiburg University?

Why does Wiggins think Evans was the last clean winner of the TdF, why not Sastre?

Keep banging away B69. Unfortunately, I fear you won't get any direct replies to those pertinent questions. It's an innate reaction by Sky/Wiggin's fans on here. Basically, they can't help themselves (and so we should show a level of pity/understanding), you just have to look at the number of sleekit comments on the main board in relation to opponents to understand this.

 

[red_death]

No wonder drug needed. It logistics that brings team wide doping to the fore. Logistics costs money and needs enablement to make it happen.

USPS weren't doing any wonder drugs. They just had the transfusions and the microdosing down pat. Knowing when testing will occur is a great help also.

IF you're looking for a wonder drug I believe AICAR has assisted greatly but its nothing new.

So why aren't all the other teams doing the same? Given that the accusation is that Sky does nothing unusual or novel in all other areas of their preparations (all of which require money as well!) then it seems odd that they can manage to do something spectacularly different on doping...

 

[red_death]

All of these are facts, facts which should give anyone pause to laud Sky, especially since we know the history of cycling.

Albeit pretty weak, circumstantial facts to support your and other's preposition that Sky are doping. You have shown that Sky aren't perfect and have made mistakes in both setting themselves up as hostages to fortune and their choice of personnel.

I agree with you that unfortunately lack of a positive test doesn't mean someone was clean, but I doubt there is any level of transparency that you would find sufficient...

I actually agree with you that employing Leinders is dumb, I actually thought employing Yates was even more risky if you want absolute zero taint. There does reach a point however where it makes it impossible to employ anyone with *any* pro experience though.