Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Franklin]

I think they have something new and very undetectable (at least for now). I suspect a DNA/Clone/StemCell modification of your body system. If you are testing for blood/Unrine/Drugs how will you catch anything?? In short we are dealing with Androids.....Is it a loser for everyone? No, actually its easier to beat unless they have also modified the brains department.

Meh, it's probably the good old blood doping. It's still undetectable.

Add in micro-dosing steroids and epo.

No need for fancy tricks.

 

[OldManThyme]

Funny guy, seems you have trouble grasping the term "management team".

You are a bit slow on the uptake it seems: There was no higher management than those three. That was the upper management team. Only after the Rasmussen disaster did the sponsor step in and appoint their own manager

Slam dunk on your posturing eh? What handwaving can you produce now?

You know, instead of asking for us to produce defense you could also just read up about this stuff. I certainly advise you to research someone before I express my faith. Saves embarrassments like these.

??I never said management team. I said the management. To me that means brailsford. or the DS calling the shots. A team doctor does not go round setting up a doping regime for a team. And my comments have been in reference to the conversation on Sky doping. As a team. now i'm pretty sure brailsford was the team manager from day 1. And i don't think he wants doping in the team.

As i said before, i think riders are the real risk at sky. Doping independently of the team.......

 

[jilbiker]

Meh, it's probably the good old blood doping. It's still undetectable.

Add in micro-dosing steroids and epo.

No need for fancy tricks.

Micro-dosing will not give you what we are seeing. LA was not micro-dosing it was the full-McCoy....And these numbers match or exceed US Postal numbers. Except the full-McCoy blood dosing today will be caught in a flash, so its something very different.

 

[OldManThyme]

To use the death of someone to justify hiring a doping Doctor like Leinders is disgusting. I have said it before and i again i still think it is disgusting.

http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-a...ses-doctor-dilemma-we-are-100-per-cent-clean/

again here



Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...s-role-with-Sky-Procycling.aspx#ixzz24aMCGYUq

"it’s about genuine medical practice". That is why Leinders was not at the TdF then?

Better do some reading up on Sky, Wiggins and Froome. The Clinic has it all. You will have to wade through a lot to get to the bones, but it is all there to paint a picture that Sky is not what it says.

Ps Dont miss the bit about Dr Bartalucci.

I agree that the death of a soigneur has nothing to do with the reasons behind the employing of a doctor. But i don't read him saying in those quotes that that was the reason. The journalist is adding it as background and Brailsford is saying that the medical team needed to be stronger. Though, importantly, that doesn't explain why it should have been Leinders. He is very suspicious, as i've said before. but it doesn't mean the team are doping. More worryign is the link within your second linked article to the kimmage interview and how kimmage had it agreed to join Sky by brailsford by wiggins blocked it.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/marco-pinotti-exclusive-interview-with-italian-cyclings-voice-of-reason
is interesting too - non sky related but linked to kimmage interview above

 

[Darryl Webster]

Well, well well, this is about as accusing as it gets!

"Work together with Antoine Vayer [LeMond columnist], the performance specialist, helped show the implausibility of the power generated in watts on the climbs. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the UCI has banned the publication of such real-time statistics in 2012. And we can understand why when you see that the power production by [Bradley] Wiggins and [Chris] Froome (first and second of the Tour) is comparable to the turbulent times of the late 1990s and early 2000s."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-warned-before-all-doping-controls

 

[luckyboy]

UCI banned the publication of power stats? Never heard that before

 

[the big ring]

UCI banned the publication of power stats? Never heard that before

I think they mean the live telemetry stuff. Which makes it sound a little weak. Could be wrong.

ETA: keep in mind, it was a French article that has been translated...

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Well, well well, this is about as accusing as it gets!

"Work together with Antoine Vayer [LeMond columnist], the performance specialist, helped show the implausibility of the power generated in watts on the climbs. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the UCI has banned the publication of such real-time statistics in 2012. And we can understand why when you see that the power production by [Bradley] Wiggins and [Chris] Froome (first and second of the Tour) is comparable to the turbulent times of the late 1990s and early 2000s."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-warned-before-all-doping-controls

It's also bull****.

 

[Arnout]

That graph is moronic. Are they going to tell me that Brad Wiggins ended a minute down on AC on Verbier with a Vam below that of Indurain 1995?

No Schlecks, no Nibali, it's just AC who had a huge VAM that day, everyone else was normal

I still think Verbier 2009 is out of context. It was a after a very easy second week, after a first week with only one single climb: Arcalis. Furthermore, it was short and sheltered (no wind), with no climbs of note before it. That's always going to skew results. The climb is not comparable to other climbs on that list.

 

[Benotti69]

I agree that the death of a soigneur has nothing to do with the reasons behind the employing of a doctor. But i don't read him saying in those quotes that that was the reason. The journalist is adding it as background and Brailsford is saying that the medical team needed to be stronger. Though, importantly, that doesn't explain why it should have been Leinders. He is very suspicious, as i've said before. but it doesn't mean the team are doping. More worryign is the link within your second linked article to the kimmage interview and how kimmage had it agreed to join Sky by brailsford by wiggins blocked it.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/marco-pinotti-exclusive-interview-with-italian-cyclings-voice-of-reason
is interesting too - non sky related but linked to kimmage interview above

No it is an actaul quote from Braislford using the death of a soignuer. Re read it. The Journalist is quoting Brailsford. See the "" marks for Braislford's words.

 

[Benotti69]

UCI banned the publication of power stats? Never heard that before

Are 'real time statistics' the same as power statistics?

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

I do get bored of reading people talking about 'logic' in this forum.

There is no debate over logic, here, just facts.

Pigs are normally green, so Sky are clean is a logically valid argument, but it doesn't really get us very far.

 

[Krebs cycle]

That graph is moronic. Are they going to tell me that Brad Wiggins ended a minute down on AC on Verbier with a Vam below that of Indurain 1995?

No Schlecks, no Nibali, it's just AC who had a huge VAM that day, everyone else was normal

If you go to the page where that graph comes from....

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-2009-contador-climb.html

and use the same figures (ie: 638m vert, Contadors vam = 1858m/hr)

then you get a time for Contador of 20:36.

add 1:06 for Wiggins and you get a VAM = 1764 m/hr.

Now if you go and watch the climb on youtube you'll notice that Wiggins sits in a group with Nibali, Frank Shleck, Kloden, Armstrong, and Evans for virtually all of it and only takes a turn on the front with about 2km to go.

Now go watch the 1995 Alpe d'Huez and you note that Indurain is on the front chasing Pantani from way down the mtn.

 

[acoggan]

I think they mean the live telemetry stuff.

Correct. Their thinking, I assume, is that racing will be more exciting if you don't have DSs following the data of competitors and relaying it to their own riders via radio.

 

[Krebs cycle]

more on the above

Performances at the Tour 2009
By: Michele Ferrari
Published: 19 Jul 2009

On the ascent to Verbier (638m of difference in height at 7.5%) Alberto Contador (62kg) climbed at 1852 m/h, equal to 6.73 w/kg, developing an average of 417w.

Lance Armstrong (72 kg) climbed at 1720 m/h, equal to 6.25 w/kg, developing 450w.

The difference between their VAM's is 7.4% in favor of Alberto, while Lance, whose body weight is 16% heavier, pushed 8% more watts: a suggestion that in the upcoming time trial in Annecy it could be a very close and uncertain duel.

In Arcalis (751m of ascent at 7.1%) Contador climbed at 1671 m/h, equal to 6.18 w/kg, with Armstrong and all the other best riders at 1649 m/h (6.10 w/kg); but in the last couple of km Alberto had already showed a power that was 7.2% superior to his rivals'.

At the tour in 2009 Wiggins was also 71-72kg (same as Armstrong), so that would mean that Wiggins was riding below 450W since he was sitting in the group drafting for most of the climb.

It's pretty much the same as what they were doing this year, <440W sustained for 20min or so. Wiggins was never on the front in any climb this year, so we're back at square one..... is it possible for an IP rider who can produce something like 570W for 4min, to drop 10kg of bodyweight over a period of 11months and sustain approx 400-420W for 20-30min?

edit: even Basso said he was doing 420W and he is reportedly 70kg. Was he talking about his power when he was on the front or sitting on a wheel? Even if he is was talking about his power sitting on a wheel, then we can assume that Wiggins' power was about the same. If Basso can hold 420W then why can't Wiggins?

 

[Krebs cycle]

Has anyone who like to compare Wiggins to Armstrong taken a look at the index of doping allegations against Armstrong?

In 1999 there was already evidence of a positive test for cortisone and 3yrs later in 2002 there was so much eyewitness testimony in addition to published doping allegations coming from cycling journalists that David Walsh had enough material to write a book.

Compare that to Wiggins who started his doping in 2009 to most people here, yet 3yrs later, there hasn't been a single doping allegation leveled against either Team Sky or Wiggins. The only thing anyone can come up with is Kimmage asking for more transparency. Kimmage has categorically stated that he isn't accusing Wiggins of doping though.

If evidence of either the performance data OR published doping allegations were stronger then I would most definitely be a lot more suspicious but the fact is that neither are there.

 

[the sceptic]

To me the most suspicious thing about Wiggins is how much he improved in ITTs while losing that much weight. How is that possible?

 

[luckyboy]

Are 'real time statistics' the same as power statistics?

"Work together with Antoine Vayer, the performance specialist, helped show the implausibility of the power generated in watts on the climbs. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the UCI has banned the publication of such real-time statistics in 2012."

The previous sentence talking about power/watts and the use of 'such real-time statistics' made me think that was what it was about.
Could've been complicated in translation, didn't mean anything by it.

 

[the big ring]

It's pretty much the same as what they were doing this year, <440W sustained for 20min or so. Wiggins was never on the front in any climb this year, so we're back at square one..... is it possible for an IP rider who can produce something like 570W for 4min, to drop 10kg of bodyweight over a period of 11months and sustain approx 400-420W for 20-30min?

A few times a day, while racing hilly 200km stages, a few days in a row, for a total of 3 weeks, then smash everyone in the final TT, including those who were sitting on for even longer than him.

And do that in every stage race from Feb/March all the way through to August? Having never won a multi stage, EVER, in his career?

Not without some very special marginal gains, no.

 

[the big ring]

Has anyone who like to compare Wiggins to Armstrong taken a look at the index of doping allegations against Armstrong?

In 1999 there was already evidence of a positive test for cortisone and 3yrs later in 2002 there was so much eyewitness testimony in addition to published doping allegations coming from cycling journalists that David Walsh had enough material to write a book.

Compare that to Wiggins who started his doping in 2009 to most people here, yet 3yrs later, there hasn't been a single doping allegation leveled against either Team Sky or Wiggins. The only thing anyone can come up with is Kimmage asking for more transparency. Kimmage has categorically stated that he isn't accusing Wiggins of doping though.

If evidence of either the performance data OR published doping allegations were stronger then I would most definitely be a lot more suspicious but the fact is that neither are there.

What is suspicious to me is comparing Wiggins to the greatest sporting fraud in cycling's history, and coming to the conclusion that because they don't compare, Wiggins is clean.

This is easily explained by the meeting held with ASO before the start of the race, and an improved testing protocol / communication method whereby tests are "handled" more effectively.

Makes total sense to me that the protection racket is getting more sophisticated over time, not remaining as amateurish and prone to mistakes as it was back in 1999.

 

[DirtyWorks]

...there hasn't been a single doping allegation leveled against either Team Sky or Wiggins. ...

Krebs, you are assuming the UCI WOULD ACTUALLY START A SANCTION process for a positive should one arise.

Go back to Contador's positive where the UCI tried to supress that. Go back to Armstrong's 'comeback' and the longitudinal positive that the USADA has that the UCI never initiated.

The problem you refuse to acknowledge is the UCI's total corruption in the apparent pursuit of an audience, or money, or something. Except you keep reasoning like the UCI is an honest enforcer/actor/etc. They are not. You cannot rely on the UCI to enforce anything once you have a real shot at the TdF, or pay WCP, or Pat or Hein or somebody.

 

[DirtyWorks]

A few times a day, while racing hilly 200km stages, a few days in a row, for a total of 3 weeks, then smash everyone in the final TT, including those who were sitting on for even longer than him.

And do that in every stage race from Feb/March all the way through to August? Having never won a multi stage, EVER, in his career?

Not without some very special marginal gains, no.

More than one rider as well.... 2012 was just a weak field. All year.

 

[sittingbison]

You Are too funny. BMC a murky history is the understatement of the year.

Also, Wiggo might have had little to say in his doctor, but Evans sure as well made the choice.

Your denial is hilarious. Your understating BMC's modus operandi is either sadly lacking in knowledge or wilfully misleading.

Anything we rightly throw at Sky can and should be thrown even harder at BMC.

Franklin I'm not defending BMC in the slightest, and I deliberately used the word "murky" because i did mot want to discuss BMC on this thread. If you want i will call them filthy tainted doping team, it mskes no difference to my points. My first point is in direct response to fizzy continually comparing Evans to Froome which is ridiculous on many levels. My second is there is no comparison with a rider joining any team, and a team purposely selecting a known doping doctor like Leinders. It is an illogical comparison

 

[sittingbison]

There then follows a long explanation by an Australian about why Evans is fine.

I agree, but the bizzare, unnecessary, hypocritical opening line did make me chuckle.

Bit rich using the nationalistic line from a Pom in a sky thread.

If you bothered to read why I made the introductory statement, it's because it is completely illogical to compare a rider joining any particular team "known" dopers like BMC or otherwise (what otherwise?), and a team employing a known doping doctor like Leinders (especially given Sky and Wiggo stance against doping doctors)

The lengthy "defense" of Evans is in direct response to fizzy repeatedly comparing Evans to Froome over three threads, patently ridiculous.

As for nationalism, stick it up your jacksy mate, I have often queried Rogers and Porte on all Sky, Wiggo and Froome threads. Evans? Who knows. What I do know is Froome is nothing like him in any category. Judge him for him, not against Froome or Leinders.

 

[sittingbison]

Really? How many career doctors from outside are going to risk their reputations coming in to cycling with cyclings very very poor reputation?
Are you for real?

And then of the cycling doctors (who by association, as you say, are nearly all tainted), which ones are less likely to bring suspicion and are not already attached under contract to a team for 2010 back in that year when Sky was starting up?

Logical and proven statements to prove "They could hire any other doctor in the world" please....

First, there is no such thing as a cycling doctor. Doctors on cycling teams have only two roles, maintaining the health of cyclists, and running doping programs. Leinders is categorically the latter. Franklin has demonstrated this on numerous occasions if you want to be educated.

Second, when Sky started Brailsford categorically claimed "no doctors from within cycling". You might want to read the recent Kimmage article.

Third, Leinders was NOT on the roster at start up, brought in post Wiggo.

Fourth, Sky can employ any doctor, nutritionist, physio, shrink or sports scientist they want. Going for Leinders after the Chicken, Dekker and then de Rooy (sic) confession, then stating they didn't look into his background, then stating it was because of the unfortunate death of the signeur was ludicrous and then disgraceful.

And for the third time, a rider joining a team dirty or not is not comparable to a team hiring a dirty doctor (especially given the team doctrine and personal stance of star rider)