Team Visma LAB

[zlev11]

Dopeology is not evidence of riders or teams doping their riders lol. For a start there hasn't yet been a single rider with a doping violation when racing at Sky or Ineos in 13 years so far, Jumbo look like they will have their first within half that time, but similar level of success.
All I'm saying is, even simply alleged doping without any proven evidence is/was discussed and judged on a completely different basis for Sky than it is for Jumbo or would be for any other team, then or now. Nobody is bothered Roglics own winning team included Hessmen who now looks like will be banned with an ADRV. Nobody is bothered to be booing them on the start line, nobody is bothered to theorise for 2000 pages about how it happened, create endless twitter profiles about JumboPostal, nobody will demand anything of Jumbo or any team unless it's Ineos, then they will and they will be held to a different level of accountability. Why would that be? Simply because they said they raced clean? Well if clean means not having doping violations, Ineos are the last team in World Tour to not have a doping violation(s) since forming. If it means not saying anything much like Jumbo and most teams but having doping violations in the team, maybe they should lower their own message similarly to Jumbo perhaps, it seems you get a much easier time of it to me?

Froome tested positive and Henao had a biopassport violation, what are you talking about? if you can't even engage the discussion in good faith then please stop bringing up Team Sky in this thread.

 

[Peyroteo94]

Sorry, you are right. Probably tomorrow, I'm here to say he is red.

He is red.

 

[Cookster15]

If the performances are so ludicrous that the fans are baulking, then you have to do a clean-up job.
because it's important that the audience be able to suspend their disbelief.
When physical feats are the totality of the sport (tactics willing of course), like athletics, cycling, cross-country skiing, swimming and other sports that depend primarily on your physiological engine and efficiency, there is always the risk of being too much of an outlier for that suspension of disbelief. It's why even in my more naïve days I found Cândido Barbosa's August exploits unpalatable

In my naive days - like many - I believed in Lance. But I already can't suspend my belief in Jumbo. Not after that TT in the Tour and the VO2 max claims. It was ludicrous. So were the attempted explanations I read for Vingo's performance that day.

- but should they win all 3 GTs in this dominant a fashion, should Kuss domestique all 3 GTs and stay this strong throughout, Wout van Aert doing Wout van Aert things, Christophe Laporte winning multiple classics and so on all the way, then more and more people will be unable to suspend disbelief any further.

But let's let them actually do that first. Even Alejandro Valverde, whose high base level meant his ability to get results from February to October was legendary, ran out of gas when he tried to do all three GTs back to back with a significant role. There's been many a case of a team or rider looking imperious in a GT only to capitulate. Think of Purito and his Katyusha troop in the 2012 Vuelta, Simon Yates in the 2018 Giro or Tom Dumoulin in the 2015 Vuelta. Or, hell, Primož Roglič in the 2020 Tour. One of Jumbo's main problems then was an abject failure to capitalise on strong form, due to the insanely negative racing that sparked the whole Sepp-Kuss-never-works thing. They've gone the opposite way now, and are going full cannibal.

What more would convince you? Sky and USPS never did much outside the TdF. IMO what is unfolding is as obvious as it gets. It was obvious at the 2022 TdF. Now the team are raising their expectations. The only good thing is they have more than one rider capable so they share the love and for some that is less boring than the Armstrong or Froome eras. Only when the wider public start asking more questions will the brakes be put on as that puts pressure on the sponsors and team.

 

[zlev11]

Sky ... never did much outside the TdF

2012-2018: 6x Dauphine, 5x Paris-Nice, 4x Romandie, 2x Omloop, 2x E3, 1x Giro, Vuelta, LBL, Tirreno, Catalunya, Strade Bianche, M-SR, not to mention finishing 1-2 on many stages and GC's as well....yeah not much I guess

 

[Ripper]

In my naive days - like many - I believed in Lance. But I already can't suspend my belief in Jumbo. Not after that TT in the Tour and the VO2 max claims. It was ludicrous. So were the attempted explanations I read for Vingo's performance that day.

What more would convince you? Sky and USPS never did much outside the TdF. IMO what is unfolding is as obvious as it gets. It was obvious at the 2022 TdF. Now the team are raising their expectations. The only good thing is they have more than one rider capable so they share the love and for some that is less boring than the Armstrong or Froome eras. Only when the wider public start asking more questions will the brakes be put on as that puts pressure on the sponsors and team.

I don't think @Libertine Seguros needs any convincing, I think they are describing what it would take for the general masses of cycling fans. And I would agree - for many, they can still suspend their disbelief. But obviously, that is not everyone.

If Vigo and Kuss collapse, then that disbelief may still be held at bay. But if they continue and just obliterate everyone and, say, win and make up 3 of the top 5, well then it may become too much ...

Hubris is interesting though, and Dopo-Jizma seem to be getting cocky

 

[samhocking]

Froome tested positive and Henao had a biopassport violation, what are you talking about? if you can't even engage the discussion in good faith then please stop bringing up Team Sky in this thread.

Still not an ADRV and sanction for any rider in the team since forming in 2010..You don't seem to understand how anti-doping works where an AAF goes through an anti-doping tribunal to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a violation took place. An AAF isn't a doping violation, a bio passport anomaly isn't a doping violation. If they were proved to be, both Froome and Henao would have been sanctioned with an ADRV. You wish WADA to work in a way that it doesn't or naive to their rules perhaps?
Jumbo might well have a similar outcome with Hessman and the AAF isn't proven to be an ADRV, but masking agents are not salbutomol or passport anomalies. Over 20% of salbutomol cases don't result in the AAF being an ADRV. Passport understandings have also changed greatly since Henao's case, WADA are much more aware of false positives now and the software is continually improving to be more accurate also.

 

[zlev11]

Still not an ADRV and sanction for any rider in the team since forming in 2010..You don't seem to understand how anti-doping works where an AAF goes through an anti-doping tribunal to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a violation took place. An AAF isn't a doping violation, a bio passport anomaly isn't a doping violation. If they were proved to be, both Froome and Henao would have been sanctioned with an ADRV. You wish WADA to work in a way that it doesn't or naive to their rules perhaps?
Jumbo might well have a similar outcome with Hessman and the AAF isn't proven to be an ADRV, but masking agents are not salbutomol or passport anomalies. Over 20% of salbutomol cases don't result in the AAF being an ADRV. Passport understandings have also changed greatly since Henao's case, WADA are much more aware of false positives now and the software is continually improving to be more accurate also.

blah blah blah. go away.

 

[SHAD0W93]

Still not an ADRV and sanction for any rider in the team since forming in 2010..You don't seem to understand how anti-doping works where an AAF goes through an anti-doping tribunal to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a violation took place. An AAF isn't a doping violation, a bio passport anomaly isn't a doping violation. If they were proved to be, both Froome and Henao would have been sanctioned with an ADRV. You wish WADA to work in a way that it doesn't or naive to their rules perhaps?
Jumbo might well have a similar outcome with Hessman and the AAF isn't proven to be an ADRV, but masking agents are not salbutomol or passport anomalies. Over 20% of salbutomol cases don't result in the AAF being an ADRV. Passport understandings have also changed greatly since Henao's case, WADA are much more aware of false positives now and the software is continually improving to be more accurate also.

WADA became more aware when they tried taking on Kreuziger and lost.

 

[samhocking]

Kind of. Kruzigers case was quite a bit different to Henao because 3 experts did all first agree a passport violation, UCI rejected Kruzigers initial evidence and UCI sanctioned him, because he was provisionally suspended by UCI remember. He then lost his appeal at CAS over that suspension, but it moved to him presenting new evidence from a clinic claiming they treated him for hypothyroidism using L-Thyoxine which is obviously gonna be impossible to legally prove didn't elevate his count. He never claimed damages or even his own legal expenses, so I think it was more an agreement / trade for both sides maybe, who know.

Henau's case never reached further than CADF requesting more information, there was no 3x expert panel, no UCI sanction, appeal or suspension, Sky suspended him and that's as far as it got really. I'd agree neither case was handled well being in public like that, at least that public process no longer happens, I think Froome's leak taught UCI and CADF at the time a lot of about result management and leaking cases that do not involve a suspension to the press. It just doesn't happen anymore thank god.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Still not an ADRV and sanction for any rider in the team since forming in 2010..You don't seem to understand how anti-doping works where an AAF goes through an anti-doping tribunal to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a violation took place. An AAF isn't a doping violation, a bio passport anomaly isn't a doping violation. If they were proved to be, both Froome and Henao would have been sanctioned with an ADRV. You wish WADA to work in a way that it doesn't or naive to their rules perhaps?
Jumbo might well have a similar outcome with Hessman and the AAF isn't proven to be an ADRV, but masking agents are not salbutomol or passport anomalies. Over 20% of salbutomol cases don't result in the AAF being an ADRV. Passport understandings have also changed greatly since Henao's case, WADA are much more aware of false positives now and the software is continually improving to be more accurate also.

Cool story bro. Movistar haven't got an ADRV since 2007 in that case, too.

Rosón was biopass from his time at Caja Rural (so equivalent to JTL); Valverde was done for his involvement in Puerto and bag #18 dated back to 2004 when he was on Kelme; Visconti was given a ban for contacting Ferrari but no evidence of any actual doping was found; Costa's ban was overturned because he actually proved himself innocent.

Do you dedicate a similar amount of time to defending Abarcá?

 

[magliaroz]

All is well in the JV Postal world.

 

[samhocking]

Cool story bro. Movistar haven't got an ADRV since 2007 in that case, too.

Rosón was biopass from his time at Caja Rural (so equivalent to JTL); Valverde was done for his involvement in Puerto and bag #18 dated back to 2004 when he was on Kelme; Visconti was given a ban for contacting Ferrari but no evidence of any actual doping was found; Costa's ban was overturned because he actually proved himself innocent.

Do you dedicate a similar amount of time to defending Abarcá?

It's not a defence Libertine, because without a doping violation there's no rider to defend for sky/ineos, Maybe you missed the 'since forming' (2010-on) part of whatever time period you think i'm defending?
If we take Movistar as a team existing at the same time as Sky they have the following violations born in 2010 season alone.

Cobo - Passport Violations committed during 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons
Costa - Methylhexanamine ADRV 2010 season

Obviously if you are implying, that a teams ADRV sheet is wiped clean simply because they get a new sponsor then you have a point, nothing in 2011 onwards, but that would be an odd way to judge a team who's management structure really didn't change between 2010 and 2011 anyway wouldn't it?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

It's not a defence Libertine, because without a doping violation there's no rider to defend for sky/ineos, Maybe you missed the 'since forming' (2010-on) part of whatever time period you think i'm defending?
If we take Movistar as a team existing at the same time as Sky they have the following violations born in 2010 season alone.

Cobo - Passport Violations committed during 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons
Costa - Methylhexanamine ADRV 2010 season

Obviously if you are implying, that a teams ADRV sheet is wiped clean simply because they get a new sponsor then you have a point, nothing in 2011 onwards, but that would be an odd way to judge a team who's management structure really didn't change between 2010 and 2011 anyway wouldn't it?

Cobo's discrepancies were that the values shown from his 2009 and 2011 seasons were out of whack with what he showed in 2010 when at Movistar. He's no different to Rosón or Tiernan-Locke in that respect, his values while at Movistar in 2010 were what made the values shown elsewhere suspicious.

Costa's ban was overturned because he actually proved that the oft-used and oft-derided tainted supplements defence was actually true in his case, so his ban was quashed. I literally pointed that out in the post you quoted (which included all of the doping incidences involving Movistar in the period since Fertonani in 2007 and why they could be argued away in the same manner as your arguing away Froome and Henao for not being 'true' ADRVs and also the likes of Barry and Tiernan-Locke for their offences predating their time at Sky), so still counting it is no different to counting Froome's AAF. In fact, it's more dishonest, because Froome was not proven innocent per se, the defence was based on them not being able to prove that the salbutamol values couldn't have got there by legal means so they couldn't say for certain that a doping offence had been committed and therefore it would be unfair to suspend him with that uncertainty even if the balance of probabilities suggested that those values were highly unlikely to have occurred naturally; whereas Costa was exonerated fully, based on him proving that the supplements he had taken were, in fact, tainted with methylhexanamine, and that that was how the substance had arrived in his sample.

 

[samhocking]

Cobo's discrepancies were that the values shown from his 2009 and 2011 seasons were out of whack with what he showed in 2010 when at Movistar. He's no different to Rosón or Tiernan-Locke in that respect, his values while at Movistar in 2010 were what made the values shown elsewhere suspicious.

Costa's ban was overturned because he actually proved that the oft-used and oft-derided tainted supplements defence was actually true in his case, so his ban was quashed. I literally pointed that out in the post you quoted (which included all of the doping incidences involving Movistar in the period since Fertonani in 2007 and why they could be argued away in the same manner as your arguing away Froome and Henao for not being 'true' ADRVs and also the likes of Barry and Tiernan-Locke for their offences predating their time at Sky), so still counting it is no different to counting Froome's AAF. In fact, it's more dishonest, because Froome was not proven innocent per se, the defence was based on them not being able to prove that the salbutamol values couldn't have got there by legal means so they couldn't say for certain that a doping offence had been committed and therefore it would be unfair to suspend him with that uncertainty even if the balance of probabilities suggested that those values were highly unlikely to have occurred naturally; whereas Costa was exonerated fully, based on him proving that the supplements he had taken were, in fact, tainted with methylhexanamine, and that that was how the substance had arrived in his sample.

Now who's spending time defending haha!

UCI's Statement as you are editing there Libertine to bypass the year at Movistar. All media states between 3 years, not 2..
Juan Jose Cobo has been found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation based on “abnormalities” in his biological passport between 2009 and 2011 .
Therefore his ADRV also must apply between those dates when at Movistar Libertine.

Costa received an ADRV and lost his results where he AAFd, I didn't say anything about him being banned, the term I chose was ADRV because it is still the teams/athletes fault they received an ADRV, the length of ban can be from nothing to the full term so saying no ban doesn't mean there wasn't an ADRV.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Now who's spending time defending haha!

UCI's Statement as you are editing there Libertine to bypass the year at Movistar. All media states between 3 years, not 2..
Juan Jose Cobo has been found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation based on “abnormalities” in his biological passport between 2009 and 2011 .
Therefore his ADRV also must apply between those dates when at Movistar Libertine.

Costa received an ADRV and lost his results where he AAFd, I didn't say anything about him being banned, the term I chose was ADRV because it is still the teams/athletes fault they received an ADRV, the length of ban can be from nothing to the full term so saying no ban doesn't mean there wasn't an ADRV.

You know how the biopassport works? Tiernan-Locke produced test data in 2012 while on a WT team that made his previous results suspicious because they were outliers against his usual values. That doesn't mean he was doping at Sky, but that the baseline values he presented over his time at Sky meant that the values he showed with Endura were massively out of line with the values that would be expected based on the data received with Sky.

Cobo couldn't even finish a race in 2010. He had psychological issues, he didn't like being at the team and they gave up on him. There is more than just "clean Cobo/dirty Cobo" at play with him, but given he was disqualified from results in 2009 and 2011 but none of what he achieved in 2010 suggests they do not have enough to suggest any of those (pitiful) results were ill-gotten, in much the same way as Tiernan-Locke was disqualified from his results in September 2012 only, and not for anything he did at Sky. If Cobo counts against Movistar, Tiernan-Locke must count against Sky. I don't count Tiernan-Locke as a doping case against Sky, personally, because I think they bought a dud - I do, however, blame them for faulty scouting, because JTL's 2012 performances were so outrageously suspicious that they merited a deeper dive into testing before handing out a contract. I got the feeling that since Tiernan-Locke filled a niche in the team that was the last part of the calendar left that they didn't have a prominent British rider for, they got a bit overexcited and signed him before completing the due diligence.

You're arguing semantics to the point of pedantry in order to defend an interpretation that Sky have never had a doping issue, I'm pointing out that by the same standards Movistar haven't either, and you aren't going to great lengths to defend them. It's not about defending Movistar as a clean team, it's about illustrating that you're going through all the contortions to claim Sky a clean team by the letter of the law, but then when presented with another team, you're hanging them as dirty based on semantics by using a case where the rider was actually proven innocent, while simultaneously arguing that riders on your preferred team testing positive don't count as doping because the substance is controlled rather than forbidden so the terminology is different. This double standard is something we have been seeing for over a decade from Sky fans, and for a decade before that (long predating this forum) from US Postal fans. And before that it would have been T-Mobile, and Banesto... the parting on the left just becomes the parting on the right, as Roger Daltrey once sang.

 

[samhocking]

You know how the biopassport works? Tiernan-Locke produced test data in 2012 while on a WT team that made his previous results suspicious because they were outliers against his usual values. That doesn't mean he was doping at Sky, but that the baseline values he presented over his time at Sky meant that the values he showed with Endura were massively out of line with the values that would be expected based on the data received with Sky.

Cobo couldn't even finish a race in 2010. He had psychological issues, he didn't like being at the team and they gave up on him. There is more than just "clean Cobo/dirty Cobo" at play with him, but given he was disqualified from results in 2009 and 2011 but none of what he achieved in 2010 suggests they do not have enough to suggest any of those (pitiful) results were ill-gotten, in much the same way as Tiernan-Locke was disqualified from his results in September 2012 only, and not for anything he did at Sky. If Cobo counts against Movistar, Tiernan-Locke must count against Sky. I don't count Tiernan-Locke as a doping case against Sky, personally, because I think they bought a dud - I do, however, blame them for faulty scouting, because JTL's 2012 performances were so outrageously suspicious that they merited a deeper dive into testing before handing out a contract. I got the feeling that since Tiernan-Locke filled a niche in the team that was the last part of the calendar left that they didn't have a prominent British rider for, they got a bit overexcited and signed him before completing the due diligence.

You're arguing semantics to the point of pedantry in order to defend an interpretation that Sky have never had a doping issue, I'm pointing out that by the same standards Movistar haven't either, and you aren't going to great lengths to defend them. It's not about defending Movistar as a clean team, it's about illustrating that you're going through all the contortions to claim Sky a clean team by the letter of the law, but then when presented with another team, you're hanging them as dirty based on semantics by using a case where the rider was actually proven innocent, while simultaneously arguing that riders on your preferred team testing positive don't count as doping because the substance is controlled rather than forbidden so the terminology is different. This double standard is something we have been seeing for over a decade from Sky fans, and for a decade before that (long predating this forum) from US Postal fans. And before that it would have been T-Mobile, and Banesto... the parting on the left just becomes the parting on the right, as Roger Daltrey once sang.

I'm really not arguing semantics. The word 'between' with a start and end date means nothing else than between those dates of his passport as UCI stated. If his ADRV wasn't between, UCI's statement would read 'in' 2009 and 2011.

I chose the word ADRV because as I'm sure you are aware there are 4 stages to anti-doping results management:

1. AAF
2. ADRV - PROVISIONAL SUSPENSIONS
3. ADRV - SANCTIONS
4. PROHIBITED ASSOCIATION LIST

It's really not semantics to say Movistar received ADRVs, because the Evidence is there, both Cobo and Cost received ADRV Provisional Suspensions. It's likewise really not semantics to say Sky/Ineos haven't received an ADRV since 2010, because Froome only ever received an AAF, because Salbutomol has no ADRV Provisional Suspension possible (Why and how he carried on racing remember).

I'll take your word Costa wasn't banned, although there's multiple sources in the media saying his 5 month ban ended in January 12, 2011 and then Movistar re-signing him,

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I'm really not arguing semantics. The word 'between' with a start and end date means nothing else than between those two dates as UCI stated.

I chose the word ADRV because as I'm sure you are aware there are 4 stages to anti-doping results management:

1. AAF
2. ADRV - PROVISIONAL SUSPENSIONS
3. ADRV - SANCTIONS
4. PROHIBITED ASSOCIATION LIST

It's really not semantics to say Movistar received ADRVs, because the Evidence is there. It's likewise really not semantics to say Sky/Ineos haven't received an ADRV since 2010, because Froome only ever received AAF, because Salbutomol has no ADRV Provisional Suspension possible (Why and how he carried on racing remember)

And the only person who was differentiating these and arguing that stage 1 is not doping and stages 2 and above are was you. Nobody was saying "Sky have had ADRVs" or "Sky have advanced beyond stage 1 of the anti-doping results management protocol". They were saying "Sky have had riders test positive and trip the biopassport". Which is true.

Zlev raised the topic of involvement in doping scandals - which Sky have had a lot of. As you yourself acknowledged, cycling often tacitly accepts doping if the rider exits quietly. And as you well know, lots of people get involved in doping scandals and never get sanctioned. I mean, hell, Paco Mancebo is still making ends meet riding low level races in Japan at age 47. He was named in Operación Puerto, but according to the anti-doping protocols he's a clean rider. Do you consider Paco Mancebo to be a clean rider? He never even had an AAF.

 

[samhocking]

And the only person who was differentiating these and arguing that stage 1 is not doping and stages 2 and above are was you. Nobody was saying "Sky have had ADRVs" or "Sky have advanced beyond stage 1 of the anti-doping results management protocol". They were saying "Sky have had riders test positive and trip the biopassport". Which is true.

Zlev raised the topic of involvement in doping scandals - which Sky have had a lot of. As you yourself acknowledged, cycling often tacitly accepts doping if the rider exits quietly. And as you well know, lots of people get involved in doping scandals and never get sanctioned. I mean, hell, Paco Mancebo is still making ends meet riding low level races in Japan at age 47. He was named in Operación Puerto, but according to the anti-doping protocols he's a clean rider. Do you consider Paco Mancebo to be a clean rider? He never even had an AAF.

Please state name of rider and a UCI statement as to the ADRV Provisional Suspension because that's news to me. CADF requested more information from Sky for Henao, it never went though a UCI Results Management procedure for him to be suspended whatsoever, that was Sky's decision. JTLs UCI statement clearly defines the passport violation as before his Sky contract not between as per Cobo.
Agreed, these matters are complex, but my intention was simply to highlight Jumbo now have an ADRV and so Ineos are the last remaining team in World Tour since they began without one as far as I can see from researching this a couple of years ago.

 

[Cookster15]

Hubris is interesting though, and Dopo-Jizma seem to be getting cocky

The hubris (arrogance?) is what annoys me. They think they have it all worked out before races are even conducted. Again that reminds me of Sky / Brailsford. But they miscalculated in stage 16 of the Tour - that was way too obvious. Stories then emerged about the greatest time trial ever - Better than Indurain, Cancellara etc? And this was explained by Vingo having the highest Vo2 max ever measured in any athlete together with aero and cornering? Stop trying to sell me horse manure Jumbo-Visma.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Agreed, these matters are complex, but my intention was simply to highlight Jumbo now have an ADRV and so Ineos are the last remaining team in World Tour since they began without one as far as I can see from researching this a couple of years ago.

So your intention was to juxtapose Sky against Jumbo in order to say "your dominance bad, my dominance good"? What function did raising Sky have in respect of the Hessmann positive at all, other than to perpetuate another round of mental gymnastics to claim Sky cleaner than their peers during their era of dominance?

Come on, Sam, don't think we were all born yesterday. I point out nobody ever went into the detail of "well, Sky have had ADRVs", but they just pointed out a number of riders have got named in scandals without any recourse to what sanctions resulted. And your response is, "please state name of rider and a UCI statement as to the ADRV Provisional Suspension." A few hours ago, I mentioned Costa's ban being overturned because of his proving his innocence, and you literally then cited him as an example of why Abarcá were a dirty team in a post quoting my comment about his ban being overturned. It's clear you aren't interested in a good faith discussion.

 

[zlev11]

sam will twist the wording of anything to get it to support his point. there's nothing to be gained from debating someone being so disingenuous.

 

[Unchained]

I find Jumbo fascinating.. even after these last few days.. they have winning and podium riders being ushered into the control trailers and I am just guessing, with budget, organization and direct rider management I don't think that they take anyone's word for it..
Are you clean or not? Doesn't sound like a question that they ask but I still don't see how a banned diuretic didn't show on inner team testing which I am presuming is a regular thing.. Baffled at riders taking any drug even for a headache or sunburn, jock itch without checking first..

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Please state name of rider and a UCI statement as to the ADRV Provisional Suspension because that's news to me. CADF requested more information from Sky for Henao, it never went though a UCI Results Management procedure for him to be suspended whatsoever, that was Sky's decision. JTLs UCI statement clearly defines the passport violation as before his Sky contract not between as per Cobo.
Agreed, these matters are complex, but my intention was simply to highlight Jumbo now have an ADRV and so Ineos are the last remaining team in World Tour since they began without one as far as I can see from researching this a couple of years ago.

I can hear you post in a British accent.

 

[yaco]

Gee - One would have to think that the Team Sky/British Cycling Doctor Freeman being found guilty of having banned substances onsite at the British Track Cycling Headquarters outweighs any possible or proven ADRV by Jumbo or Sky.

 

[Rob5091]

Gee - One would have to think that the Team Sky/British Cycling Doctor Freeman being found guilty of having banned substances onsite at the British Track Cycling Headquarters outweighs any possible or proven ADRV by Jumbo or Sky.

Until someone puts up their hand and says the gels were for them, the case seems to have come to an end unfortunately. All we know is the doc did n't say the gels were for himself!