• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

The Yates (AKA the TUE Brothers)

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
Re: Re:

Ramon Koran said:
I've argued why they are clean : a linear progression, bags of potential and riding for a team that has no history of doping riders.
i agree. however, i never heard of fuentes use the idiom potential as synonym for plasma, but u must b a native english speaker versed in haematology #respect/
 
Jul 20, 2015
393
0
0
Re:

More Strides than Rides said:
We can't rely on hard evidence because for dozens of seasons, hard evidence has fallen short through false-negatives, and coverups of true-positives.

Hard evidence has let us down. Waiting for hard evidence led sport into the doped-up mess it is (or was, if that's your take...). Waiting for hard evidence is slow, when the informed speculation has been reliable.

Look at the threads about Iglinsky after LBL. Thenwe get the hard evidence. Look at the threads about Danielson. Thenwe get hard evidence. Look at the threads about Contador in 2010/11. Thenwe get hard evidence. Look at the threads about the Schlecks in 2010. Thenwe get hard evidence. Look at the threads about Ulissi during 2014 Giro. Then we got the hard evidence. Or look at the threads about Menchov, or JTL, or Di Luca, or...

The Clinic has a very good record of speculation. Froome, Quintana, Yateses, Porte, Martin? Just haven't been caught yet. Because history shows that that statement, "haven't been caught yet" is more accurate than "won't be caught (with hard evidence)".

The Clinic is not losing credibility. It may be losing respectability, but that is the consequence of calling spades on fans' favorite riders. Not because the Clinic is wrong.
If I throw a 10km wide net out in the ocean I'm going to catch something. With several of those names having been caught or linked with doping previously, so wasn't a massive jump. By the way wasn't aware Andy was caught doping?
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
Re: Re:

Ramon Koran said:
More Strides than Rides said:
No evidence except that one of them was banned for taking Terbutaline... and teammates have tested positive... and DSs have doped as part of program-wide doping... and UKAD has shown incompetence in anti-doping and tolerance for doping... and that Adam is third place in the what is routinely the dirtiest race in the world.

But yeah, I guess. No evidence.
The only evidence there is one of them testing positive however it appears that it was merely a paperwork problem so not evidence of doping as it is used as a TUE's. The rest of what you are saying is not evidence that the Yates doped, you are merely speculating because THESE things hapenned that the Yates bro's doped. And this is why the clinic is losing credibility we need HARD evidence not speculation based on past events about riders that they may or may not frequent regularly.
and their dad sean yates never doped neither

#smear campaign

#paternity

#talentitsintheveins

#Poe's_law
 
Jul 4, 2015
417
0
0
Re:

More Strides than Rides said:
We can't rely on hard evidence because for dozens of seasons, hard evidence has fallen short through false-negatives, and coverups of true-positives.

Hard evidence has let us down. Waiting for hard evidence led sport into the doped-up mess it is (or was, if that's your take...). Waiting for hard evidence is slow, when the informed speculation has been reliable.

Look at the threads about Iglinsky after LBL. Thenwe get the hard evidence. Look at the threads about Danielson. Thenwe get hard evidence. Look at the threads about Contador in 2010/11. Thenwe get hard evidence. Look at the threads about the Schlecks in 2010. Thenwe get hard evidence. Look at the threads about Ulissi during 2014 Giro. Then we got the hard evidence. Or look at the threads about Menchov, or JTL, or Di Luca, or...

The Clinic has a very good record of speculation. Froome, Quintana, Yateses, Porte, Martin? Just haven't been caught yet. Because history shows that the statement, "haven't been caught yet" is more accurate than "won't be caught (with hard evidence)".

The Clinic is not losing credibility. It may be losing respectability, but that is the consequence of calling spades on fans' favorite riders. Not because the Clinic is wrong.
I sort of agree BUT, there was evidence in these cases for starters Alberto rode for Astana under Bruyneel and was a teammate of Armstrong. That can be evidence, Iglinski again rode for Astana, the schlecks rode for Riss, Ulissi had connections, as far as I know the Yates have never been associated with doping chiefs as you could call them or rode for doping teams same for Martin. Porte, Quintana and Froome do have evidence because of who they have worked under so fair enough to accuse them but when there is no evidence at all it becomes difficult and the threads become pointless. Maybe the Yates bro's are doping but a case needs to be put forward like was done at the start of the Froome thread. I don't see any evidence be it high numbers on climbs, suspect improvement or anything else to accuse them. Surely untill such is the case a specific thread on them is useless?
 
Jul 4, 2015
417
0
0
Re: Re:

blackcat said:
Ramon Koran said:
I've argued why they are clean : a linear progression, bags of potential and riding for a team that has no history of doping riders.
i agree. however, i never heard of fuentes use the idiom potential as synonym for plasma, but u must b a native english speaker versed in haematology #respect/
First of all I'm French so you got that wrong, secondly I find your post insulting towards me I would appreciate it if you didn't take me for an idiot.
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
Re: Re:

Ramon Koran said:
blackcat said:
Ramon Koran said:
I've argued why they are clean : a linear progression, bags of potential and riding for a team that has no history of doping riders.
i agree. however, i never heard of fuentes use the idiom potential as synonym for plasma, but u must b a native english speaker versed in haematology #respect/
First of all I'm French so you got that wrong, secondly I find your post insulting towards me I would appreciate it if you didn't take me for an idiot.
Johnny COckring - "if the shoe fits, you must acquit"
 
May 26, 2009
2,762
0
0
Re: Re:

Ramon Koran said:
More Strides than Rides said:
We can't rely on hard evidence because for dozens of seasons, hard evidence has fallen short through false-negatives, and coverups of true-positives.

Hard evidence has let us down. Waiting for hard evidence led sport into the doped-up mess it is (or was, if that's your take...). Waiting for hard evidence is slow, when the informed speculation has been reliable.

Look at the threads about Iglinsky after LBL. Thenwe get the hard evidence. Look at the threads about Danielson. Thenwe get hard evidence. Look at the threads about Contador in 2010/11. Thenwe get hard evidence. Look at the threads about the Schlecks in 2010. Thenwe get hard evidence. Look at the threads about Ulissi during 2014 Giro. Then we got the hard evidence. Or look at the threads about Menchov, or JTL, or Di Luca, or...

The Clinic has a very good record of speculation. Froome, Quintana, Yateses, Porte, Martin? Just haven't been caught yet. Because history shows that the statement, "haven't been caught yet" is more accurate than "won't be caught (with hard evidence)".

The Clinic is not losing credibility. It may be losing respectability, but that is the consequence of calling spades on fans' favorite riders. Not because the Clinic is wrong.
I sort of agree BUT, there was evidence in these cases for starters Alberto rode for Astana under Bruyneel and was a teammate of Armstrong. That can be evidence, Iglinski again rode for Astana, the schlecks rode for Riss, Ulissi had connections, as far as I know the Yates have never been associated with doping chiefs as you could call them or rode for doping teams same for Martin. Porte, Quintana and Froome do have evidence because of who they have worked under so fair enough to accuse them but when there is no evidence at all it becomes difficult and the threads become pointless. Maybe the Yates bro's are doping but a case needs to be put forward like was done at the start of the Froome thread. I don't see any evidence be it high numbers on climbs, suspect improvement or anything else to accuse them. Surely untill such is the case a specific thread on them is useless?
Ok by that logic you can say it looks dodgy for the Yates brothers. Neil Stephens part of the DS team at Orica, rode for ONCE and Festina and has been a DS for Liberty-Seguros(ONCE), Caisse D'Epargne. Matt White another manager/DS at Orica, also rode under Bruyneel and was a teammate of Armstrong. Both White and Stephens admitted to using PED's too.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Re: Re:

Ramon Koran said:
blackcat said:
Ramon Koran said:
I've argued why they are clean : a linear progression, bags of potential and riding for a team that has no history of doping riders.
i agree. however, i never heard of fuentes use the idiom potential as synonym for plasma, but u must b a native english speaker versed in haematology #respect/
First of all I'm French so you got that wrong, secondly I find your post insulting towards me I would appreciate it if you didn't take me for an idiot.
Lost in translation. :rolleyes:
 
Jul 4, 2015
417
0
0
Re: Re:

BYOP88 said:
Ramon Koran said:
More Strides than Rides said:
We can't rely on hard evidence because for dozens of seasons, hard evidence has fallen short through false-negatives, and coverups of true-positives.

Hard evidence has let us down. Waiting for hard evidence led sport into the doped-up mess it is (or was, if that's your take...). Waiting for hard evidence is slow, when the informed speculation has been reliable.

Look at the threads about Iglinsky after LBL. Thenwe get the hard evidence. Look at the threads about Danielson. Thenwe get hard evidence. Look at the threads about Contador in 2010/11. Thenwe get hard evidence. Look at the threads about the Schlecks in 2010. Thenwe get hard evidence. Look at the threads about Ulissi during 2014 Giro. Then we got the hard evidence. Or look at the threads about Menchov, or JTL, or Di Luca, or...

The Clinic has a very good record of speculation. Froome, Quintana, Yateses, Porte, Martin? Just haven't been caught yet. Because history shows that the statement, "haven't been caught yet" is more accurate than "won't be caught (with hard evidence)".

The Clinic is not losing credibility. It may be losing respectability, but that is the consequence of calling spades on fans' favorite riders. Not because the Clinic is wrong.
I sort of agree BUT, there was evidence in these cases for starters Alberto rode for Astana under Bruyneel and was a teammate of Armstrong. That can be evidence, Iglinski again rode for Astana, the schlecks rode for Riss, Ulissi had connections, as far as I know the Yates have never been associated with doping chiefs as you could call them or rode for doping teams same for Martin. Porte, Quintana and Froome do have evidence because of who they have worked under so fair enough to accuse them but when there is no evidence at all it becomes difficult and the threads become pointless. Maybe the Yates bro's are doping but a case needs to be put forward like was done at the start of the Froome thread. I don't see any evidence be it high numbers on climbs, suspect improvement or anything else to accuse them. Surely untill such is the case a specific thread on them is useless?
Ok by that logic you can say it looks dodgy for the Yates brothers. Neil Stephens part of the DS team at Orica, rode for ONCE and Festina and has been a DS for Liberty-Seguros(ONCE), Caisse D'Epargne. Matt White also rode under Bruyneel and was a teammate of Armstrong.
They weren't DIRECTLY in contact with them though we can hope (and personaly belive) that Neil and Matt have learned from there experience and know teach young promising riders not to get sucked into that vortex. Let's not forget Orica advertises TRANSPARENCY when compared to the Astana teams.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Re: Re:

Ramon Koran said:
BYOP88 said:
Ramon Koran said:
More Strides than Rides said:
We can't rely on hard evidence because for dozens of seasons, hard evidence has fallen short through false-negatives, and coverups of true-positives.

Hard evidence has let us down. Waiting for hard evidence led sport into the doped-up mess it is (or was, if that's your take...). Waiting for hard evidence is slow, when the informed speculation has been reliable.

Look at the threads about Iglinsky after LBL. Thenwe get the hard evidence. Look at the threads about Danielson. Thenwe get hard evidence. Look at the threads about Contador in 2010/11. Thenwe get hard evidence. Look at the threads about the Schlecks in 2010. Thenwe get hard evidence. Look at the threads about Ulissi during 2014 Giro. Then we got the hard evidence. Or look at the threads about Menchov, or JTL, or Di Luca, or...

The Clinic has a very good record of speculation. Froome, Quintana, Yateses, Porte, Martin? Just haven't been caught yet. Because history shows that the statement, "haven't been caught yet" is more accurate than "won't be caught (with hard evidence)".

The Clinic is not losing credibility. It may be losing respectability, but that is the consequence of calling spades on fans' favorite riders. Not because the Clinic is wrong.
I sort of agree BUT, there was evidence in these cases for starters Alberto rode for Astana under Bruyneel and was a teammate of Armstrong. That can be evidence, Iglinski again rode for Astana, the schlecks rode for Riss, Ulissi had connections, as far as I know the Yates have never been associated with doping chiefs as you could call them or rode for doping teams same for Martin. Porte, Quintana and Froome do have evidence because of who they have worked under so fair enough to accuse them but when there is no evidence at all it becomes difficult and the threads become pointless. Maybe the Yates bro's are doping but a case needs to be put forward like was done at the start of the Froome thread. I don't see any evidence be it high numbers on climbs, suspect improvement or anything else to accuse them. Surely untill such is the case a specific thread on them is useless?
Ok by that logic you can say it looks dodgy for the Yates brothers. Neil Stephens part of the DS team at Orica, rode for ONCE and Festina and has been a DS for Liberty-Seguros(ONCE), Caisse D'Epargne. Matt White also rode under Bruyneel and was a teammate of Armstrong.
They weren't DIRECTLY in contact with them though we can hope (and personaly belive) that Neil and Matt have learned from there experience and know teach young promising riders not to get sucked into that vortex. Let's not forget Orica advertises TRANSPARENCY when compared to the Astana teams.
Links please.
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Ramon Koran said:
blackcat said:
Ramon Koran said:
I've argued why they are clean : a linear progression, bags of potential and riding for a team that has no history of doping riders.
i agree. however, i never heard of fuentes use the idiom potential as synonym for plasma, but u must b a native english speaker versed in haematology #respect/
First of all I'm French so you got that wrong, secondly I find your post insulting towards me I would appreciate it if you didn't take me for an idiot.
Lost in translation. :rolleyes:
#PenguinclassicsanSebastian literatureportmanteau
Edgar Allan Erythropoetin Poe pleonasm tautology alliterationz
 
IMO anyone finishing at the sharp end with the climb times they're putting up this year is assumed to be doping. Get real.

That said, Yates is the least suspicious British GC rider I've seen since Sky came on the scene. His talent at this age is to his credit, much unlike the farsical rise of the two previous donkeys and the preposterous Sky train.
 
Jul 4, 2015
417
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Ramon Koran said:
BYOP88 said:
Ramon Koran said:
More Strides than Rides said:
We can't rely on hard evidence because for dozens of seasons, hard evidence has fallen short through false-negatives, and coverups of true-positives.

Hard evidence has let us down. Waiting for hard evidence led sport into the doped-up mess it is (or was, if that's your take...). Waiting for hard evidence is slow, when the informed speculation has been reliable.

Look at the threads about Iglinsky after LBL. Thenwe get the hard evidence. Look at the threads about Danielson. Thenwe get hard evidence. Look at the threads about Contador in 2010/11. Thenwe get hard evidence. Look at the threads about the Schlecks in 2010. Thenwe get hard evidence. Look at the threads about Ulissi during 2014 Giro. Then we got the hard evidence. Or look at the threads about Menchov, or JTL, or Di Luca, or...

The Clinic has a very good record of speculation. Froome, Quintana, Yateses, Porte, Martin? Just haven't been caught yet. Because history shows that the statement, "haven't been caught yet" is more accurate than "won't be caught (with hard evidence)".

The Clinic is not losing credibility. It may be losing respectability, but that is the consequence of calling spades on fans' favorite riders. Not because the Clinic is wrong.
I sort of agree BUT, there was evidence in these cases for starters Alberto rode for Astana under Bruyneel and was a teammate of Armstrong. That can be evidence, Iglinski again rode for Astana, the schlecks rode for Riss, Ulissi had connections, as far as I know the Yates have never been associated with doping chiefs as you could call them or rode for doping teams same for Martin. Porte, Quintana and Froome do have evidence because of who they have worked under so fair enough to accuse them but when there is no evidence at all it becomes difficult and the threads become pointless. Maybe the Yates bro's are doping but a case needs to be put forward like was done at the start of the Froome thread. I don't see any evidence be it high numbers on climbs, suspect improvement or anything else to accuse them. Surely untill such is the case a specific thread on them is useless?
Ok by that logic you can say it looks dodgy for the Yates brothers. Neil Stephens part of the DS team at Orica, rode for ONCE and Festina and has been a DS for Liberty-Seguros(ONCE), Caisse D'Epargne. Matt White also rode under Bruyneel and was a teammate of Armstrong.
They weren't DIRECTLY in contact with them though we can hope (and personaly belive) that Neil and Matt have learned from there experience and know teach young promising riders not to get sucked into that vortex. Let's not forget Orica advertises TRANSPARENCY when compared to the Astana teams.
Links please.
http://www.greenedgecycling.com/news/-anti-doping-expert-to-review-orica-greenedge-cycling-policies-
What doped team whould allow an anti doping expert to review there policies?
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Re: Re:

Ramon Koran said:
Benotti69 said:
Ramon Koran said:
BYOP88 said:
Ramon Koran said:
I sort of agree BUT, there was evidence in these cases for starters Alberto rode for Astana under Bruyneel and was a teammate of Armstrong. That can be evidence, Iglinski again rode for Astana, the schlecks rode for Riss, Ulissi had connections, as far as I know the Yates have never been associated with doping chiefs as you could call them or rode for doping teams same for Martin. Porte, Quintana and Froome do have evidence because of who they have worked under so fair enough to accuse them but when there is no evidence at all it becomes difficult and the threads become pointless. Maybe the Yates bro's are doping but a case needs to be put forward like was done at the start of the Froome thread. I don't see any evidence be it high numbers on climbs, suspect improvement or anything else to accuse them. Surely untill such is the case a specific thread on them is useless?
Ok by that logic you can say it looks dodgy for the Yates brothers. Neil Stephens part of the DS team at Orica, rode for ONCE and Festina and has been a DS for Liberty-Seguros(ONCE), Caisse D'Epargne. Matt White also rode under Bruyneel and was a teammate of Armstrong.
They weren't DIRECTLY in contact with them though we can hope (and personaly belive) that Neil and Matt have learned from there experience and know teach young promising riders not to get sucked into that vortex. Let's not forget Orica advertises TRANSPARENCY when compared to the Astana teams.
Links please.
http://www.greenedgecycling.com/news/-anti-doping-expert-to-review-orica-greenedge-cycling-policies-
What doped team whould allow an anti doping expert to review there policies?
Sky, Cannondale, USPS to name a few
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
Re: Re:

BYOP88 said:
Didn't CSC back in the day(Basso, Julich period) have some anti-doping expert reviewing policies?

Sorry if this seems like I'm picking on you, but I'm really not. :)[/quote]
im not racist but
 
Jul 4, 2015
417
0
0
Re: Re:

I sort of agree BUT, there was evidence in these cases for starters Alberto rode for Astana under Bruyneel and was a teammate of Armstrong. That can be evidence, Iglinski again rode for Astana, the schlecks rode for Riss, Ulissi had connections, as far as I know the Yates have never been associated with doping chiefs as you could call them or rode for doping teams same for Martin. Porte, Quintana and Froome do have evidence because of who they have worked under so fair enough to accuse them but when there is no evidence at all it becomes difficult and the threads become pointless. Maybe the Yates bro's are doping but a case needs to be put forward like was done at the start of the Froome thread. I don't see any evidence be it high numbers on climbs, suspect improvement or anything else to accuse them. Surely untill such is the case a specific thread on them is useless?[/quote]

Ok by that logic you can say it looks dodgy for the Yates brothers. Neil Stephens part of the DS team at Orica, rode for ONCE and Festina and has been a DS for Liberty-Seguros(ONCE), Caisse D'Epargne. Matt White also rode under Bruyneel and was a teammate of Armstrong.[/quote]
They weren't DIRECTLY in contact with them though we can hope (and personaly belive) that Neil and Matt have learned from there experience and know teach young promising riders not to get sucked into that vortex. Let's not forget Orica advertises TRANSPARENCY when compared to the Astana teams.[/quote]

Links please.[/quote]
http://www.greenedgecycling.com/news/-anti-doping-expert-to-review-orica-greenedge-cycling-policies-
What doped team whould allow an anti doping expert to review there policies?[/quote]

Sky, Cannondale, USPS to name a few[/quote]
Sky and Cannondale is another problem as we don't really know what's going on as for USPS I don't recall them doing this however let's not forget about their tight links with the UCI so it's not really a great example in my opinion.
 
Jul 4, 2015
417
0
0
Again for CSC I'm not sure but going that far back to the dark age of cycling brings up problems of corruption whithin the anti-doping organistaion itself, so can't really use them as examples in the new cycling.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Re: Re:

Ramon Koran said:
Sky and Cannondale is another problem as we don't really know what's going on as for USPS I don't recall them doing this however let's not forget about their tight links with the UCI so it's not really a great example in my opinion.
USPS had Dr Don Caitlin at a press conference, who was going to to test Armstrong everyday....yada yada...

As BYO88 says, talk is cheap.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Re:

Ramon Koran said:
Again for CSC I'm not sure but going that far back to the dark age of cycling brings up problems of corruption whithin the anti-doping organistaion itself, so can't really use them as examples in the new cycling.
The people who run OricaBikeExchange come from the so called dark days of cycling!
 
Jul 4, 2015
417
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Ramon Koran said:
Sky and Cannondale is another problem as we don't really know what's going on as for USPS I don't recall them doing this however let's not forget about their tight links with the UCI so it's not really a great example in my opinion.
USPS had Dr Don Caitlin at a press conference, who was going to to test Armstrong everyday....yada yada...

As BYO88 says, talk is cheap.
But that was another era with mcquaid and everything since cookson maybe stuuf has taken a turn for the better? I believe so giving examples from Dark cycling in modern cycling just doesn't work
 
Jul 4, 2015
417
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Ramon Koran said:
Again for CSC I'm not sure but going that far back to the dark age of cycling brings up problems of corruption whithin the anti-doping organistaion itself, so can't really use them as examples in the new cycling.
The people who run OricaBikeExchange come from the so called dark days of cycling!
Yes and as I explained maybe like many (Millar, Hamilton, Vaughters...) they have learned from dark past and want to bring cycling forward towards cleanliness. That seems likely to me, who better than an ex doper who knows about the problems it causes to stop youngsters from going down that path?
 
Re: Re:

Ramon Koran said:
Benotti69 said:
Ramon Koran said:
Again for CSC I'm not sure but going that far back to the dark age of cycling brings up problems of corruption whithin the anti-doping organistaion itself, so can't really use them as examples in the new cycling.
The people who run OricaBikeExchange come from the so called dark days of cycling!
Yes and as I explained maybe like many (Millar, Hamilton, Vaughters...) they have learned from dark past and want to bring cycling forward towards cleanliness. That seems likely to me, who better than an ex doper who knows about the problems it causes to stop youngsters from going down that path?
On the other hand, would you trust an ex doper/drug dealer to mentor your kid? I wouldn't...

Every doper I know is an expert in the art of deception.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS