The Yates (AKA the TUE Brothers)

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

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/

 

[gazr99]

Re:

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?

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

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

 

[Ramon Koran]

Re:

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?

 

[Ramon Koran]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

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"

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[Ramon Koran]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

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.

#PenguinclassicsanSebastian literatureportmanteau
Edgar Allan Erythropoetin Poe pleonasm tautology alliterationz

 

[red_flanders]

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.

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Re:

[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.

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.

It's easy to advertise something, harder to show it. There are several teams out there who say we have a complete transparency policy but when they're asked about it, they waffle on about: machine calibration error, or people wouldn't understand the data etc etc.

So if Astana are so dodgy(I agree with you on that) how come their guy Aru is getting his ass handed to him by Yates?

 

[Ramon Koran]

Re: Re:

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?

 

[Benotti69]

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?

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

 

[Ramon Koran]

Re: Re:

[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.

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.

It's easy to advertise something, harder to show it. There are several teams out there who say we have a complete transparency policy but when they're asked about it, they waffle on about: machine calibration error, or people wouldn't understand the data etc etc.

So if Astana are so dodgy(I agree with you on that) how come their guy Aru is getting his *** handed to him by Yates?

Because the Astana are unable to do what they did in the past at the tdf. Strict new test be that mecanical new doping detection techniques

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Re:

[quote="]
Because the Astana are unable to do what they did in the past at the tdf. Strict new test be that mecanical new doping detection techniques

So Nibali who sucked for around 18 stages of the Giro then kicked ass and wins it all on the final 3. So between the Giro and the Tour starting there's a whole heap of new tests?

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

[quote="

Links please.

[url=http://www.greenedgecycling.com/news/-anti-doping-expert-to-review-orica-greenedge-cycling-policies-]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?

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

 

[Ramon Koran]

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.

 

[Ramon Koran]

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.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

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!

 

[Ramon Koran]

Re: Re:

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

 

[Ramon Koran]

Re: Re:

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?

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

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.