JTL

iainf72

whiteboytrash wrote:

Have they?

From Leinders to JTL little appears different.

And that Cioni guy is a doper in hiding is he not?

I've not seen a policy on their website or anywhere else? I actually don't even know what the ZTP entails, do you?

Well, tis detailed in the Walsh book on the post-JTL section :P

But could you answer the question : What should they be doing specifically about JTL at the moment?

rayjay

When is someone going to bring Nutella into this thread ?

Stillnox

iainf72 wrote:

But could you answer the question : What should they be doing specifically about JTL at the moment?

I think Sky have done the right thing and let him train with them on Mallorca, or is it Tenerife?

That means only only one thing: they have looked at the BP data at hand, studied it - I believe Farrell is an expert on that subject - and gave him the all clear. Just like I said downthread.

When abnormalities would have popped up during his time at Sky in comparison to the tests of 2012 their scientific approach to cycling would have red flagged him long time ago.

iainf72

Stillnox wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

But could you answer the question : What should they be doing specifically about JTL at the moment?

I think Sky have done the right thing and let him train with them on Mallorca, or is it Tenerife?

Yes.

I don't know what they know, or what JTL has shown them, but I'm sure with people like you on watch they're be making sure they're rock solid.

Keep up the good fight.

rayjay

To be honest I think JTL has had a crap time at Sky. He was never going to be the main man and IMO would have been better going to another team, he would not be so tightly wound in.

What I don't like about Sky and BC is that they are all but in name the same thing and I don't want to see every GB rider who shows a bit of form heading down the same direction.

I know some have gone elsewhere and good for them.

If GB do get a great rider who does not ride for Sky I feel he/she will always be on the outside a bit like the way Nicole Cooke was, her rival fellow brits all from the same team just intent on making sure she loses and left on the outside. I know the lady's don't ride for Sky .

Come the Olympics etc, they won't be given a fair crack.

I wonder what would have happened if Cav had never gone to Sky?

Sorry for going off topic.

You just don't know what is going on with JTL and I don't trust Sky one bit.

Dorset_Boy

I think WBT needs to familiarize themself with legal due process, and the consequences of placing evidence in the public domain before that process has been completed.

If JLT is convicted by the UCI, Sky will sack him, but until the case is concluded, no one in the public is entitled to know anything more than is already in the public domain.

r0bh

rayjay wrote:

To be honest I think JTL has had a crap time at Sky. He was never going to be the main man and IMO would have been better going to another team, he would not be so tightly wound in.

What I don't like about Sky and BC is that they are all but in name the same thing and I don't want to see every GB rider who shows a bit of form heading down the same direction.

I know some have gone elsewhere and good for them.

If GB do get a great rider who does not ride for Sky I feel he/she will always be on the outside a bit like the way Nicole Cooke was, her rival fellow brits all from the same team just intent on making sure she loses and left on the outside. I know the lady's don't ride for Sky .

Come the Olympics etc, they won't be given a fair crack.

I wonder what would have happened if Cav had never gone to Sky?

Sorry for going off topic.

You just don't know what is going on with JTL and I don't trust Sky one bit.

No-one forced JTL to sign for Sky; he had other offers.

When Cav won the worlds he was riding for HTC-Highroad. The whole GB team rode exclusively for him.

The bio-passport case is between the UCI and JTL; it has nothing whatsoever to do with Sky.

rayjay

r0bh wrote:

rayjay wrote:

To be honest I think JTL has had a crap time at Sky. He was never going to be the main man and IMO would have been better going to another team, he would not be so tightly wound in.

What I don't like about Sky and BC is that they are all but in name the same thing and I don't want to see every GB rider who shows a bit of form heading down the same direction.

I know some have gone elsewhere and good for them.

If GB do get a great rider who does not ride for Sky I feel he/she will always be on the outside a bit like the way Nicole Cooke was, her rival fellow brits all from the same team just intent on making sure she loses and left on the outside. I know the lady's don't ride for Sky .

Come the Olympics etc, they won't be given a fair crack.

I wonder what would have happened if Cav had never gone to Sky?

Sorry for going off topic.

You just don't know what is going on with JTL and I don't trust Sky one bit.

No-one forced JTL to sign for Sky; he had other offers.

When Cav won the worlds he was riding for HTC-Highroad. The whole GB team rode exclusively for him.

The bio-passport case is between the UCI and JTL; it has nothing whatsoever to do with Sky.

True. But don't you think that the fact Brailsford is in charge puts pressure on riders to sign with Sky?
I don't mean Brailsford prodding them with an electric rod but just the facts of how things are run and the amount of control and power involved .

Cav signed for Sky did he not.

I differ. I think has JTL his a Sky rider it has a lot to do with Sky.

mroli

Didn't stop the Yates brothers signing for Orica Green Edge did it? Or Dowsett upping sticks for Movistar. Or Cummings at BMC...

whiteboytrash

Dorset Boy wrote:

I think WBT needs to familiarize themself with legal due process, and the consequences of placing evidence in the public domain before that process has been completed.

If JLT is convicted by the UCI, Sky will sack him, but until the case is concluded, no one in the public is entitled to know anything more than is already in the public domain.

What due process do you refer?

I'm not familiar with any legal precedent under the zero tolerance policy or that teams are forbidden to comment on a passport case? Or present evidence.

Are you?

I'm not following your logic.

Sky by its own admission have a rider whom is under investigation for suspected doping. Sky also have a zero tolerance policy that no one has seen but they have one all the same.

Should they not at least comment. Provide an update to where the case is at? Even to support their rider?

My view. Is that each and and every time Sky get caught in their own mess they go underground. They say nothing.

What does that tell you?

blazing_saddles

whiteboytrash wrote:

What due process do you refer?

I'm not familiar with any legal precedent under the zero tolerance policy or that teams are forbidden to comment on a passport case? Or present evidence.

Are you?

I'm not following your logic.

Well, you seemed to understand due process , when you agreed with me, just have a page ago.
Commenting on an ongoing investigation. Really?

While we are at it, how about that link I requested?
Failing that, how about an answer to Ian's question:
"What should they be doing specifically about JTL at the moment?"

No_Ta_Doctor

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Well, you seemed to understand due process , when you agreed with me, just have a page ago.
While we are at it, how about that like I requested?
Failing that, how about an answer to Ian's question:
"What should they be doing specifically about JTL at the moment?"

You have the patience of a saint, Blazing.

rayjay

mroli wrote:

Didn't stop the Yates brothers signing for Orica Green Edge did it? Or Dowsett upping sticks for Movistar. Or Cummings at BMC...

I am pleased they [Yates] dId. Good for Dowsett steering his own ship and at Moviestar, love it.

Cummings was at Sky.

The feel of your post was to prove me wrong.

I am just stating an opinion and I stated in my previous post " I know some have gone elsewhere and good for them."

Something about the whole set up I just don't like. The amount of Power one team have over the rest on all levels.
I don't like Sky's [the company] media control as well and the fact that the team are sponsored by them does not give me any confidence in their morals and the feel of money first sport 2nd.

Just my opinion.

RonB

Those rhetorical devices don't let up do they.

"I'm not following your logic" might be a compliment Blazing; along the lines of "hang on that's not in the script!".

whiteboytrash

Blazing Saddles wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

What due process do you refer?

I'm not familiar with any legal precedent under the zero tolerance policy or that teams are forbidden to comment on a passport case? Or present evidence.

Are you?

I'm not following your logic.

"What should they be doing specifically about JTL at the moment?"

It's a good question. But I think it's fairly straight forward.

A simple issuing of a statement from Sky in relation to the matter. If JTL believes it was sickness or what have you then there's no harm in putting this forward. Clearly there must be a reason beyond doping one presumes. If so then put it down on paper. Let us have it.

Closing the doors, shutting up shop does nothing.

If we are here next week the case has been resolved with details to why then I think we've not moved on from 2005. That would be a disappointment.

As I state. Sky put themselves on the vanguard of anti-doping. They sure have a strange way of behaving in anti-doping, transfers to fashion.

Yates, Rogers? Why did they leave? Who knows.

Even the bald man Horner put his passport out there for all to see.

My own take is the UCI doesn't want anyone, team or rider, doing something like that ever again. But that's another discussion.

But in short some good old fashion communication wouldn't go astray.

Agree?

RonB

So we don't know stuff. That happens now and then. Hey ho.

tailwindhome

WBT would it be fair to say what you want is for Sky to tell you what JTLs defence is so you can evaluate it for yourself?

whiteboytrash

TailWindHome wrote:

WBT would it be fair to say what you want us for Sky to tell you what JTLs defence is so can evaluate it for yourself?

Well it's not really a defence at this point. It's just a "please explain". Proceedings haven't officially been open as yet until the committee believe there may have been an infraction.

But yes I do. If he was sick or over trained or whatever then just say so. If they are making up a steak type excuse then I understand why they've closed up shop.

Whether you're a Sky fan or not matters little.

I'm hearing a lot of soundbites. "Truth & reconciliation", "ZTP", "transparency", "open doors" etc.

But see little action of such.

It's just the 2013 version of "never tested positive".

RichN95.

whiteboytrash wrote:

Well it's not really a defence at this point. It's just a "please explain". Proceedings haven't officially been open as yet until the committee believe there may have been an infraction.

But yes I do. If he was sick or over trained or whatever then just say so. If they are making up a steak type excuse then I understand why they've closed up shop.

And perhaps Tiernan-Locke would prefer to be judged by qualified experts rather than anonymous people on the internet.

tailwindhome

whiteboytrash wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

WBT would it be fair to say what you want us for Sky to tell you what JTLs defence is so can evaluate it for yourself?

Well it's not really a defence at this point. It's just a "please explain". Proceedings haven't officially been open as yet until the committee believe there may have been an infraction.

But yes I do. If he was sick or over trained or whatever then just say so. If they are making up a steak type excuse then I understand why they've closed up shop.

So then you dont 100% agree with Blazing Saddles after all?

whiteboytrash

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

Well it's not really a defence at this point. It's just a "please explain". Proceedings haven't officially been open as yet until the committee believe there may have been an infraction.

But yes I do. If he was sick or over trained or whatever then just say so. If they are making up a steak type excuse then I understand why they've closed up shop.

And perhaps Tiernan-Locke would prefer to be judged by qualified experts rather than anonymous people on the internet.

That's just silly.

We need to drop this 'anonymous guys on the Internet'' thing. Because those anonymous guys on the Internet are the general public. The ones who watch cycle racing and who buy the products and want to watch sport which is (somewhat) creditable.

Just because the Internet has afforded the same people whom always been there a mouthpiece doesn't make it any less valid.

Uprisings in Egypt began on Twitter. A man if cloth was recently exposed for buying crack and meth on the Internet. Wikileaks was anonymous. Do we need to mention more?

So if you firmly believe that this "guys on the Internet" thing is any different than a few guys at the pub talking football or old ladies at bingo making comment on public matters then you're mistaken.

It's a cop out type statement. Virtue by the fact that your on the Internet doing just what these guys do is no different.

JTL and Sky owe us a statement. Pure and simple. As I've said before. The sport has just come out of its darkest moment. Which bookended the previous darkest moment of Festina. Which was interspersed with several other dark moments.

You may not want one. But the sport deserves it.

JTL will be judged by qualified experts. Doesn't mean he and Sky can take us for fools.

RonB

...

Arkibal

Why was the Walsh thread closed?

Seriously?

Surely that topic can, and should be allowed to talk about?

Or is this forum only for British?

Bo Duke

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

Well it's not really a defence at this point. It's just a "please explain". Proceedings haven't officially been open as yet until the committee believe there may have been an infraction.

But yes I do. If he was sick or over trained or whatever then just say so. If they are making up a steak type excuse then I understand why they've closed up shop.

And perhaps Tiernan-Locke would prefer to be judged by qualified experts rather than anonymous people on the internet.

Is that you Lance?

RonB

Arkibal wrote:

Why was the Walsh thread closed?

Seriously?

Surely that topic can, and should be allowed to talk about?

Or is this forum only for British?

Dunno ask here...

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=40033

If you are being serious.

Yellow Peril

whiteboytrash wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

What due process do you refer?

I'm not familiar with any legal precedent under the zero tolerance policy or that teams are forbidden to comment on a passport case? Or present evidence.

Are you?

I'm not following your logic.

"What should they be doing specifically about JTL at the moment?"

It's a good question. But I think it's fairly straight forward.

A simple issuing of a statement from Sky in relation to the matter. If JTL believes it was sickness or what have you then there's no harm in putting this forward. Clearly there must be a reason beyond doping one presumes. If so then put it down on paper. Let us have it.

Closing the doors, shutting up shop does nothing.

If we are here next week the case has been resolved with details to why then I think we've not moved on from 2005. That would be a disappointment.

As I state. Sky put themselves on the vanguard of anti-doping. They sure have a strange way of behaving in anti-doping, transfers to fashion.

Yates, Rogers? Why did they leave? Who knows.

Even the bald man Horner put his passport out there for all to see.

My own take is the UCI doesn't want anyone, team or rider, doing something like that ever again. But that's another discussion.

But in short some good old fashion communication wouldn't go astray.

Agree?

Sky don't say anything because their lawyer tells them not to. The reason he tells them not to is because no matter what they say someone will twist it to suit there own agenda.

mroli

Yates, Rogers? Why did they leave? Who knows.

Yates left because he wanted to spend less time away, was getting stressed out working for Sky - he has made his position clear in his book. Whether you chose to believe him or not is your prerogative - I think I know what you will think - but he is pretty adamant and clear (if you want, I'll find what he said EXACTLY and post it here).

Rogers left for money: "I was negotiating and I was still negotiating with Sky and we came close to a deal but at the end of the day there was simply a better offer for me at Saxo Bank," Rogers told Cyclingnews at the Dauphine.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/move-to-saxo-tinkoff-strictly-financial-says-rogers

If you mean "who knows REALLY", well, I'd suggest that unless Dave Brailsford came out and said "we kicked them out for historical doping and Yates was on EPO to drive the car and Rogers was injecting the whole team", people would not be happy.

Oh yeah - and you said you want a clear statement from Team Sky in relation to JTL

A simple issuing of a statement from Sky in relation to the matter

:

"We have no doubts over his performance, behaviour or tests at Team Sky and understand any anomaly is in readings taken before he joined the team," Team Sky said in a statement.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/sep/29/team-sky-jonathan-tiernan-locke-cycling

rayjay

I have been on to JTL's web sight and nothing on their.

I did look at his results over the last few years and JTL did have an exceptional year 2012.

I Do think the fact that we have not heard anything does give reason for concern.

There obviously is a discrepancy in his biological passport data otherwise this would not be going on.

If we now are going to question a discrepancy in biological passport data then. The bio passport is worthless.

If we are going to look and try and find exceptional reasons why dodgy results show up and riders get away with it then those forms of testing become invalid.


If this was Di Luca he would be guilty case closed in most peoples eyes.

Sky are involved and they are media heavy weights and I am sure they are trying to get their man off as the finger will be pointed no matter when the sample was from.

rayjay

mroli wrote:

Yates, Rogers? Why did they leave? Who knows.

Yates left because he wanted to spend less time away, was getting stressed out working for Sky - he has made his position clear in his book. Whether you chose to believe him or not is your prerogative - I think I know what you will think - but he is pretty adamant and clear (if you want, I'll find what he said EXACTLY and post it here).

Rogers left for money: "I was negotiating and I was still negotiating with Sky and we came close to a deal but at the end of the day there was simply a better offer for me at Saxo Bank," Rogers told Cyclingnews at the Dauphine.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/move-to-saxo-tinkoff-strictly-financial-says-rogers

If you mean "who knows REALLY", well, I'd suggest that unless Dave Brailsford came out and said "we kicked them out for historical doping and Yates was on EPO to drive the car and Rogers was injecting the whole team", people would not be happy.

Oh yeah - and you said you want a clear statement from Team Sky in relation to JTL

A simple issuing of a statement from Sky in relation to the matter

:

"We have no doubts over his performance, behaviour or tests at Team Sky and understand any anomaly is in readings taken before he joined the team," Team Sky said in a statement.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/sep/29/team-sky-jonathan-tiernan-locke-cycling

Come on....Yates, Rodgers never doped and Sky never hired Leinder's

Brialsford says jump .....you jumped

mroli

You don't know what my opinions are Rayjay and certainly I know far better than to place all my faith in people that I do not know from Adam. Did I say I believed them. No. Did I say anything about them hiring Leinders. No. Wind your neck in.

I'm just stating what the position has been in relation to the questions raised by Whiteboytrash:

"Has a clear statement been issued in relation to JTL" - yes. See above.

"Have both Yates and Rodgers stated themselves why they left Sky" - yes.

Here is Yates in his own words:

"It took a moment for his words to sink in. I was amazed to be told that I needed protecting. As far as I was concerned I could hold my head high. I was not implicated in the USADA report, and had no involvement in the catalogue of Lance's mis-demeanours beyond the fact that we were friends and that we'd been teammates before his Tour de France reign had begun..... I felt disgusted that I could be forced out of my job, be deprived of my ability to provide for my family, not by my employers, but by rumours and internet forums. There was nothing from anybody who knew me, nothing about me in this immense investigation, just opinion and conjecture from people with no connection with me whatsoever."

"We drafted a press announcement that would explain that I was retiring for health and family reasons and that I strongly denied suggestions that I had ever doped or been involved in doping"

There is a due process for deciding whether someone is doping or not. JTL is going through that at the moment. I hope he is cleared because I liked how he raised that last year with Endura and it was a great story. If he is found guilty of charges, then I will view him in exactly the same was as other convicted riders/athletes.