Sky Presentation to ASO (Inevitable Doping Thread alert)

iainf72

Why would Mr Barry discuss these things with a team mate?

He's already denied it to his employers, so why would he risk telling someone something different?

Turfle

How many hours is Thomas required to talk to Michael Barry about Lance Armstrong's doping regimen?

Maybe, just maybe, Thomas has done zero research into the subject, and so "hopefully he hasn't done anything wrong" is the right thing to say.

BikingBernie

iainf72 wrote:

Why would Mr Barry discuss these things with a team mate?

He's already denied it to his employers, so why would he risk telling someone something different?

If his employers accepted that, it sounds as though they really didn't want to hear the truth. Of course, we only have his and Sky's word for what he did and did not admit to.

finchy

BikingBernie wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Why would Mr Barry discuss these things with a team mate?

He's already denied it to his employers, so why would he risk telling someone something different?

If his employers accepted that, it sounds as though they really didn't want to hear the truth. Of course, we only have his and Sky's word for what he did and did not admit to.

Would you admit to doping?

iainf72

BikingBernie wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Why would Mr Barry discuss these things with a team mate?

He's already denied it to his employers, so why would he risk telling someone something different?

If his employers accepted that, it sounds as though they really didn't want to hear the truth. Of course, we only have his and Sky's word for what he did and did not admit to.

Possibly . But surely you would've just got rid of Barry at the end of the season then, rather than hang onto him?

Does this mean you're onboard now with Floyd not having taken testosterone? If we're taking everything he says as completely true

BikingBernie

iainf72 wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Why would Mr Barry discuss these things with a team mate?

He's already denied it to his employers, so why would he risk telling someone something different?

If his employers accepted that, it sounds as though they really didn't want to hear the truth. Of course, we only have his and Sky's word for what he did and did not admit to.

Possibly . But surely you would've just got rid of Barry at the end of the season then, rather than hang onto him?

Unless, of course, you weren't all that bothered about having people with associations with doping as a part of the team, with Dr. Geert Leinders being another example.

iainf72 wrote:

Does this mean you're onboard now with Floyd not having taken testosterone? If we're taking everything he says as completely true

Are you saying that because he is still denying taking testosterone, nothing he has said can be believed?

finchy

BikingBernie wrote:

Unless, of course, you weren't all that bothered about having people with associations with doping as a part of the team, with Dr. Geert Leinders being another example.

Or unless they found that they couldn't actually assemble a team with absolutely no association to doping at all.

iainf72

BikingBernie wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Does this mean you're onboard now with Floyd not having taken testosterone? If we're taking everything he says as completely true

Are you saying that because he is still denying taking testosterone, nothing he has said can be believed?

No, I'm saying maybe not everything Floyd says is entirely accurate. I believe most of what he says but am also open to some of it not being quite right.

BikingBernie

iainf72 wrote:

I'm saying maybe not everything Floyd says is entirely accurate. I believe most of what he says but am also open to some of it not being quite right.

Fair enough. And what are you views on the performance-enhancing capabilities of magnetic wrist bands?

iainf72

BikingBernie wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

I'm saying maybe not everything Floyd says is entirely accurate. I believe most of what he says but am also open to some of it not being quite right.

Fair enough. And what are you views on the performance-enhancing capabilities of magnetic wrist bands?

I am with you on that. Makes them look like weapons grade morons. No problem with a guy making a buck, but he may as well have got "mug" tattooed on his forehead

DeadCalm

BikingBernie wrote:

Unless, of course, you weren't all that bothered about having people with associations with doping as a part of the team, with Dr. Geert Leinders being another example.

Still awaiting those promised links. Here is a link for you though...

viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12611535

BikingBernie

DeadCalm wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

Unless, of course, you weren't all that bothered about having people with associations with doping as a part of the team, with Dr. Geert Leinders being another example.

Still awaiting those promised links. Here is a link for you though...

viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12611535

Glad to re-post the following for you, as you clearly missed it first time around:

Leinders was team doctor for Sigma, Histor, Panasonic and Lotto before becoming team doctor for Rabobank in 1996. He left Rabobank in 2009 citing 'dissatisfaction with the policies of the new management of the cycling team'. According to Rabobank one of those new policies bought in between 2007 and July 2009 was a 'zero tolerance' attitude to doping, a policy that followed an internal investigation into the use of doping within the team during the period Leinders was the team doctor, an investigation that was triggered by Michael Rasmussen’s expulsion from the Tour de France.

There is no doubt that between 1996 and 2007 the team used structured doping. For the parties involved it was the most natural thing in the world. The riders were allowed to decide how far they wanted to go, as long as it happened under the control of the team doctor. That is what you call structured.

On Saturday Volkskrant ran an interview with Theo de Rooy, who was the team manager from 2003 to 2007. De Rooy detailed how riders were allowed to use doping products, while the team’s medical staff oversaw that the athletes’ health was kept in check and that no positive doping controls were returned by anti-doping authorities.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/3184/opi ... feit.dhtml

http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/wiele ... _op__.html

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/raboban ... ooy-claims

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/raboban ... ing-claims

As for your own link, cyclingnews.com don't seem to be to bothered about the possibility of being sued for libel, given that they repeated the allegations.

DeadCalm

BikingBernie wrote:

Glad to re-post the following for you, as you clearly missed it first time around:

Yep, I musy have done. Please can you point me to that thread. Maybe there are some worthwhile links in there as opposed to these which do not say what you claim.

You have an opinion piece, an article stating that Leinders left Rabobank because he was dissatisfied with certain policies and two articles from Cyclingnews that appear to be based on google translate and have no identifiable source. Seriously, have you thought of applying for a job at the Sunday Sport?

BikingBernie

DeadCalm wrote:

You have an opinion piece, an article stating that Leinders left Rabobank because he was dissatisfied with certain policies and two articles from Cyclingnews that appear to be based on google translate and have no identifiable source.

You missed this bit, again...

On Saturday Volkskrant ran an interview with Theo de Rooy, who was the team manager from 2003 to 2007. De Rooy detailed how riders were allowed to use doping products, while the team’s medical staff oversaw that the athletes’ health was kept in check and that no positive doping controls were returned by anti-doping authorities.

One of the other articles quotes Leinders himself.

DeadCalm

BikingBernie wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

You have an opinion piece, an article stating that Leinders left Rabobank because he was dissatisfied with certain policies and two articles from Cyclingnews that appear to be based on google translate and have no identifiable source.

You missed this bit, again...

On Saturday Volkskrant ran an interview with Theo de Rooy, who was the team manager from 2003 to 2007. De Rooy detailed how riders were allowed to use doping products, while the team’s medical staff oversaw that the athletes’ health was kept in check and that no positive doping controls were returned by anti-doping authorities.

One of the other articles quotes Leinders himself.

You really don't get it do you? I didn't miss it. It may even be true. I'm sure that the first part of the statement you have emboldened is true. But given that Cyclingnews have obviously been using google translate to construct their articles, are you satisfied with the veracity of the second (damning) part of the emboldened statement or do you think that it could be a case of you wanting to believe something because it fits your agenda, much as you wanted to believe that Sky had met with and paid off the UCI earlier in the thread?

gabriel959

DeadCalm wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

You have an opinion piece, an article stating that Leinders left Rabobank because he was dissatisfied with certain policies and two articles from Cyclingnews that appear to be based on google translate and have no identifiable source.

You missed this bit, again...

On Saturday Volkskrant ran an interview with Theo de Rooy, who was the team manager from 2003 to 2007. De Rooy detailed how riders were allowed to use doping products, while the team’s medical staff oversaw that the athletes’ health was kept in check and that no positive doping controls were returned by anti-doping authorities.

One of the other articles quotes Leinders himself.

You really don't get it do you? I didn't miss it. It may even be true. I'm sure that the first part of the statement you have emboldened is true. But given that Cyclingnews have obviously been using google translate to construct their articles, are you satisfied with the veracity of the second (damning) part of the emboldened statement or do you think that it could be a case of you wanting to believe something because it fits your agenda, much as you wanted to believe that Sky had met with and paid off the UCI earlier in the thread?

I think the one that doesn't get it is you. You have made your mind up that the information quote is unreliable and that is that.

The same as when some people hear Dave Brailsford say they are clean you believe them.

RichN95.

gabriel959 wrote:

I think the one that doesn't get it is you. You have made your mind up that the information quote is unreliable and that is that.

The same as when some people hear Dave Brailsford say they are clean you believe them.

The problem is that you have made up your mind that Sky are doping and have tried to find the evidence to support it rather than see what conclusion the evidence leads you to.

So far the evidence seems to be:

A doctor who worked for a team with dopers, but did no doping himself
A routine meeting with ASO (which you thought merited a blog)
A rumour of a donation which the person who started it said he made up
The 'unbeliveable' performance in the Dauphine where they failed to drop Weening and Zubeldia and someone not good enough for the Movistar Tour team took 40s out of them.

It's not exactly damning, is it?

DeadCalm

gabriel959 wrote:

I think the one that doesn't get it is you. You have made your mind up that the information quote is unreliable and that is that.

The same as when some people hear Dave Brailsford say they are clean you believe them.

Where have I said I think Sky are clean? I'm not making any point other than that if you are going to accuse someone of something, there is an onus on you to make sure that your facts are right. Leinders may well be Doctor Evil but the links Bernie has so far provided simply do not justify his repeated use of the phrase 'doping doctor'. I don't have anything invested in Leinders' reputation, I just like debate to be thorough and honest.

And just to clarify, I'm not particularly pro-Sky (I'd prefer a Frenchman to win the Tour) but in the absence of a realistic French challenger, I'll be cheering Wiggins on in this year's TDF.

Pross

DeadCalm wrote:

Where have I said I think Sky are clean? I'm not making any point other than that if you are going to accuse someone of something, there is an onus on you to make sure that your facts are right.

Hey? This is the internet, since when did such old fashioned concepts apply here? For me, BikingBernie pointing out that Geraint said he hoped Armstrong didn't do anything wrong and that he is now making money for advertising magnetic wristbands is more than enough to condemn a rider. So what if there has never been any previous suggestion that he is anything other than clean I say burn the witch!!

BikingBernie

Pross wrote:

BikingBernie pointing out that Geraint said he hoped Armstrong didn't do anything wrong and that he is now making money for advertising magnetic wristbands is more than enough to condemn a rider. So what if there has never been any previous suggestion that he is anything other than clean I say burn the witch!!

And where did I say that Geraint Thomas was 'anything other than clean'? On the other hand the fact that he appears to think that Armstrong might well have been clean, drives a BMW M3 and whores 'performance enhancing' magnetic wristbands does show, perhaps, that he is non too bright, is a bit of a dick and has few moral scruples

ddraver

You genuinely think that because.you have ny said "sky dope" that you can get away with posting cr@p don't you....? There's a second delusion for you to go alongside the "cycling is popular" one.

Pross

BikingBernie wrote:

Pross wrote:

BikingBernie pointing out that Geraint said he hoped Armstrong didn't do anything wrong and that he is now making money for advertising magnetic wristbands is more than enough to condemn a rider. So what if there has never been any previous suggestion that he is anything other than clean I say burn the witch!!

And where did I say that Geraint Thomas was 'anything other than clean'? On the other hand the fact that he appears to think that Armstrong might well have been clean, drives a BMW M3 and whores 'performance enhancing' magnetic wristbands does show, perhaps, that he is non too bright, is a bit of a dick and has few moral scruples

You didn't say, you just insinuate. How many riders who are still riding have actually been prepared to say they think Armstrong doped? I suspect that until he is officially found guilty they are bright enough to avoid that, they don't have the luxury of being anonymous internet warriors like us who can say what we like.

dougzz

Pross wrote:

You didn't say, you just insinuate. How many riders who are still riding have actually been prepared to say they think Armstrong doped? I suspect that until he is officially found guilty they are bright enough to avoid that, they don't have the luxury of being anonymous internet warriors like us who can say what we like.

Don't you just wish they'd not comment on it though, saying anything that ignores the overwhelming evidence that LA doped does make you look in total denial of the bleeding obvious. It doesn't seem that hard to just refuse to comment publicly on LA.

But I don't get the M3 hate, anyone that's ever drove a BMW knows what lovely cars they are, is it forbidden to like cars on a cycling thread. Maybe this would make more sense if I write it again with a magnet on.

BikingBernie

dougzz wrote:

Don't you just wish they'd not comment on it though, saying anything that ignores the overwhelming evidence that LA doped does make you look in total denial of the bleeding obvious. It doesn't seem that hard to just refuse to comment publicly on LA.

Exactly, and Wiggins is probably even worse than Thomas for aiding and abetting 'the Armstrong myth'. For example:

“I’ve always been a bit of a fan of Lance and have sided on the side of innocent until proven guilty with him. There isn’t an athlete or a cyclist out there that isn’t more tested than he is, certainly since his comeback, he’s probably been the most tested cyclist in the pro peloton and you take that on face value and that he’s never failed a drugs test and until he does he’s clean. That’s how I’ve always had as a stance on Lance.”

“I think you have to question Landis’ credibility because he lied under oath before and the stories that you hear about him drinking and things like that and you know, [making] telephone calls to people I know, threatening them with things, you just think that the guy appears to not all be there. So when you see these kinds of claims in the press you have to question his credibility because it’s almost like it’s coming from a mad man, but at the same time maybe that’s all borne out of frustration and things.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins ... ade-public

BikingBernie

dougzz wrote:

Pross wrote:

I don't get the M3 hate, anyone that's ever drove a BMW knows what lovely cars they are

This is because, in the UK especially, the tossers who drive as though they personally own the road and will cut you up as soon as look at you will, as likely as not, be driving a BMW. Most of the rest will be in a 4x4! And this is not a particularly 'cyclist' related thing.

Numerous surveys of car drivers in the UK have shown that BMW drivers are widely regarded as the most selfish, aggressive and arrogant on the road. Audi even ran an advertising campaign some years back exploiting this perception by showing an arrogant young man, who looked like he worked in finance or similar, racing around in what you were encouraged to think was a BMW, blowing his horn at people and so forth. At the end of the ad the driver got out and said 'Sorry, it is not my kind of car', and the camera then panned back to show that it was an Audi.

Pross

dougzz wrote:

Pross wrote:

You didn't say, you just insinuate. How many riders who are still riding have actually been prepared to say they think Armstrong doped? I suspect that until he is officially found guilty they are bright enough to avoid that, they don't have the luxury of being anonymous internet warriors like us who can say what we like.

Don't you just wish they'd not comment on it though, saying anything that ignores the overwhelming evidence that LA doped does make you look in total denial of the bleeding obvious. It doesn't seem that hard to just refuse to comment publicly on LA.
But I don't get the M3 hate, anyone that's ever drove a BMW knows what lovely cars they are, is it forbidden to like cars on a cycling thread. Maybe this would make more sense if I write it again with a magnet on.

Of course but it's sometimes difficult if asked outright by a journalist. I suspect it went something like "What's your opinion on the latest allegations on Lance Armstrong?" "Well, I hope it is shown he hasn't done anything wrong". If a rider doesn't answer journos will often word their reports to fit their own agenda.

timoid.

To an extent Wiggins has a point. Landis is not the most reliable witness. He's changed his tune a few times, intimidated (or at least his manager did) a witness at his hearing, took millions under false pretences that he was clean in the Floyd Fairness campaign and was found guilty of hacking into labs computers in France.

He may be telling a lot of truth, but he's a piece of sh1t and his actions make him come across as unhinged and unreliable.

None of the above exhonerates Armstrong, but his actions point towards an unreliable and perhaps mentaly unstable man.

dougzz

^^Tru dat, Floyd has made himself look unreliable. But I still reckon a 'I don't comment on other cyclists' will work just fine. But as I've never had to find out what it''s like to have your every word examined, and have things you've said at the end of a killer day twisted and used against you I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
Re. M3 - I cycle between 50 and 100 miles a week in London, and there is no type or make of vehicle more or less likely to mullah you, they're all equally dangerous.
Having said that in the Guardian questions corner someone asked if 4 cars approach a roundabout at exactly the same moment who has right of way, and by far the most popular answer was 'The salesman in the red BMW'.

Jez mon

BikingBernie wrote:

dougzz wrote:

Pross wrote:

I don't get the M3 hate, anyone that's ever drove a BMW knows what lovely cars they are

This is because, in the UK especially, the tossers who drive as though they personally own the road and will cut you up as soon as look at you will, as likely as not, be driving a BMW. Most of the rest will be in a 4x4! And this is not a particularly 'cyclist' related thing.

Numerous surveys of car drivers in the UK have shown that BMW drivers are widely regarded as the most selfish, aggressive and arrogant on the road. Audi even ran an advertising campaign some years back exploiting this perception by showing an arrogant young man, who looked like he worked in finance or similar, racing around in what you were encouraged to think was a BMW, blowing his horn at people and so forth. At the end of the ad the driver got out and said 'Sorry, it is not my kind of car', and the camera then panned back to show that it was an Audi.

Meh, my own personal experience along with popular current opinion seems to be that with regards to driving style, Audis are the new BMWs.

At the end of the day, successful young man buys fast car. Shock horror.

Pross

The worst type of car on the road is anything with pink fluffy stuff inside and a sticker on the back saying "Powered By Fairy Dust". It should say "Driver powered by space dust" as they are all totally oblivious to anything outside their tin box, FACT (I drive 30,000 miles a year as well as cycling 5-6k so I know )