Inside Team Sky - David Walsh *Spoilers*

No_Ta_Doctor

Blazing Saddles wrote:

I'm yet to see any sceptic attempt address the tricky problem (for them) of why
Sky would select a rider with little or no potential, to turn into their GT star.
If their doping programme is that superior, they could use on a rider of proven quality
remove all risk of defeat..........

That's a genuinely interesting question, and possibly the first original angle I've seen on this whole "debate" since the tour itself.

ocdupalais

Blazing Saddles wrote:

I'm yet to see any sceptic attempt address the tricky problem (for them) of why
Sky would select a rider with little or no potential, to turn into their GT star.
If their doping programme is that superior, they could use on a rider of proven quality
remove all risk of defeat..........

I'd like to attempt to answer that on the sceptic's behalf, if I may Blazing....

Ready?

Right (ahem)... It all goes back to Sky wanting to verify that Leinders could indeed create a viable Tour winning doping programme - just like he did at Rabobank - by having a couple of no-mark, porky, grupetto-hiding duffers reach Paris in yellow.
It just goes to show the efficacy of said programme that they famously achieved success in 3 years rather than targeted 5, and two years on the trot. Cheating b@stards.

mike6

BigMat wrote:

rayjay wrote:

mike6 wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

Arkibal wrote:

No, my disbelief is that the team which uses 'marginal gains' only sends their star rider, who has suddenly become the most talented rider on the planet, to a wind tunnel for the first time just few months before the Tour

OK, fair enough. I thought you were suggesting that he had never been in a wind tunnel, as RR explained.

Three things wrong with this. Firstly I think you will find that J-Rod is the most talented rider on the planet as we speak. Look at the UCI rankings. So according to your logic he must be doping.

Second, Froome won the Tour and a few other stage races. That douse not make him the most talented rider on the planet, merely the best stage race rider last season. See above for confirmation.

Third. Suddenly? 2nd in the Vuelta 2011, 2nd in the Tour 2012, 1st in the Tour 2013. Hardly sudden. He is in his peak years, for an endurance athlete. :roll:

What about the pre Sky years or pre Leinders ? Nothing that's what. Never won a thing on the road. Just like Wiggins not one victory of any significance.

There was nothing to show from either rider that they could win a tour before they Joined Sky and in Froomes case his performances have been outstanding been on a new level. IMO

Oh FFS. Wiggins finished 3rd in the Tour. Behind two obvious dopers. What bigger hint of his ability to win that race do you need?

As for Froome, he managed to perform at Pro tour level coming from a genuine outsider's position (coming from the mighty Kenyan road racing scene). Did reasonably well at Barloworld whilst clearly overweight (and his power profiles raised a few eyebrows - in a good way), then got a parasitic disease and when he got on top of that started to perform as many had always suspected he might be capable of. Hell, I'm not Froome's biggest fan and you're entitled to your suspicions (which I consider healthy and share to an extent), but that is all they are - suspicions. You don't have a shred of evidence, nothing.

Just proves beyond a shadow of doubt that you know nothing about Pro cycle racing or indeed any endurance sport.

Wiggins was a world class track rider that took some time to adjust to road racing. Finished 4th in the Tour behind known dopers, with very little team help. Moved to a team committed to the Tour and him. Winning a GT without a very strong team is just about impossible.
Froome, with Barloworld, was never going to do much. Overweight and left to train as you please, not the way for a pro to make a name for themselves. Loose weight, start training properly and join a big team with a super pro attitude. As any coach knows, you can have all the talent in the world but if you dont train properly and commit to the job in hand you will never reach you potential. Froome has finally reached his potential.

What you are saying is, anyone that changes there training/coaching and gets some commitment, or indeed matures as an athlete, and starts to win things, is ergo a cheat. Ha, what a joke.

ocdupalais

Here's a reminder of Fatty Froome in 2008

Mad_Malx

mike6 wrote:

.....left to train as you please, not the way for a pro to make a name for themselves. Loose weight, start training properly and join a big team with a super pro attitude. As any coach knows, you can have all the talent in the world but if you dont train properly and commit to the job in hand you will never reach you potential.

OT: maybe JTL needs to read this (not the weight bit).

tailwindhome

OCDuPalais wrote:

It all goes back to Sky wanting to verify that Leinders could indeed create a viable Tour winning doping programme - just like he did at Rabobank - by having a couple of no-mark, porky, grupetto-hiding duffers reach Paris in yellow.
It just goes to show the efficacy of said programme that they famously achieved success in 3 years rather than targeted 5, and two years on the trot. Cheating b@stards.

Now you just need that retweeted by several key players and it'll be true.

r0bh

rayjay wrote:

BigMat wrote:

rayjay wrote:

mike6 wrote:

" They do things differently and they do things more thoroughly and they make sure they do things better. Every aspect of the profession is analised and refined. Start with talented motivated riders then give them the best, training, coaching, recovery, nutrition, equipment, clothing, psychology. They had the successful track blueprint that has been refined to suit the road. "

But they forget to check Leinders CV .

What was on Leinders' CV that they should have picked up on?

x a Googolplex

You could just answer the question. As a student of cycling when were you first aware of Geert Leinders? Why did no cycling journalists raise questions on Leinders between his appointment at Sky late 2010 and him being thrown under the bus by Theo de Rooij in May 2012, despite his name being openly used on the Team Sky website?

Yellow Peril

r0bh wrote:

rayjay wrote:

BigMat wrote:

rayjay wrote:

mike6 wrote:

" They do things differently and they do things more thoroughly and they make sure they do things better. Every aspect of the profession is analised and refined. Start with talented motivated riders then give them the best, training, coaching, recovery, nutrition, equipment, clothing, psychology. They had the successful track blueprint that has been refined to suit the road. "

But they forget to check Leinders CV .

What was on Leinders' CV that they should have picked up on?

x a Googolplex

You could just answer the question. As a student of cycling when were you first aware of Geert Leinders? Why did no cycling journalists raise questions on Leinders between his appointment at Sky late 2010 and him being thrown under the bus by Theo de Rooij in May 2012, despite his name being openly used on the Team Sky website?

+1 r0bh

rayjay

Yellow Peril wrote:

r0bh wrote:

rayjay wrote:

BigMat wrote:

rayjay wrote:

mike6 wrote:

" They do things differently and they do things more thoroughly and they make sure they do things better. Every aspect of the profession is analised and refined. Start with talented motivated riders then give them the best, training, coaching, recovery, nutrition, equipment, clothing, psychology. They had the successful track blueprint that has been refined to suit the road. "

But they forget to check Leinders CV .

What was on Leinders' CV that they should have picked up on?

x a Googolplex

You could just answer the question. As a student of cycling when were you first aware of Geert Leinders? Why did no cycling journalists raise questions on Leinders between his appointment at Sky late 2010 and him being thrown under the bus by Theo de Rooij in May 2012, despite his name being openly used on the Team Sky website?

+1 r0bh

So what your saying is that Sky never checked Leinder's out? They did not know he was the Dr at Rabobank when the Chicken got thrown off the tour for instance? No reason for suspicion there :roll:

Sky use the press as a standard for who they hire

Braislford has no inside knowledge of cycling and thought Leinder's worked at a hospital

Brailsford " we need a Dr"
Leinders " I am a Dr"
Brailsford " your hired"

If It was not for the Armstrong case blowing up then Sky would not have got rid of any of their ex doping staff.
Why hire them in the first place ? They would all still be there if Brailsford had his way.
He was forced to because of the increasing scrutiny of the press but he knew exactly every detail about everyone he hired. That's the Brailsford way.

RichN95.

rayjay wrote:

So what your saying is that Sky never checked Leinder's out? They did not know he was the Dr at Rabobank when the Chicken got thrown off the tour for instance? No reason for suspicion there :roll:

But it was Rabobank that threw him off the race. For going to Italy (to see who? - not Leinders). And Sky can investigate all they like but repeatedly get lied to then what can they do?

rayjay wrote:

If It was not for the Armstrong case blowing up then Sky would not have got rid of any of their ex doping staff.
Why hire them in the first place ? They would all still be there if Brailsford had his way.
He was forced to because of the increasing scrutiny of the press but he knew exactly every detail about everyone he hired. That's the Brailsford way.

Sky's recruitment policies aren't Brailsford's doing - that much is clear. He doesn't seem to have too much trouble with ex-dopers as long as they are committed to being clean now. He has, after all, repeated picked David Millar for GB and had wanted him at Sky.
The policy has come from BSkyB, who are quite new to this cycling lark. They have a zero tolerance policy, but what they have a zero tolerance of has changed at least twice.
People have criticised this policy as it doesn't help cycling 'move on' and 'heal its past' - but they don't care about that - it's not their mess to clear up. They're interested in BSkyB's brand. As sport is central to their business, keeping their nose clean is vital.

But going back to Leinders. It's now a year and a half since he left - more time than he spent at the team. How long will you cling to him as evidence?

blazing_saddles

Google had zilch prior to May 2012.

Take a look at when he hit the Clinic (thread) radar and they all became instant experts
on his history, so they could call out: "Sky must have known..."

23-07-2012, right after Wiggins took his Tour win. Oh dear.

Search Leinders and there is no mention of him until then.
This from the self proclaimed number 1s in investigating doping links.

Perhaps Sky made a mistake by not asking Hercule Poirot to check him out.

whiteboytrash

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Google had zilch prior to May 2012.

Take a look at when he hit the Clinic (thread) radar and they all became instant experts
on his history, so they could call out: "Sky must have known..."

23-07-2012, right after Wiggins took his Tour win. Oh dear.

Search Leinders and there is no mention of him until then.
This from the self proclaimed number 1s in investigating doping links.

Perhaps Sky made a mistake by not asking Hercule Poirot to check him out.

There wasn't actually ziltch because you don't read the Dutch press.

But that’s exactly the point was he was employed for a UK / English speaking team.

He was a safe doping doctor for hire.

Stephen de Jong recommended Leinders to Brailsford. Apparently. On the Sky team there was de John, Fletcha, Hayman all with experience of what exactly went on at Rabobank and Leinders role.

Leinders wasn’t just a doping Doctor who was involved in doping. He organized, he injected and used his influence to dope riders as young as 18 in a team-wide all encompassing doping program.

He also had (by Rassmussen’s accounts) several connections in the UCI which allow riders to “fly under the radar” when they were doping to extreme high levels.

It was well established the Rassmussen was ejected from the Tour and that he was doping and was the entire Rabobank squad.

De Jong knew as did Brailsford.

There is good reason you hire a guy like Leinders. He was very good connections in the UCI, he has never had one positive test in 10 years at Rabo and to the general public he is realtivly unknown as a doping doctor.

A Ferrari or a Fuentes comes with a lot of baggage. You can’t just go hiring them.

Leinders? Yes. He is a natural hire when running a team wide doping program. To feign ignorance on a matter is most concerning. Criminal in fact.

wombly_knees

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Google had zilch prior to May 2012.

Take a look at when he hit the Clinic (thread) radar and they all became instant experts
on his history, so they could call out: "Sky must have known..."

23-07-2012, right after Wiggins took his Tour win. Oh dear.

Search Leinders and there is no mention of him until then.
This from the self proclaimed number 1s in investigating doping links.

Perhaps Sky made a mistake by not asking Hercule Poirot to check him out.

They should've gone to wikileaks, and Benedict Cumberbatch also would've doubled up as Sherlock. Foolproof, although barely legal.

Fwiw, which is not much, I don't think it's outrageous to guess that individuals within sky aren't pure lilies. All I have to say on this war and peace, which much like Tolstoy's I can't go through more than a pair of pages at a time....

Edited because I can't type...

Macaloon

Could be. After all, Assange is shilling for the black hats.

Edit And GTFO with your OT bullying. Last I checked it was a free country

blazing_saddles

whiteboytrash wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Google had zilch prior to May 2012.

Take a look at when he hit the Clinic (thread) radar and they all became instant experts
on his history, so they could call out: "Sky must have known..."

23-07-2012, right after Wiggins took his Tour win. Oh dear.

Search Leinders and there is no mention of him until then.
This from the self proclaimed number 1s in investigating doping links.

Perhaps Sky made a mistake by not asking Hercule Poirot to check him out.

There wasn't actually ziltch because you don't read the Dutch press.

But that’s exactly the point was he was employed for a UK / English speaking team.

Actually, I do.
I know what was written about in 2007 and beyond.
Again, folks really started to join those dots in 2012, when it all blew up.
Could've, should've, but very few did.

whiteboytrash

Paulie W wrote:

Well I've read the book. Safe to say it's not a classic of sports writing. Felt a bit like a rush job. Some interesting asides. There is in places special pleading for Froome's performances which doesnt convince (in terms of the argument rather than the ultimate conclusion) - he clearly believes in Froome and, at some level, is staking his 'reputation' on that belief.

Thanks for the post. You are one of the few whom have read the book.

I agree. I would have liked much more on what makes Sky so strong. But its sadly lacking. Especially for someone whom was "embedded".

Interestingly Dan Coyle who wrote "War" about Lance Armstrong spent 15 months in Girona Spain. Uprooted his family to live there with 20 American cyclists and Lance.

All of the them doping their arms and legs off. Coyle also had access to Ferrari.

He found nothing. Makes you wonder what hope Walsh has.

If David can't even tell the reader the odd training program what else might he have left out? I don't know but it appears he didn't want to know.

He even says he doesn't know if "Froome is doping".

The book is a let down.

whiteboytrash

Blazing Saddles wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Google had zilch prior to May 2012.

Take a look at when he hit the Clinic (thread) radar and they all became instant experts
on his history, so they could call out: "Sky must have known..."

23-07-2012, right after Wiggins took his Tour win. Oh dear.

Search Leinders and there is no mention of him until then.
This from the self proclaimed number 1s in investigating doping links.

Perhaps Sky made a mistake by not asking Hercule Poirot to check him out.

There wasn't actually ziltch because you don't read the Dutch press.

But that’s exactly the point was he was employed for a UK / English speaking team.

Actually, I do.
I know what was written about in 2007 and beyond.
Again, folks really started to join those dots in 2012, when it all blew up.
Could've, should've, but very few did.

I'm glad you do but you still sadly miss the point.

The fact there was little on Leinders is exactly the reason why you'd hire him.

A doping doctor you can invite around for dinner.

Perfect. A match made in heaven for ZTP Sky :shock:

The fact they off loaded him when everyone did finally joined the dots showing they were "found out".

nic_77

So who is running the programme now? He's been gone for a long time.

Pross

whiteboytrash wrote:

The fact there was little on Leinders is exactly the reason why you'd hire him.

Yep, as if there is little on a doctor in cycling after all those bad years then there's a fair chance he is safe (or is that not what you are saying)?

So, if you don't go for the unknown doctor and you don't go for the doctors with a history of providing 'training plans' who do you hire as the doctor on a cycling team? This is typical of the doping debate, someone will always twist the facts to support their case.

whiteboytrash

nic_77 wrote:

So who is running the programme now? He's been gone for a long time.

My own view?

I don't think Leinders was running a dope program at Sky.

His skills were in other areas. His talent was ensuring no one tested positive. His records speaks for itself. He has (had) very strong connections at the UCI and was able to tailor programs at Rabo to fit to ensure no one every tested positive.

His 80 day engagement suggest that this was his role. A consultant. 80 days it not a enough for a legitimate Doctor. 80 days is not enough to run a team wide doping program. 80 days is perfect to work from a distance on the data and output of the riders internal testing.

The problems is paying for these types of Doctors. if you work with Fuentes or Ferrari you need to hide the payments and transactions.

Hiring Leinders and doing so on the books was a very smart move.

bigmat

This is hilarious! There really is no way out for Sky with such searing investigative analysis.

To be fair, the stuff about Hayman, de Jong and Flecha being there pre-Leinders is quite an interesting angle. As far as I'm aware though, the riders have never confessed to anything (and unlikely to have done so to Brailsford) and de Jong was probably the same at the time (has he 'fessed up now? I lose track...). There just doesn't seem to have been any dirt on Leinders at the time he was hired by Sky and even now I'm not convinced he was a Ferrari / Fuentes type at his worst, nevermind whilst at Sky. It is all a bit murky, but a long way from the smoking gun the cynics are looking for.

whiteboytrash

BigMat wrote:

This is hilarious! There really is no way out for Sky with such searing investigative analysis.

To be fair, the stuff about Hayman, de Jong and Flecha being there pre-Leinders is quite an interesting angle. As far as I'm aware though, the riders have never confessed to anything (and unlikely to have done so to Brailsford) and de Jong was probably the same at the time (has he 'fessed up now? I lose track...). There just doesn't seem to have been any dirt on Leinders at the time he was hired by Sky and even now I'm not convinced he was a Ferrari / Fuentes type at his worst, nevermind whilst at Sky. It is all a bit murky, but a long way from the smoking gun the cynics are looking for.

Sky are not on trial nor is anyone asking for them to removed from the peloton.

Some are merely discussing the polemics of Leinders’s engagement at Sky.

Try not to take it so personally.

Cycling has a long history of doping and in cycling strange is normal.

Landis had his blood bags delivered by a courier disguised as an autograph hunter. Why would one find anything strange by hiring a doping doctor?

In fact its normal to hire a doping doctor like Lenders to ensure you don’t have a team positive. That makes very sound sense.

RichN95.

whiteboytrash wrote:

[
Interestingly Dan Coyle who wrote "War" about Lance Armstrong spent 15 months in Girona Spain. Uprooted his family to live there with 20 American cyclists and Lance.

All of the them doping their arms and legs off. Coyle also had access to Ferrari.

He found nothing. Makes you wonder what hope Walsh has.

Coyle had very limited and controlled access. He wasn't on the team, bus, he wasn't in the cars, he wasn't in the hotel.

And if Walsh had seen someone of Ferrari's reputation hanging around training camps, as Coyle had, don't you think he would have mentioned it? As it was there was no doctor there

RichN95.

whiteboytrash wrote:

His 80 day engagement suggest that this was his role. A consultant. 80 days it not a enough for a legitimate Doctor. 80 days is not enough to run a team wide doping program. 80 days is perfect to work from a distance on the data and output of the riders internal testing.

No his engagement suggests that he was used as a part-time race doctor. Insurance and UCI rules say a team has to have one at each race. As races often overlap, several doctors are contracted on a part-time basis. For someone who you think is 'perfect to work from a distance', he did seem to spend all of those days at races.

whiteboytrash wrote:

In fact its normal to hire a doping doctor like Lenders to ensure you don’t have a team positive. That makes very sound sense.

Which makes it strange that they never took him to the Tour then.

If they hired him as a clean doctor, then they made one wrong decision. If they hired him to run a doping programme then every decision they made was wrong.

whiteboytrash

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

[
Interestingly Dan Coyle who wrote "War" about Lance Armstrong spent 15 months in Girona Spain. Uprooted his family to live there with 20 American cyclists and Lance.

All of the them doping their arms and legs off. Coyle also had access to Ferrari.

He found nothing. Makes you wonder what hope Walsh has.

Coyle had very limited and controlled access. He wasn't on the team, bus, he wasn't in the cars, he wasn't in the hotel.

And if Walsh had seen someone of Ferrari's reputation hanging around training camps, as Coyle had, don't you think he would have mentioned it? As it was there was no doctor there

I think you might be telling fibs again.

Coyle had access to the team bus. Along with many other areas, training rides, fitness tests etc.

See the introduction to his book below. He was embedded.

Still found nothing. I repeat my earlier statement. Right in the face of 20 US cyclists doping like crazy and Ferrari hanging around he still saw nothing.

What hope does Walsh have?

whiteboytrash

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

In fact its normal to hire a doping doctor like Lenders to ensure you don’t have a team positive. That makes very sound sense.

Which makes it strange that they never took him to the Tour then.

If they hired him as a clean doctor, then they made one wrong decision. If they hired him to run a doping programme then every decision they made was wrong.

I said he was hired to ensure no one tested positive, not to run a doping program.

Besides does Ferrari or Fuentes go to the Tour? 8)

I rest my case.

rayjay

BigMat wrote:

This is hilarious! There really is no way out for Sky with such searing investigative analysis.

To be fair, the stuff about Hayman, de Jong and Flecha being there pre-Leinders is quite an interesting angle. As far as I'm aware though, the riders have never confessed to anything (and unlikely to have done so to Brailsford) and de Jong was probably the same at the time (has he 'fessed up now? I lose track...). There just doesn't seem to have been any dirt on Leinders at the time he was hired by Sky and even now I'm not convinced he was a Ferrari / Fuentes type at his worst, nevermind whilst at Sky. It is all a bit murky, but a long way from the smoking gun the cynics are looking for.

Leinder's doped a whole team. You cannot try and play the facts down with words.

He's a great big MASSIVE doping Dr and Sky hired him. FACT.

And now he's not on their books anymore does that mean they only doped when he was.

Its so obvious what they hired him for, it's there in your face like Ferrari was in LA's face, but you won't admit that Sky could do such a thing.

If this was not Sky no one would be defending the hiring of a Dr who dopes whole teams.

RichN95.

whiteboytrash wrote:

I think you might be telling fibs again.

Coyle had access to the team bus. Along with many other areas, training rides, fitness tests etc.

See the introduction to his book below. He was embedded.

No he says he visited team buses. Every journalist does that. It doesn't mean they go on board though.

"Sometimes he let me into his inner circle, other he chose not to". That doesn't seem like 'embeded' to me. Walsh could go anywhere at any time.

And you say Coyle found nothing. Well he found Ferrari in plain sight. Walsh saw no dodgy doctors.

whiteboytrash

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

I think you might be telling fibs again.

Coyle had access to the team bus. Along with many other areas, training rides, fitness tests etc.

See the introduction to his book below. He was embedded.

No he says he visited team buses. Every journalist does that. It doesn't mean they go on board though.

"Sometimes he let me into his inner circle, other he chose not to". That doesn't seem like 'embeded' to me. Walsh could go anywhere at any time.

And you say Coyle found nothing. Well he found Ferrari in plain sight. Walsh saw no dodgy doctors.

Here we go again. You're changing the story.

Do you think Walsh "visited" buses as well?

Every journalist "visits" team buses? Now you're making things up again. Sure they may go to the front of the bus to get an interview but they're not getting on board.

Don't be so silly.

Do you think Walsh would just open any door in a hotel?

Would he set his alarm for 2am and break into Brailsford's room?

Don't be ridiculous.

Coyle had access similar if not the same of Walsh.

Coyle met Ferrari. And saw nothing to be concerned of. Even with that massive red flag what conclusion will Walsh make on the Sky.

The same.

Richmond Racer

He he, its absolutely killing the Clinic and the Twaliban that Walsh believes Sky's clean. And that there's a book out there explaining why. And that he explains why in response to questions at his evening talks around the country. And on radio shows. And on t'telly.

Priceless. Just priceless.