Inside Team Sky - David Walsh *Spoilers*

ddraver

Do you have any links to those RR?

iainf72

Shall I ask Dan Coyle if he had the same level of access to Lance?

whiteboytrash

iainf72 wrote:

Shall I ask Dan Coyle if he had the same level of access to Lance?

Yes please do. If you can.

RichN95.

rayjay wrote:

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.

So this is what in your mind happened.

Sky wanted a doping doctor and after looking around they choose Leinders on the recommnedation of someone who hadn't worked with him for over five years, ensuring his knowledge is up to date.
Conveniently there is not one but two separate investigation or court cases immentent on his old team, so he's highly likely to come to promience sooner or later.
They have clearly chosen him for talents. Talents so great that the Rabobank riders were all going of to Vienna or Fuentes or Italy instead using him.
To ensure plausible deniability Sky then put him under contract. To keep everything quiet they then list him on the website and let him speak to the press. And then at the races they have him wearing Sky kit so a potential whistleblower like Thomas Dekker has no doubt who he is working for.

Like I said, if they hired him for doping they made the wrong decision at every turn.

RichN95.

whiteboytrash wrote:

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.

So you think that if Walsh had seen Ferrari (or even the released Leinders) with Sky he would have claimed they were clean?

And yes Walsh was on the bus - in fact he was even cleaning it at one point so he could check the rubbish.

mfin

Some of this uncannily reminds me of how arguments with religious people go about why they believe in religion, believing something with no evidence. It is quite funny.

I suppose not everyone works on 'evidence and being rational', some religious people try to make out they do when in fact they're not, and some also try to project back on the non-religious that they are acting on 'belief not evidence' when that's not what they do. The angles by which people come from each side of the argument are sometimes just in-compatibly different.

A bit of evidence would be nice.

Also, I don't think many here fall into a camp of believing any or some of Sky dope or believing that they don't, I don't either way, give me enough real evidence that they do and I will think they do though.

whiteboytrash

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

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.

And yes Walsh was on the bus - in fact he was even cleaning it at one point so he could check the rubbish.

Do you think he found anything?

Generally dopers put all of their drug paraphilia into the regular rubbish bins in plan view for all to see.

dish_dash

whiteboytrash wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

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.

And yes Walsh was on the bus - in fact he was even cleaning it at one point so he could check the rubbish.

Do you think he found anything?

Generally dopers put all of their drug paraphilia into the regular rubbish bins in plan view for all to see.

Err... is that not exactly what they did? TVM and US Postal both come to mind as examples...

whiteboytrash

mfin wrote:

Some of this uncannily reminds me of how arguments with religious people go about why they believe in religion, believing something with no evidence. It is quite funny.

I suppose not everyone works on 'evidence and being rational', some religious people try to make out they do when in fact they're not, and some also try to project back on the non-religious that they are acting on 'belief not evidence' when that's not what they do. The angles by which people come from each side of the argument are sometimes just in-compatibly different.

A bit of evidence would be nice.

Are facts not evidence?

You do understand how evidence works in the judiciary system don't you?

For example can the police charge you for speeding on visual alone and use that as evidence?

Is visual estimation alone legitimate?

whiteboytrash

dish_dash wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

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.

And yes Walsh was on the bus - in fact he was even cleaning it at one point so he could check the rubbish.

Do you think he found anything?

Generally dopers put all of their drug paraphilia into the regular rubbish bins in plan view for all to see.

Err... is that not exactly what they did? TVM and US Postal both come to mind as examples...

What did they do?

nic_77

mfin wrote:

Some of this uncannily reminds me of how arguments with religious people go about why they believe in religion, believing something with no evidence. It is quite funny.

Absolutely. That's a great analogy.

As with religion, I don't object to anyone holding their own unsubstantiated beliefs (you know, just in case there is a god). It's when they try to force me to believe in the same crackpot stories it becomes annoying. Just walk away.

Of course I don't know if Sky are doping or have doped. I just haven't seen any convincing evidence yet. I really do hope that they are clean, mainly so that these conspiracy theorists and internet nutters can spend the rest of their days getting themselves worked up about it!

blazing_saddles

whiteboytrash wrote:

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.

LOL. We'll I guess this logic would make Sky totally transparent about their doping.
The publicly hired a guy specifically NOT to be seen in public.

dish_dash

whiteboytrash wrote:

dish_dash wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

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.

And yes Walsh was on the bus - in fact he was even cleaning it at one point so he could check the rubbish.

Do you think he found anything?

Generally dopers put all of their drug paraphilia into the regular rubbish bins in plan view for all to see.

Err... is that not exactly what they did? TVM and US Postal both come to mind as examples...

What did they do?

Put their drug paraphernalia into the regular rubbish bins. Read Jeremy Whittle in Cycling Anthology...

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/o ... ges-astana
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/ ... ul24.shtml
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2 ... ada-detail

Richmond Racer

nic_77 wrote:

mfin wrote:

Some of this uncannily reminds me of how arguments with religious people go about why they believe in religion, believing something with no evidence. It is quite funny.

Absolutely. That's a great analogy.

As with religion, I don't object to anyone holding their own unsubstantiated beliefs (you know, just in case there is a god). It's when they try to force me to believe in the same crackpot stories it becomes annoying. Just walk away.

Of course I don't know if Sky are doping or have doped. I just haven't seen any convincing evidence yet. I really do hope that they are clean, mainly so that these conspiracy theorists and internet nutters can spend the rest of their days getting themselves worked up about it!

It provides me with VAST amusement, it has to be said.

whiteboytrash

nic_77 wrote:

mfin wrote:

Some of this uncannily reminds me of how arguments with religious people go about why they believe in religion, believing something with no evidence. It is quite funny.

Absolutely. That's a great analogy.

As with religion, I don't object to anyone holding their own unsubstantiated beliefs (you know, just in case there is a god). It's when they try to force me to believe in the same crackpot stories it becomes annoying. Just walk away.

Of course I don't know if Sky are doping or have doped. I just haven't seen any convincing evidence yet. I really do hope that they are clean, mainly so that these conspiracy theorists and internet nutters can spend the rest of their days getting themselves worked up about it!

You may not object but you do appear to hold prejudice.

RichN95.

whiteboytrash wrote:

Are facts not evidence?

You do understand how evidence works in the judiciary system don't you?

For example can the police charge you for speeding on visual alone and use that as evidence?

Is visual estimation alone legitimate?

Yes, that's a trained eyewitness observing the offence taking place, which supported by recorded evidence - either a speed gun or a car tachometer.

When you have something that good, let us know.

whiteboytrash

dish_dash wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

dish_dash wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

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.

And yes Walsh was on the bus - in fact he was even cleaning it at one point so he could check the rubbish.

Do you think he found anything?

Generally dopers put all of their drug paraphilia into the regular rubbish bins in plan view for all to see.

Err... is that not exactly what they did? TVM and US Postal both come to mind as examples...

What did they do?

Put their drug paraphernalia into the regular rubbish bins. Read Jeremy Whittle in Cycling Anthology...

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/o ... ges-astana
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/ ... ul24.shtml
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2 ... ada-detail

Thanks for doing the research.

But I'm not following the logic you're applying.

Stories from 15 years ago and you still think Sky would just throw their gear into the regular rubbish bin?

Needles weren't banned in 2009. They are still used for cortisone injections which are legal by TUE.

USPS out their syringes into coke cans and got rid of them that way. They also dumped their drug rubbish on the highway not in the team bus.

Sorry.

mike6

So, Sky, the team that was set up and still stands firmly on an anti-doping mantra, not a " lets just slip into pro cycling and keep quiet" as lots of teams do. Decide , knowingly, to sign up and advertise on there web site, a doctor so he will come up with a doping program that will bring them lots of success, and no one will notice???????
Also, when they decide its better to get rid of anyone from the team or backroom staff who has even a whiff of a doping past, none of them will be miffed enough to grass up the doping going on inside the team? Yea, right.

Funny that none of the other teams, not the UCI, not WADA, not ex riders or sacked staff have cried "Dope" at Sky. No, just the nutters in the Clinic, but then again they know best.

The argument is, what about Leinders, what about Leinders, what about Leinders. Blah blah blah.

Why not go back to the clinic where everyone will agree with you? no one on here is impressed with the conspiracy theory.

whiteboytrash

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

Are facts not evidence?

You do understand how evidence works in the judiciary system don't you?

For example can the police charge you for speeding on visual alone and use that as evidence?

Is visual estimation alone legitimate?

Yes, that's a trained eyewitness observing the offence taking place, which supported by recorded evidence - either a speed gun or a car tachometer.

When you have something that good, let us know.

Yes visual speed alone or pacing is enough.

Speed gun not required.

Reckless driving can be visual also.

That is evidence.

Like climbing times. Facts are evidence.

nic_77

whiteboytrash wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

mfin wrote:

Some of this uncannily reminds me of how arguments with religious people go about why they believe in religion, believing something with no evidence. It is quite funny.

Absolutely. That's a great analogy.

As with religion, I don't object to anyone holding their own unsubstantiated beliefs (you know, just in case there is a god). It's when they try to force me to believe in the same crackpot stories it becomes annoying. Just walk away.

Of course I don't know if Sky are doping or have doped. I just haven't seen any convincing evidence yet. I really do hope that they are clean, mainly so that these conspiracy theorists and internet nutters can spend the rest of their days getting themselves worked up about it!

You may not object but you do appear to hold prejudice.

Yep, you are right. It's an emotion somewhere between contempt and pity, but each to their own - I'm still not going to tell anyone what they can and can't do (except when it comes to grammar, or abuse of accepted scientific principles).

dish_dash

whiteboytrash wrote:

dish_dash wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

dish_dash wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

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.

And yes Walsh was on the bus - in fact he was even cleaning it at one point so he could check the rubbish.

Do you think he found anything?

Generally dopers put all of their drug paraphilia into the regular rubbish bins in plan view for all to see.

Err... is that not exactly what they did? TVM and US Postal both come to mind as examples...

What did they do?

Put their drug paraphernalia into the regular rubbish bins. Read Jeremy Whittle in Cycling Anthology...

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/o ... ges-astana
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/ ... ul24.shtml
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2 ... ada-detail

Thanks for doing the research.

But I'm not following the logic you're applying.

Stories from 15 years ago and you still think Sky would just throw their gear into the regular rubbish bin?

Needles weren't banned in 2009. They are still used for cortisone injections which are legal by TUE.

USPS out their syringes into coke cans and got rid of them that way. They also dumped their drug rubbish on the highway not in the team bus.

Sorry.

You made a statement (albeit sarcastically). I backed it up with evidence. Thought that's how a discussion worked, non?

mfin

whiteboytrash wrote:

Are facts not evidence?

You do understand how evidence works in the judiciary system don't you?

For example can the police charge you for speeding on visual alone and use that as evidence?

Is visual estimation alone legitimate?

The answer to the sentence "Are facts not evidence?" is "No, that's right, they aren't", that's far too sweeping a statement to even possibly say yes. It did make me laugh though and it's easy to see why you said it, as it would help convince others of your argument if they mistook your 'facts' for evidence in the same way you seem to be.

whiteboytrash

mfin wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

Are facts not evidence?

You do understand how evidence works in the judiciary system don't you?

For example can the police charge you for speeding on visual alone and use that as evidence?

Is visual estimation alone legitimate?

The answer to the sentence "Are facts not evidence?" is "No, that's right, they aren't", that's far too sweeping a statement to even possibly say yes. It did make me laugh though and it's easy to see why you said it, as it would help convince others of your argument if they mistook your 'facts' for evidence in the same way you seem to be.

Facts are not evidence?

Ok then. What is evidence?

nic_77

mfin wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

Are facts not evidence?

You do understand how evidence works in the judiciary system don't you?

For example can the police charge you for speeding on visual alone and use that as evidence?

Is visual estimation alone legitimate?

The answer to the sentence "Are facts not evidence?" is "No, that's right, they aren't", that's far too sweeping a statement to even possibly say yes. It did make me laugh though and it's easy to see why you said it, as it would help convince others of your argument if they mistook your 'facts' for evidence in the same way you seem to be.

Correct. Two facts:
1. Sky have won the Tour
2. Tour winners have taken drugs
Facts <> Evidence

mfin

whiteboytrash wrote:

Ok then. What is evidence?

You go do a little bit of reading and once you've worked it out then if you'd like to pop back with some then that would be great.

Thanks ever so much.

Coriander

This thread is like a hydra. Or rather, some of the posters are. But then she probably didn't speak much sense either.

Macaloon

whiteboytrash wrote:

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.

This is the best you can do?

"Beating times of known dopers" - demolished, and with it the entire 'come from nowhere' premise.
Now Dr Dope turns out to be Dr Impunity - the wealthiest man in the sport who make positives, negative.

After 18 months the very least you should have mustered is a straight story that doesn't evaporate on first testing.

Did Sky design a narrative and messenger to discredit the cynics? Because the secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made.

RichN95.

whiteboytrash wrote:

[
Yes visual speed alone or pacing is enough.

Speed gun not required.

Reckless driving can be visual also.

That is evidence.

"How fast was the defendent going?"
"About 90mph"
"How do you know?"
"I saw it visually"
"Did you measure it in any way?"
"No"
"No speed gun, no on board tachometer reading, no video"
"None of those. Just my eyes"
"So how can be be sure that he was speeding"
"Because I say so"
"Motion to dismiss your honour"
"Granted. I'll see the prosectution in my chambers. NOW!"

rayjay

RichN95 wrote:

rayjay wrote:

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.

So this is what in your mind happened.

Sky wanted a doping doctor and after looking around they choose Leinders on the recommnedation of someone who hadn't worked with him for over five years, ensuring his knowledge is up to date.
Conveniently there is not one but two separate investigation or court cases immentent on his old team, so he's highly likely to come to promience sooner or later.
They have clearly chosen him for talents. Talents so great that the Rabobank riders were all going of to Vienna or Fuentes or Italy instead using him.
To ensure plausible deniability Sky then put him under contract. To keep everything quiet they then list him on the website and let him speak to the press. And then at the races they have him wearing Sky kit so a potential whistleblower like Thomas Dekker has no doubt who he is working for.

Like I said, if they hired him for doping they made the wrong decision at every turn.

You make some good Points Rich. But that is just your version to justify Sky hiring Leinder's.

He his a doctor who has doped riders and Sky hired him and were fully aware of who he his and what he's done.
To say they never checked out someone who will be an important part of their medical staff is crazy and does not fit in with the way Brialsford runs things.

Like I said before, If Armstrongs case had not blown up then Sky would not have been under scrutiny and they would not have got rid of Leinder's and the others.

mfn , I am a atheist.
I think it's a miracle that a riders like Wiggo and Froome won a tour

mfin

rayjay wrote:

mfn , I am a atheist.
I think it's a miracle that a riders like Wiggo and Froome won a tour

Cool, I expect you could be the kind of person who would like a bit of evidence then. If there is clear cut evidence or well corroborated testimonies that come out I'll be the first to think they doped, and I would think they were cheating tw*ts for doing so. Haven't seen any though. Nothing yet but some washy theories.