J T-L

OPQS

Joelsim wrote:

mfin wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

mike6 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Rich, I wish I had as much faith as you, but I don't think it's a cycling-specific issue. I just feel that the way things can be manipulated to keep the passport looking within limits leaves an awful lot of space to dope. There are also some doping products that last longer in the blood but the top guys all have access to the best doctors and know how to get round things on the whole.

I hope I'm wrong.

Could you honestly put your hand on your heart and say that if you had to put your mortgage on any one of Bertie, Nibs or Froome not doping then you would?

I love the "I hope I'm wrong" disclaimer people use. Cast suspicion on a the whole peloton and then pass it off with I hope I'm wrong. No you don't, you are a cynic that likes to stir up and argument. If you have well founded and quantifiable suspicions regarding an individual rider then lets hear it.

Believe it or not, I do hope I'm wrong Mike.

I don't have any particular suspicions about individuals. My mind says they are mostly all still at it.

Anyway, it's a pointless conversation. No-one knows for sure except for the protagonists et al.

I reckon you're one of those people who've read Tyler Hamilton's book, maybe one or two others and then have decided 'they're probably all on it' and like to think that's an informed opinion. I only say this as you seem to post a lot of generalisations on the topic and never any detail to back it up. You've got a perfect right to have a gut feeling, but that's all it really is.

It's a gut feeling, yes. Will be chuffed to bits if I'm proved wrong. Same with Usain, same with Mo, same with Nadal...

But it's a gut feeling formed after scandal upon scandal upon scandal.

joelsim

OPQS wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

mfin wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

mike6 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Rich, I wish I had as much faith as you, but I don't think it's a cycling-specific issue. I just feel that the way things can be manipulated to keep the passport looking within limits leaves an awful lot of space to dope. There are also some doping products that last longer in the blood but the top guys all have access to the best doctors and know how to get round things on the whole.

I hope I'm wrong.

Could you honestly put your hand on your heart and say that if you had to put your mortgage on any one of Bertie, Nibs or Froome not doping then you would?

I love the "I hope I'm wrong" disclaimer people use. Cast suspicion on a the whole peloton and then pass it off with I hope I'm wrong. No you don't, you are a cynic that likes to stir up and argument. If you have well founded and quantifiable suspicions regarding an individual rider then lets hear it.

Believe it or not, I do hope I'm wrong Mike.

I don't have any particular suspicions about individuals. My mind says they are mostly all still at it.

Anyway, it's a pointless conversation. No-one knows for sure except for the protagonists et al.

I reckon you're one of those people who've read Tyler Hamilton's book, maybe one or two others and then have decided 'they're probably all on it' and like to think that's an informed opinion. I only say this as you seem to post a lot of generalisations on the topic and never any detail to back it up. You've got a perfect right to have a gut feeling, but that's all it really is.

It's a gut feeling, yes. Will be chuffed to bits if I'm proved wrong. Same with Usain, same with Mo, same with Nadal...

But it's a gut feeling formed after scandal upon scandal upon scandal.

Yes. And the weekly dose of someone having been caught. Despite the improbability of it.

RichN95.

Art Vandelay wrote:

Oleg getting stuck in:
@olegtinkov

I am very high opinion on Sir.Brailsword as a manager, but this zero tolerance hestiria makes him really shallow in my eyes. Sorry, SIR.

I am AGAINST doping in any sports, would never support or encourage it, but would never pretend that I can change it, pure PR and propaganda

That is why i never bs about doping, simply because it is impossible to guarantee anything, Anglo-Saxon typical hypocrisy and PR only

Now #SKY and their manager look very stupid, after screening at every corner about "zero-tolerance stance to doping".They'd better be whist

Someone on twitter mentioned this:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hamilto ... or-cycling

He responded that unlike Hamilton he doesn't need to sell books - on a twitter feed with a picture of his book.

RichN95.

Joelsim wrote:

It's a gut feeling, yes. Will be chuffed to bits if I'm proved wrong. Same with Usain, same with Mo, same with Nadal...

It's a gut feeling based on observing fans (e.g. Armstrong fans) being caught out and exposed. Say someone is doping and you are guaranteed never to be proved wrong.

Maybe you're right about those people. But why not throw caution to the wind and not make a decision until there's something to consider and enjoy it. It's only sport. If you want to be indignant about something watch the news.

joelsim

RichN95 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

It's a gut feeling, yes. Will be chuffed to bits if I'm proved wrong. Same with Usain, same with Mo, same with Nadal...

It's a gut feeling based on observing fans (e.g. Armstrong fans) being caught out and exposed. Say someone is doping and you are guaranteed never to be proved wrong.

Maybe you're right about those people. But why not throw caution to the wind and not make a decision until there's something to consider and enjoy it. It's only sport. If you want to be indignant about something watch the news.

I love it Rich, and don't ever think about doping when watching. Same rules for everyone, albeit not very sponsor friendly.

alan_a

Has anyone checked Leicester Lad is ok. He's not been around for a while.

mm1

Its been said before, but for a team whose sponsor is in the communications business, Team Sky's comms look particularly lacklustre. While I'm sure that having appointed a "compliance officer" is a good thing, why when Shane Stokes tweets that they should test prospective riders who are outside the bio-passport pool before signing them can't they respond by simply saying that this is what they now do, having made a mistake in this instance. Simple.

joelsim

mm1 wrote:

Its been said before, but for a team whose sponsor is in the communications business, Team Sky's comms look particularly lacklustre. While I'm sure that having appointed a "compliance officer" is a good thing, why when Shane Stokes tweets that they should test prospective riders who are outside the bio-passport pool before signing them can't they respond by simply saying that this is what they now do, having made a mistake in this instance. Simple.

Not entirely sure that the Sky top brass are particularly ethical tbh.

Lanterne_Rogue

mm1 wrote:

Its been said before, but for a team whose sponsor is in the communications business, Team Sky's comms look particularly lacklustre. While I'm sure that having appointed a "compliance officer" is a good thing, why when Shane Stokes tweets that they should test prospective riders who are outside the bio-passport pool before signing them can't they respond by simply saying that this is what they now do, having made a mistake in this instance. Simple.

I agree with this to an extent, and wish Sky would cut loose and vent some of their frustration - it would make them seem a bit more human. Basically, JTL appears to have committed the equivalent of lying about his CV - bump it up enough to get him noticed, then once he'd secured the position he wanted hope nobody went back to check his actual results.

Has anyone seen the actual judgement yet? Is the theory that JTL came unstuck as his previous tests were inconsistent with his passport once he went clean still tenable?

r0bh

mm1 wrote:

Its been said before, but for a team whose sponsor is in the communications business, Team Sky's comms look particularly lacklustre. While I'm sure that having appointed a "compliance officer" is a good thing, why when Shane Stokes tweets that they should test prospective riders who are outside the bio-passport pool before signing them can't they respond by simply saying that this is what they now do, having made a mistake in this instance. Simple.

Stokes is having a good old moan about getting blanked by DB, but maybe if he had maintained just a hint of journalistic integrity people might take him more seriously. Anyway, it would be completely impractical to independently build up a bio-passport for someone who isn't already in the pool due to the timescales involved; do you think a promising rider is going to wait for a year or so, probably turning down other offers, in the hope Sky might sign them after building up a bio-passport?

RichN95.

mm1 wrote:

Its been said before, but for a team whose sponsor is in the communications business, Team Sky's comms look particularly lacklustre. While I'm sure that having appointed a "compliance officer" is a good thing, why when Shane Stokes tweets that they should test prospective riders who are outside the bio-passport pool before signing them can't they respond by simply saying that this is what they now do, having made a mistake in this instance. Simple.

Their communications is terrible, agreed. But they are also up against a section of the media who have no interest in listening. All these questions were asked and answered when JTL got charged. Stokes reported the answers. And today all other journos seem to have managed to get relevant quotes.

But he wants to create the illusion of a scandal - hence the tweet. There's a reason why he' scraping a living a minor website after at least 15 years of doing this.

As an aside, here's a rumour I heard about Shane Stokes -I can't vouch for it's reliability - but you know how Google will now remove certain incriminating search results, well apparently Stokes applied to them to remove all his Armstrong worshipping articles on Cycling News from the early 2000s.

Lanterne_Rogue

It's interesting to ponder how Sky might have handled the media war better. I now have a sneaking feeling that saying "JTL was a little cheating toe-rag and we're glad he got busted" might have been a better tack to take, by essentially creating a different controversy to the one that certain parts of the media would like to concentrate on.

Turfle

mm1 wrote:

Its been said before, but for a team whose sponsor is in the communications business, Team Sky's comms look particularly lacklustre. While I'm sure that having appointed a "compliance officer" is a good thing, why when Shane Stokes tweets that they should test prospective riders who are outside the bio-passport pool before signing them can't they respond by simply saying that this is what they now do, having made a mistake in this instance. Simple.

They do test riders, they look at their bloodwork, and they've changed their minds about signing riders based on it. In this particular instance it took a year of JTL being on the bio passport before the UCI and their panel of experts were willing to bring proceedings against him, and then another year+ of appeals, what chance did Sky have when all they had is one data point, or a couple of months at most on him?

RichN95.

It strange that Stokes says Brailsford fled to the bus while every other journalist seemed to get plenty of quotes. Lengthy interview on Cycling Podcast for example.

Maybe Stokes actually missed all and is making it up. A bit like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hajXMVL8DCM

mroli

Art Vandelay wrote:

If retweeting something is a sign of support it looks like Brian Smith is refuting the UKAD findings - retweeted this:

@RoseLake Dear cycling world there has been huge injustice today. I know @J_T_Locke is innocent. @UCI_cycling, your systems have failed a good man.

Colleague of JTL, Zak Dempster also:
‏@ZakDempster 3h

@matpennell @IanBibby86 no doubt. He won that race and he won it clean. I am gutted.

Ah god. Brian Smith I respect, Zak Dempster has always seemed like a straight up guy too...

ddraver

I might just add for the people saying that Sky should have done more testing that it would have made exactly zero difference as all it would have done is compared more results against the (now) incorrect baseline.

Sky would have had to test him for several years before signing him to establish that baseline in order to detect that the end-2012 values were out of the ordinary and I think most rational people realise that that is impossible...

Yellow Peril

Are passports further down the food chain the answer?

frenchfighter

In my view his discrepancies are there but are not a result of doping. I just can't see it tbh.

There is almost no precedent of them having a guy on a lower team on bio passport then comparing that to when he then joins a pro team. The strains on the body in both are completely different.

Does anyone know whether the passport has flagged an irregular haematological profile? If so this would indicate blood doping - which I really cannot see someone in his position doing. Especially when he was specifically asking for the profile of his own accord.

If it was a regular dope test then he would have been found out in a regular test (you would have hoped).

Also, personally I do not think this reflects badly on Sky - it can happen to any team. I agree with Oleg that their stupid view on doping and their PR BS is wrong.

jimmythecuckoo

mroli wrote:

Art Vandelay wrote:

If retweeting something is a sign of support it looks like Brian Smith is refuting the UKAD findings - retweeted this:

@RoseLake Dear cycling world there has been huge injustice today. I know @J_T_Locke is innocent. @UCI_cycling, your systems have failed a good man.

Colleague of JTL, Zak Dempster also:
‏@ZakDempster 3h

@matpennell @IanBibby86 no doubt. He won that race and he won it clean. I am gutted.

Ah god. Brian Smith I respect, Zak Dempster has always seemed like a straight up guy too...

After I posted a tweet expressing my disappointment In J T-L when this all broke a number of domestic pros came back at me to insist he was innocent.

Still some way to go on this I reckon.

salsiccia1

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

mroli wrote:

Art Vandelay wrote:

If retweeting something is a sign of support it looks like Brian Smith is refuting the UKAD findings - retweeted this:

@RoseLake Dear cycling world there has been huge injustice today. I know @J_T_Locke is innocent. @UCI_cycling, your systems have failed a good man.

Colleague of JTL, Zak Dempster also:
‏@ZakDempster 3h

@matpennell @IanBibby86 no doubt. He won that race and he won it clean. I am gutted.

Ah god. Brian Smith I respect, Zak Dempster has always seemed like a straight up guy too...

After I posted a tweet expressing my disappointment In J T-L when this all broke a number of domestic pros came back at me to insist he was innocent.

Still some way to go on this I reckon.

BIG test of the Bio Passport this one.

inseine

It's a shame that SKY get flamed over this. Do people really think the cycling/doping landscape would be better without SKY?
Their PR is deplorable at times, it's true. If you set yourselves up as a clean team you’ve really got to have the message prepared.
I can’t see it as worse than Vino and Oleg saying there is no doping at all now in cycling.

chrisday

Art Vandelay wrote:

Oleg getting stuck in:
@olegtinkov

I am very high opinion on Sir.Brailsword as a manager, but this zero tolerance hestiria makes him really shallow in my eyes. Sorry, SIR.

I am AGAINST doping in any sports, would never support or encourage it, but would never pretend that I can change it, pure PR and propaganda

That is why i never bs about doping, simply because it is impossible to guarantee anything, Anglo-Saxon typical hypocrisy and PR only

Now #SKY and their manager look very stupid, after screening at every corner about "zero-tolerance stance to doping".They'd better be whist

What's Russian for schadenfreude?

Paulie W

The passport has to be seen as a good thing in principle since it can catch dopers without them testing positive (which is still presented by some as a product of stupidity, carelessness, bad luck).

My concern lies in the authorities interpretation of the passport data. The experts look at the data and feel able to dismiss the possibility that anomalies are the product of anything other than PEDs, blood doping, etc. but is there the data, the research evidence, the expertise available to be so definitive in this judgment? The fact that they are willing to ban someone on the basis of their findings implies there is, but having worked with sport scientists I dont have enormous confidence in the discipline both in terms of its rigour and in terms of the body of evidence to work with.

Gazzaputt

Like to ask how the hell did he afford to dope as a continental rider? I'm led to believe a proper doping strategy can cost 1000s to 10000s of Euros. Surely that was not money he had available to him. Also wasn't he UK based? Getting these products is a lot harder in the UK than Europe. A very strange case and very sad for him.

Art Vandelay

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

After I posted a tweet expressing my disappointment In J T-L when this all broke a number of domestic pros came back at me to insist he was innocent.

Still some way to go on this I reckon.

Well, there were plenty of domestic pros who had their suspicions about JTL a long time before too. UKAD are very unlikely to have made their decision if the evidence wasn't compelling.

frenchfighter

Gazzaputt wrote:

Like to ask how the hell did he afford to dope as a continental rider? I'm led to believe a proper doping strategy can cost 1000s to 10000s of Euros. Surely that was not money he had available to him. Also wasn't he UK based? Getting these products is a lot harder in the UK than Europe. A very strange case and very sad for him.

As has been pointed out you can get epo for a few hundred. But then given how advanced testing is these days I would assume you need to invest some big bucks to avoid detection in addition to having contacts with very knowledgeable doctors on how to circumvent the testing.

I just cant see it. It is a big jump. It is also a lot of money to bet on a two year contract with Sky - which is probably not that much.

symo

Gazzaputt wrote:

Like to ask how the hell did he afford to dope as a continental rider? I'm led to believe a proper doping strategy can cost 1000s to 10000s of Euros. Surely that was not money he had available to him. Also wasn't he UK based? Getting these products is a lot harder in the UK than Europe. A very strange case and very sad for him.

This and we never get to see what was the trigger for the call plus he has Epstein-Barr which I believe causes blood values to go all over the place as well as chronic fatigue. (Not a Dr though)

Pokerface

And yet, no doubt all these justifications were brought up by his lawyers to both the UCI and UKAD. Neither of them found it compelling enough to give him a pass.

I suspect in time we will hear more about exactly what it was in his passport that stood out and why it wasn't able to be justified.

Art Vandelay

Gazzaputt wrote:

Also wasn't he UK based? Getting these products is a lot harder in the UK than Europe. A very strange case and very sad for him.

There's currently about 40 British based athletes that are serving bans for doping violations. It's not that difficult.

iainf72

Everyone knows 3 experts need to agree independently to open a passport case, right? To flag up on it is not trivial. With a relatively small set of data the samples they flagged up must've been pretty out there.

In terms of avoiding EPO positive - IV injection, plenty of water and you'll be golden for the urine test in 12 hours