Leinders Banned

The_Boy

sjmclean wrote:

But still zero evidence that they are doping?

And this is the central issue. I'm happy to entertain the possibility that Sky (or Sky riders) are doing something they shouldn't. There are things around the team that have made me a little uncomfortable, or made me a raise an eyebrow from time to time - and by this I mean if we apply the 'Spanish Athlete Test'.

But there is no actual evidence, so quite why people get their knickers in a twist about this is beyond me. The absolute certainty which which people rant about this shit* is entirely analogous to that held by conspiracy theorists or gamergaters or any other lunatic fringe on the internet.

*see final sentence, second paragraph of Rodrego Hernandez's post atop this page for an example.

edit: and lets be clear about what we mean by evidence while we're at it. A good example would be someone saying "I saw x doing y". Circumstantial evidence, rumour, hearsey and half-truths oft-repeated to the point that the denizens of the clinic can declare that they 'know that...' doesn't count.

salsiccia1

The_Boy wrote:

sjmclean wrote:

But still zero evidence that they are doping?

And this is the central issue. I'm happy to entertain the possibility that Sky (or Sky riders) are doing something they shouldn't. There are things around the team that have made me a little uncomfortable, or made me a raise an eyebrow from time to time - and by this I mean if we apply the 'Spanish Athlete Test'.

But there is no actual evidence, so quite why people get their knickers in a twist about this is beyond me. The absolute certainty which which people rant about this shoot* is entirely analogous to that held by conspiracy theorists or gamergaters or any other lunatic fringe on the internet.

*see final sentence, second paragraph of Rodrego Hernandez's post atop this page for an example.

All this.

RichN95.

CCalculus wrote:

Tiernan-Locke didn't need to be in the biological passport testing pool in order for Sky to realise that his blood values were extremely suspicious.

Given that Sky is renowned for its attention to detail, it seems safe to assume that Sky management were aware of the above OFF-scores. Yet why would a team that has zero tolerance policy with respect to doping sign a rider with highly suspicious blood values?

Those OFF scores came after he had already signed a contract with them. So unless you expected their attention to detail to include investing in a time machine or a crystal ball they could have played no part in their recruitment decision. They signed him in mid Septemeber. Remember how his excuse for the blood values was going out celebrating the contract.

Macaloon wrote:

- a 'purity pledge' - effectively a 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' policy
- no pesky internal tests to evade

Again the 'purity pledge' post dated his signing.
And the no internal tests contradicts what the previous poster said.

It's remarkable how many people's suspicions are actually based on incorrect information.

Macaloon

CCalculus wrote:

Sky knew about Tiernan-Locke's blood values before they signed him in early October 2012:

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2014/09/biolo ... ocke-case/

Tiernan-Locke didn't need to be in the biological passport testing pool in order for Sky to realise that his blood values were extremely suspicious.

Got a more credible source for this than Shane "mutant" Stokes?

tailwindhome

Posters shouldn't be this angry so early in the season.

Macaloon

RichN95 wrote:

Macaloon wrote:

- a 'purity pledge' - effectively a 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' policy
- no pesky internal tests to evade

Again the 'purity pledge' post dated his signing.
And the no internal tests contradicts what the previous poster said.

It's remarkable how many people's suspicions are actually based on incorrect information.

Love your posts, Rich, but you don't half let yourself down sometimes. I don't believe I made any claims about the timing of the DADT policy. Indeed, until Dave started being found-out, there was apparently no need for one. I'm merely pointing out that a once-in-a-generation manager might be doing more to avoid being blind-sided by events.

Recent history suggests forcing employees to keep their traps shut is an effective means of denying corporate responsibility; for a while:
- we knew nothing of phone hacking
- there was no evidence of illegal tax advice in our Swiss subsidiary: those juicy fees were the righteous harvest of our superior staff training
- whistleblowing, generally

Michael used one interesting phrase: 'a lot of management is about turning the stones'. That sense of challenge and continuous enquiry is vital, not just for improving performance but also for uncovering problems.

RichN95.

Macaloon wrote:

Love your posts, Rich, but you don't half let yourself down sometimes. I don't believe I made any claims about the timing of the DADT policy. Indeed, until Dave started being found-out, there was apparently no need for one. I'm merely pointing out that a once-in-a-generation manager might be doing more to avoid being blind-sided by events.

Recent history suggests forcing employees to keep their traps shut is an effective means of denying corporate responsibility; for a while:

You said that the signing of the document made it a good team for him to join - but it post dated his joining. And it exists so that they have grounds to dismiss staff more easily.

As for forcing employees to keep their traps shut. You make it sound as though they are employees of other teams speaking out about their past - De Jongh and Julich is more than you have got from most teams. People don't need a contract to presuade them to keep their past indiscressions secret.

blazing_saddles

CCalculus wrote:

Tiernan-Locke didn't need to be in the biological passport testing pool in order for Sky to realise that his blood values were extremely suspicious.

Given that Sky is renowned for its attention to detail, it seems safe to assume that Sky management were aware of the above OFF-scores. Yet why would a team that has zero tolerance policy with respect to doping sign a rider with highly suspicious blood values?

Ignoring the fact that Rich introduced to the "debate" for a moment.

Why would Sky knowingly sign someone with highly suspicious blood values; someone who would, in all probability, trigger a passport investigation?
Especially, given the fact that judging from his race results post signing, any nefarious acts were discontinued, therefore highlighting the anomaly.

I'm yet to read any complete answer from the sceptic that makes this dot joining exercise, logical.

Pross

Blazing Saddles wrote:

CCalculus wrote:

Tiernan-Locke didn't need to be in the biological passport testing pool in order for Sky to realise that his blood values were extremely suspicious.

Given that Sky is renowned for its attention to detail, it seems safe to assume that Sky management were aware of the above OFF-scores. Yet why would a team that has zero tolerance policy with respect to doping sign a rider with highly suspicious blood values?

Ignoring the fact that Rich introduced to the "debate" for a moment.

Why would Sky knowingly sign someone with highly suspicious blood values; someone who would, in all probability, trigger a passport investigation?
Especially, given the fact that judging from his race results post signing, any nefarious acts were discontinued, therefore highlighting the anomaly.

I'm yet to read any complete answer from the sceptic that makes this dot joining exercise, logical.

This to me is the issue that I've never seen anyone who feels Sky were aware of / encouraged JTL's doping answer sensibly. The fact his levels dropped after joining Sky would seem to be 'evidence' that they aren't a doping team otherwise why would someone who was already into doping suddenly stop thereby resulting in a total loss of form and creating the spike that highlighting his doping past?

disgruntledgoat

Rodrego Hernandez wrote:

andyp wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Interesting points.

But setting up a cycling team post-Puerto was a massive gamble full stop. Sky had the balls to go big and try to do something different in a pretty toxic environment, and as you say there's only a limited pool of people available and there was always the risk of ending up with a few people who turn out to be ropy. But as others have said, there's no evidence it was a deliberate recruitment of someone with a dodgy past.

Would we all rather Sky hadn't bothered setting up the team because the high risk environment made some mistakes a big risk? As that's the only way they could guarantee not recruiting someone involved in the dirty past.

Let's not forget that Sky set up a team without any of the medical staff having a background in professional cycling. The untimely death of Txema Gonzalez at the Vuelta in 2010 led to the decision to employ a doctor with more experience in the milieu of pro cycling. That's when Leinders was employed.

Playing the dead soigneur card. Some might say his death was actually timely as it enabled Dave B to recruit someone with experience of managing a doping program under the pretence of it being the only choice available to him. As if the medical and sporting world is so small that he was the only option. The fact that Sky employed doctors that didn't want to be away on stage races for 3 weeks was the bigger issue there.

Dave B spent a year on the pro tour circuit and knew as much as there was to know about everyone. He knew Ballan was going to be caught up in a scandal. He also told people at Sky that he recruited Leinders because he knew what was going on behind the scenes.

Face facts boys, the clean team is just as bad as the rest of them.

Fuoriclasse, as they say.

iainf72

As a founding member of the anti-Sky club, I must say I don't see what all the fuss is about Leinders.

They'd hired loads of people who had public links to doping doctors etc. For all the noise about "everyone knew about Geert" it's just that, noise.

disgruntledgoat

iainf72 wrote:

As a founding member of the anti-Sky club, I must say I don't see what all the fuss is about Leinders.

They'd hired loads of people who had public links to doping doctors etc. For all the noise about "everyone knew about Geert" it's just that, noise.

But they bumped off a swanee just to get him aboard! We're through the looking glass people.

Macaloon

iainf72 wrote:

As a founding member of the anti-Sky club, I must say I don't see what all the fuss is about Leinders.

They'd hired loads of people who had public links to doping doctors etc. For all the noise about "everyone knew about Geert" it's just that, noise.

Just a bit of vanilla Google due diligence. It's all the rage these days for key hires like Docs for clean cycling teams, even governing party treasurers.

Edit: Looking forward to this #AskDave event starting now -

"The public owe David such gratitude for his work with British cycling, will he ever appreciate what he has personally done ? #ASKDAVE'

RichN95.

Macaloon wrote:

Just a bit of vanilla Google due diligence. It's all the rage these days for key hires like Docs for clean cycling teams, even governing party treasurers.

So what was available on via google in December 2010? Please provide links.

(Or are you expecting Sky to have a time machine again where they can search 2012 documents in 2010)