More trouble for Team SKY.

Vino'sGhost

Matthewfalle wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

I think only Sky present themselves as the new wave, the vanguard of cleanness, that wiggins the heavy track rider sneezes and loses tons of weight. It is suspicious and the excuses just make it sound worse.

But Wiggins lost the weight before Sky



So, if someone was nabbed for doping, but had never made any pronouncements about anti-doping or whatever, that would be a lesser "crime"?

I know they are all freaky, but that is seriously not healthy.

Bet his wife didn't fancy a night time cuddle.

LOL it got worse later

larkim

Vino'sGhost wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

No - just disposing of evidence that could at some time open them up to blackmail and or criminal charges.

Wouldn’t you do it if you had the chance?

Lolz. you must be kidding.

Amazing.

Its a reasonable comment.

Seriously??!?!?! I think this shows the depth of paranoia if someone really thinks that it is at all credible that 3 years before anything untoward about any jiffybag or TUE a doctors laptop on which he chooses to record his records is fictitiously reported stolen to a foreign police force, just in case in the future a tabloid newspaper publishes some allegations which might then get investigated by anti-doping?

Think whatever you want about whether Sky are inherently clean or not, but surely only the insane would argue that any conjecture about the convenience of a laptop being stolen was anything other than a stone cold dead end.

ocdupalais

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

No - just disposing of evidence that could at some time open them up to blackmail and or criminal charges.

Wouldn’t you do it if you had the chance?

Lolz. you must be kidding.

Amazing.

Its a reasonable comment.

Errr, no it's not, it's totally daft.
Just think about it for a few seconds.

Later this morning I’m going to drive my car into a quarry in case my brother had a spliff in his pocket when I was giving him a lift once. If he ever gets caught in possession, I’d be done for.
Then I’m going to have a bonfire in the garden of all my clothes in case there are some traces of something that in the future might incriminate me...

Can anyone else think of a precautionary measure to avoid the feds?

rick_chasey

mididoctors wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Still find the level of hypocracy on people's attitudes towards sky versus team's like Astana to be pretty chuffing high.

By all means, if you're gonna be some moral crusader, have a go.

But at least apply the same attitudes to all the teams.

I agree but it's hardly surprising that the top team in gt terms gets this scrutiny especially given the hype.

I'm not seeing systemic doping culture anywhere in the bunch.

systemic medical optimisation is a better term. LOL. needs better oversight for many reasons including perception.

So we're chill with the 5 Astana positive tests in 2014, the year Nibali won the Tour 'cos they weren't the top team?

And that's before they hired "too dirty for Rabobank" LLS the year after?

But the within-the-rules TUE is beyond the pale?

Niice.

rick_chasey

I mean, in the context of how the information around the TUE came about; a former soviet union country illegally hacking someone's private data in order to distract from their own doping we shouldn't lose sight of the broader, cycling-wide and sport-wide context.

The hack comes from a country whose systematic doping was so bad not only did they have a full blown state sponsored program where they employed Drs to create doping regimes to avoid tests, they involved their own secret police to swap urine samples around so their athletes could dope not just up to the competition they were targeting, but during it.

It's so bad they were banned from the olympics.

It makes Armstrong's efforts to dope seem totally amateur, which by comparison, they were.

And you guys are upset about a guy who has hayfever getting strong anti-hayfever drugs from a Dr which was allowed to go ahead by the doping authorities?

carbonclem

Rick Chasey wrote:

I mean, in the context of how the information around the TUE came about; a former soviet union country illegally hacking someone's private data in order to distract from their own doping we shouldn't lose sight of the broader, cycling-wide and sport-wide context.

The hack comes from a country whose systematic doping was so bad not only did they have a full blown state sponsored program where they employed Drs to create doping regimes to avoid tests, they involved their own secret police to swap urine samples around so their athletes could dope not just up to the competition they were targeting, but during it.

It's so bad they were banned from the olympics.

It makes Armstrong's efforts to dope seem totally amateur, which by comparison, they were.

And you guys are upset about a guy who has hayfever getting strong anti-hayfever drugs from a Dr which was allowed to go ahead by the doping authorities?

Agreed.

Lots of people on Twitter/Clinic that say the 'new' fans are the ones that ignore Sky's suspicious practices - its an easy tool they use to belittle and demean any sympathisers. I see it very differently, I think anyone who's been around any length of time see's all this for what it is - small beer.

argyllflyer

I do wonder how many of those permanently acting hurt by Sky etc once wore a wee yellow wristband and Wont Get Fooled Again....

carbonclem

argyllflyer wrote:

I do wonder how many of those permanently acting hurt by Sky etc once wore a wee yellow wristband and Wont Get Fooled Again....

Thats a massive driver by many, get in first and prove you 'knew'. Assumption of guilt is a great place to be. If they go positive you were right all along, and if they never do, well, they got away with it.

bobmcstuff

CarbonClem wrote:

argyllflyer wrote:

I do wonder how many of those permanently acting hurt by Sky etc once wore a wee yellow wristband and Wont Get Fooled Again....

Thats a massive driver by many, get in first and prove you 'knew'. Assumption of guilt is a great place to be. If they go positive you were right all along, and if they never do, well, they got away with it.

Its the cycling equivalent of Pascal's Wager.

gweeds

Rick Chasey wrote:

I mean, in the context of how the information around the TUE came about; a former soviet union country illegally hacking someone's private data in order to distract from their own doping we shouldn't lose sight of the broader, cycling-wide and sport-wide context.

The hack comes from a country whose systematic doping was so bad not only did they have a full blown state sponsored program where they employed Drs to create doping regimes to avoid tests, they involved their own secret police to swap urine samples around so their athletes could dope not just up to the competition they were targeting, but during it.

It's so bad they were banned from the olympics.

It makes Armstrong's efforts to dope seem totally amateur, which by comparison, they were.

And you guys are upset about a guy who has hayfever getting strong anti-hayfever drugs from a Dr which was allowed to go ahead by the doping authorities?

This.

mididoctors

Rick Chasey wrote:

So we're chill with the 5 Astana positive tests in 2014, the year Nibali won the Tour 'cos they weren't the top team?

And that's before they hired "too dirty for Rabobank" LLS the year after?

But the within-the-rules TUE is beyond the pale?

Niice.

I guess we are! :shock:

mididoctors

Rick Chasey wrote:

I mean, in the context of how the information around the TUE came about; a former soviet union country illegally hacking someone's private data in order to distract from their own doping we shouldn't lose sight of the broader, cycling-wide and sport-wide context.

The hack comes from a country whose systematic doping was so bad not only did they have a full blown state sponsored program where they employed Drs to create doping regimes to avoid tests, they involved their own secret police to swap urine samples around so their athletes could dope not just up to the competition they were targeting, but during it.

It's so bad they were banned from the olympics.

It makes Armstrong's efforts to dope seem totally amateur, which by comparison, they were.

And you guys are upset about a guy who has hayfever getting strong anti-hayfever drugs from a Dr which was allowed to go ahead by the doping authorities?

I was surprised they didn't win more tbh.

it was such an advantage.

Vino'sGhost

were now firmly in the acceptance phase.

but its ok cause its small beer compared to others....


LOLOL

Pross

Vino'sGhost wrote:

were now firmly in the acceptance phase.

but its ok cause its small beer compared to others....


LOLOL

Well, not really. It's OK because no rules were broken as confirmed by UKAD, CADF and the DCMS inquiry.

inseine

argyllflyer wrote:

I do wonder how many of those permanently acting hurt by Sky etc once wore a wee yellow wristband and Wont Get Fooled Again....

So, who in today's peloton is definitely doping? Just so we can come back to this post in years to come and admit 'you were right'?

dolan_driver

Rick Chasey wrote:

Still find the level of hypocracy on people's attitudes towards sky versus team's like Astana to be pretty chuffing high.

By all means, if you're gonna be some moral crusader, have a go.

But at least apply the same attitudes to all the teams.

Exactly. Even the some in the riders are a little hypocritical in some ways. Tony Martin and Marcel are staunchly anti-doping and yet they ride for Katusha!!?!!

DD.

webboo

Wasn’t Kittell using some dodgy supplements or oxygen blood boosting stuff when he was at Skil.

kingstongraham

Vino'sGhost wrote:

were now firmly in the acceptance phase.

but its ok cause its small beer compared to others....


LOLOL

No, it's a bit shit because Brailsford didn't do what he said he was going to do, and would never accept that he was compromising on his 100% "no, not going to go anywhere near the line and we're going to be so much more virtuous than any other team" PR message. The Lionel Birnie interview is really revealing. They decided that they would rather go up to the line rather than win less, but kept the PR message the same.

But at the same time, it was up to the line but not over, or at worst, was prohibition brew compared to what cycling teams used to get up to.

veronese68

KingstonGraham wrote:

But at the same time, it was up to the line but not over.

That's the point that some seem to struggle with, trouble is they have their own lines that seem to be somewhat mobile according to who is involved.

argyllflyer

inseine wrote:

argyllflyer wrote:

I do wonder how many of those permanently acting hurt by Sky etc once wore a wee yellow wristband and Wont Get Fooled Again....

So, who in today's peloton is definitely doping? Just so we can come back to this post in years to come and admit 'you were right'?

Oh I have no idea but as a fan of cycling I'd prefer to watch the races rather than play Guess The Doper. If someone gets busted, so be it. I equate watching the sport akin to watching a horror movie, don't get too attached to the main characters and don't take it too seriously. Things have improved in recent years and the perma-rage of the twitterati does nothing for the sport.

argyllflyer

KingstonGraham wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

were now firmly in the acceptance phase.

but its ok cause its small beer compared to others....


LOLOL

No, it's a bit shoot because Brailsford didn't do what he said he was going to do, and would never accept that he was compromising on his 100% "no, not going to go anywhere near the line and we're going to be so much more virtuous than any other team" PR message. The Lionel Birnie interview is really revealing. They decided that they would rather go up to the line rather than win less, but kept the PR message the same.

But at the same time, it was up to the line but not over, or at worst, was prohibition brew compared to what cycling teams used to get up to.

Yet Brailsford was on the record round about the time of the team's foundation about 'up to the line but not over'. 'Zero tolerance' was about not hiring self-confessed or convicted former dopers - to me it is the most iffy of his PR gambits as the Birnie blog shows the holes in his myopic recuitment strategy, more akin to the 3 Wise Monkeys.

blazing_saddles

Nice of the Spanish to put a bit of perspective on the whole affair.

https://twitter.com/friebos/status/974614444604035073

gweeds

The federation originally opened disciplinary proceedings against Manolo Saiz (Liberty Seguros), Vicente Belda, Ignacio Labarta and Yolanda Fuentes (Comunidad Valenciana) in 2006. The doctor Eufemiano Fuentes was in charge of the doping ring. However, according to AS, although Judge Benito López proved that the defendants resorted to doping practices, the RFEC has decided not to sanction them. The reason? Because it says they do not have a licence at present.

Notwithstanding that, Saiz currently manages the under 23 Aldro Team.

The Spanish legal system tried the defendants separately on grounds of crimes against public health. This was because doping wasn’t illegal under Spain’s laws at the time. The argument that Fuentes and others committed such crimes against public health was eventually dismissed.

According to AS, both the UCI and WADA could appeal the decision and request the reopening of the files. However they have encountered repeated frustrations in dealing with the Spanish system, which has also resisted all calls to name the athletes involved from other sports such as soccer, athletics, tennis and basketball. Cyclists were the only sportspeople named and sanctioned, with riders such as Alejandro Valverde and Ivan Basso incurring bans.

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/03/hodeg-w ... ws-digest/

Football being the key word there.

ducknumber1

Gweeds wrote:

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/03/hodeg-w ... ws-digest/

Spoiler alert, just in case anyone else wants to watch the end of the Handzame Classic

shortfall

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n3ct0c7s

I listened to this today. It's very interesting but particularly so given that it was recorded early 2017 before Froome's abnormal blood test.

Edit. Abnormal urine test.

iainf72

Shortfall wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n3ct0c7s

I listened to this today. It's very interesting but particularly so given that it was recorded early 2017 before Froome's abnormal blood test.

His what now?

Anyway https://cyclingtips.com/2018/03/stagger ... uture-sky/

At least they mention Parliamentary privilege in the article, because without it I wouldn't be convinced they'd be comfortable putting the content of it out there.

Also, Lawton seems to be a bit naive about how the world works.

shortfall

iainf72 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n3ct0c7s

I listened to this today. It's very interesting but particularly so given that it was recorded early 2017 before Froome's abnormal blood test.

His what now?

Anyway https://cyclingtips.com/2018/03/stagger ... uture-sky/

At least they mention Parliamentary privilege in the article, because without it I wouldn't be convinced they'd be comfortable putting the content of it out there.

Also, Lawton seems to be a bit naive about how the world works.

Correction. Abnormal urine sample.

blazing_saddles

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/03/staggering-report-future-sky/

Is it just me or are we now missing the original thread on the investigation into BC and the CMS stuff?
I only ask because it seems a heck of a long week since, according to Stoke's first line, the report came out.

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n3ct0c7s

I listened to this today. It's very interesting but particularly so given that it was recorded early 2017 before Froome's abnormal blood test.

His what now?

Anyway https://cyclingtips.com/2018/03/stagger ... uture-sky/

At least they mention Parliamentary privilege in the article, because without it I wouldn't be convinced they'd be comfortable putting the content of it out there.

Also, Lawton seems to be a bit naive about how the world works.

I think Lawton also hasn't grasped that on the other side of the channel no-one really seems to give a toss about Wiggins and his jiffy bag. And the idea people who have worked alongside Sky 200 days a year for nearly ten years are going to have their opinions on Sky changed by MPs is frankly ridiculous.

tim000

RichN95 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n3ct0c7s

I listened to this today. It's very interesting but particularly so given that it was recorded early 2017 before Froome's abnormal blood test.

His what now?

Anyway https://cyclingtips.com/2018/03/stagger ... uture-sky/

At least they mention Parliamentary privilege in the article, because without it I wouldn't be convinced they'd be comfortable putting the content of it out there.

Also, Lawton seems to be a bit naive about how the world works.

I think Lawton also hasn't grasped that on the other side of the channel no-one really seems to give a toss about Wiggins and his jiffy bag. And the idea people who have worked alongside Sky 200 days a year for nearly ten years are going to have their opinions on Sky changed by MPs is frankly ridiculous.

not sure there are that many this side either . other than the anti murdoch press and a few internet keyboard warriors