Sky - gaming the system?

[TimC]

<snip>

<snip>

(I do understand that it's outside your personal ethics code - and I can understand why - but the rules aren't based on that.)

I think this is the key distinction between the sides of this thread.

I think you're right. There are those here who wish that what Sky and Wiggins did was illegal, and who would - with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight - have had a different set of rules around TUEs and medical intervention for professional athletes. And, apart from the fact that armchair medics are perhaps even more irrelevant than armchair DSs/football coaches, there are good arguments supporting the changes that have already happened and may happen in the future. However, the rules in 2012 were what they were, and Sky exploited them - as they were fully entitled to do, and as they were arguably obliged to do.

Professional sport is not about gentlemen's agreements and moral certitude. It's about taking any legal advantage available. Several teams and individuals in many sports have overstepped that mark and, using subterfuge, corruption and methods outside the rules have achieved an advantage they were not entitled to achieve. I see no way to interpret these events as being illegal, or cheating, or obtaining an unfair advantage.

As for the 'lying', that's a complete red herring. A book written on Wiggins' behalf by a ghost writer has an inaccuracy? It probably has several. It was not a deposition to a court of law, nor was it a statement by Wiggins to his sport's authorities. And the facts that were left out (and only left out to casual observers, not to those concerned with policing the sport) were in no way illegal. So what's the case?

[Hot Flatus]

No, you don't get away with that kind of lazy slander. There was evidence against Armstrong, and eventually it came out. The suspicions about him and his team were strong and well-founded, and the culture of the time allowed non-credible medical statistics to be regarded as not unusual, even though everyone knew how they were achieved. And the methods by which they were achieved were illegal.

What is there about the Wiggins situation that was illegal? Explain.

I think you'll find its libel, not slander.

Lance accused people of libel too. Never tested positive either.

Sky's day will come, just as did Armstrong's. It's already started.  Those of us who can see clearly, and are not blinded by misplaced patriotism can understand why it is that independent journalists like Paul Kimmage are so enraged by Team Sky.

We can understand why it is that the Tour press room erupted with side-splitting laughter when Froome did his spinning attack up the Ventoux.

We can make the connection between Team Sky's sudden transformation from nobodies to complete dominators and their employment of a known doctor expert in doping techniques (known because it was ready in the public domain, but also because one of Team Sky's staff had been under this doctor's 'care' whilst at Rabobank).

We can see the 'marginal gains' bullshit for what it is. Sky beating known dopers, and beating known doped ascent times with fluffy pillows and no Nutella.

We also see the Bilharzia bullshit for what it is. A confected back story to explain how Froome transformed in a matter of weeks from a nobody to unbeatable.

We recognise that when Floyd Landis sums up Team Sky's wins with the phrase "we know the script", he is telling us something.

We also remember Wiggins eulogising Lance Armstrong in 2009, whilst riding for Garmin, a team managed by Jonathan Vaughters. You might not u derstand the significance of this, and many other factors, but we do.

[TimC]

Whatever, Flatus. Bring me evidence and I'll consider it dispassionately. I have no vested interest in Sky or Wiggins (or anyone else in professional sport - including those who resent the success of anyone they don't, or haven't, worked for). There are plenty who would wish for the downfall of Sky simply because they are successful. As I've said before, casting aspersions is not evidence, and if you wish to be taken seriously you must present evidence. If you do, and you're right, I'll happily acknowledge that. But if you just go on shouting that the emperor has no clothes but fail to demonstrate his bare bum, I'll take you no more seriously than I will any beer-fuelled pub expert.

[Hot Flatus]

You want a positive test?

That isn't going to happen, ever.

[TimC]

No, Flatus, I want to know what you interpret about Wiggins' TUE as illegal. I'm well aware that you regard pretty much everyone in professional cycle sport as drugged up to the eyeballs and that money is changing hands left right and centre to cover it up. But those are simply allegations, and your repetition of them, however loud, will not make a blind bit of difference to anyone. We will all just stop listening to you unless you can present a case, which is something you have signally failed to do. I am quite sure that nefarious activities are still going on in cycling, though the consensus among expert observers is that it's much less than it was. But I am at a loss to understand what it is about the events we are discussing (remember Wiggins' TUE? That's what this is about) that is interpretable as illegal. But if you know differently, please explain.

[Hot Flatus]

Here's a quick pub quiz question for you, Tim.

Which famous person referred to Team Sky's 'marginal gains' as "bollocks"?

With regards to Wiggins use of a classic PED granted through a TUE, yes...it might have been within the 'rules' but it's pretty clear he abused the rules, and quite possibly was allowed to abuse the rules (as was Armstrong). 

It's interesting that you dismiss Wiggins's lies about injections so glibly, as if the 'ghostwriter' quoted a minor inaccuracy and nobody noticed. Yeah right.

[TimC]

Here's a quick pub quiz question for you, Tim.

Which famous person referred to Team Sky's 'marginal gains' as "bollocks"?

I have no idea. What facts did that person quote to back his opinion?

With regards to Wiggins use of a classic PED granted through a TUE, yes...it might have been within the 'rules' but it's pretty clear he abused the rules, and quite possibly was allowed to abuse the rules (as was Armstrong).

No, it's not clear. As far as I can see, Wiggins' TUE were explicitly within the rules, and I see no evidence that the rules were abused. I see rules that may have been inadequate. I see differences of expert medical opinion on the validity and effects of the drugs used. I see non-expert speculation on whether such drugs were correctly prescribed. I see an allegation from you that there was/is a corrupt relationship between the UCI and Sky. I see no evidence for that.

It's interesting that you dismiss Wiggins's lies about injections so glibly, as if the 'ghostwriter' quoted a minor inaccuracy and nobody noticed. Yeah right.

Why is it 'interesting'? Are you suggesting that perhaps I'm an undercover operative for the Sky project? Or do you regard Wiggins' book as some kind of commitment to you personally, and one in which any inaccuracies are punished by terminal scepticism?

I'm not the one being glib. You are. You are making accusations without any substantive evidence. If you have some, present it. Don't give me questions, or invite me to make circumstantial observations and come to the same conclusions you have. State your case. Or, frankly, be quiet.

[trekker12]

Hear hear

[Hot Flatus]

Here's a quick pub quiz question for you, Tim.

Which famous person referred to Team Sky's 'marginal gains' as "bollocks"?

1. I have no idea. What facts did that person quote to back his opinion?

With regards to Wiggins use of a classic PED granted through a TUE, yes...it might have been within the 'rules' but it's pretty clear he abused the rules, and quite possibly was allowed to abuse the rules (as was Armstrong).

No, it's not clear. As far as I can see, Wiggins' TUE were explicitly within the rules, and I see no evidence that the rules were abused. I see rules that may have been inadequate. I see differences of expert medical opinion on the validity and effects of the drugs used. I see non-expert speculation on whether such drugs were correctly prescribed. I see an allegation from you that there was/is a corrupt relationship between the UCI and Sky. I see no evidence for that.

It's interesting that you dismiss Wiggins's lies about injections so glibly, as if the 'ghostwriter' quoted a minor inaccuracy and nobody noticed. Yeah right.

2. Why is it 'interesting'? Are you suggesting that perhaps I'm an undercover operative for the Sky project? Or do you regard Wiggins' book as some kind of commitment to you personally, and one in which any inaccuracies are punished by terminal scepticism?

3. I'm not the one being glib. You are. You are making accusations without any substantive evidence. If you have some, present it. Don't give me questions, or invite me to make circumstantial observations and come to the same conclusions you have. State your case. Or, frankly, be quiet.

1. Greg Lemond.  Heard of him?

2. It's interesting because in the context of professional cycling, and in particular the storm in which Sky have hound themselves since 2011, the issue of doping is pretty paramount. It's interesting that you seem to think Wiggins claim never to have had an injection is a minor oversight, when it turns out he has been regularly injecting a classic doping product before major tours during his period of success.  A minor oversight from a team which tries very hard to control the narrative. Yeah right.

3. You don't give the impression of coming at this from an informed position. Perhaps it is you that should be quiet whilst you go and do some homework.

You want a positive test as evidence? It's not going to happen. In the meantime, perhaps you'd like to extend your invitation to shut up to Paul Kimmage, Greg Lemond, Shane Stokes, Jorg Jackshe, Floyd Landis, Antoine Vayer and all the rest of people from inside pro cycling who see the Sky farce for what it is.

[trekker12]

Bored now

[Hot Flatus]

Go and read another thread then. Nobody is forcing you to read my posts.

[αdαmsκι]

Professional sport is not about gentlemen's agreements and moral certitude.

There is a gentlemen's agreement. It's called mpcc but Sky refused to join. If they had been a member Wiggins won't have ridden those races and ex-Sky riders (Barry & Tiernan locke Locke) won't have been given Tramadol (possibly in liquid form in bidons near the end of stages).

Wiggins got a TUE from UCI for serve asthma. If he didn't have serve asthma or got the TUe because he actually wanted the drug for the known performance boost then that was cheating the Tue system.

If the reason(s) for getting the TUE were bullshit then it's cheating. That's the same as riders getting a TUE for a one day classic a few days beforehand for hurty knee, which the Secret Pro article spoke about.

[sg37409]

1. Greg Lemond.  Heard of him?

Wasn't that the guy who was cheating by inventing aerobars or something ?
Sorry, this isn't helping is it?     

[Hot Flatus]

We know from past history (Froome's "fast-track" TUE before a race bypassing normal procedures, Armstrong's prescription etc) that high-price riders have rules bent for them.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I think that attitude of officialdom is a far more serious issue than what Wiggins or Froome might or might not have done.

[mattc]

"You want a positive test as evidence? It's not going to happen." seems an odd statement.

In the last 10 years, quite a few Grand Tour titles (at least 10) have been stripped from proven drugs cheats. Most of them the biggy - the one in France.

I don't have anywhere near 100% knowledge of GT history (or perfect memory!), but that may be more than in all the previous 100-odd Grand Tours put together. Most of those tours were won by self-confessed, public dopers.

[Hot Flatus]

Professional sport is not about gentlemen's agreements and moral certitude.

There is a gentlemen's agreement. It's called mpcc but Sky refused to join. If they had been a member Wiggins won't have ridden those races and ex-Sky riders (Barry & Tiernan locke Locke) won't have been given Tramadol (possibly in liquid form in bidons near the end of stages).

Wiggins got a TUE from UCI for serve asthma. If he didn't have serve asthma or got the TUe because he actually wanted the drug for the known performance boost then that was cheating the Tue system.

If the reason(s) for getting the TUE were bullshit then it's cheating. That's the same as riders getting a TUE for a one day classic a few days beforehand for hurty knee, which the Secret Pro article spoke about.

The refusal of Sky to join MPCC fits in with the rumours from the last 5 years that Sky are abusing cortisone.

Here's what MPCC are saying about Sky's travails:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.timeinc.net/cyclingweekly/news/racing/mpcc-says-it-already-has-a-solution-for-team-sky-wiggins-tue-woes-287295%3Fsource%3Ddam?client=ms-android-samsung

They must be pissing themselves laughing.

(P.s. so.  Tim, Trekker....don't click on the link where Tom Dumoulin says Wiggins stinks     )

[citoyen]

Which famous person referred to Team Sky's 'marginal gains' as "bollocks"?
...
Greg Lemond.  Heard of him?

LeMond didn't call Sky's training methods bollocks, it's Brailsford's claim to have invented a new approach to training that he called bollocks. As far as LeMond is concerned, Sky are only using the same methods that he was using over 20 years earlier.

beating known doped ascent times

Not really. Even if you can pick individual examples where Froome beat a time set by Armstrong or Pantani or whoever on a particular climb, the overall trend is slower climbing than in the 90s and 00s. You only have to watch clips of the Tour from the 90s and 00s to see the differences very clearly. Froome's best times on most of the major climbs are nowhere near the likes of Pantani or Armstrong or even 'Big' Miguel Indurain.

None of which proves Froome is clean, of course, but you need to be wary of placing blind faith in the pseudo-scientific witterings of people like Antoine Vayer and Ross Tucker.

[simonp]

Is this a bit like where I can claim 300W average power for climbing Cheddar Gorge on Strava, but a power meter says I averaged 220W?

[citoyen]

The refusal of Sky to join MPCC fits in with the rumours from the last 5 years that Sky are abusing cortisone.

'Fits in' is convenient for your argument but proves nothing.

It might be meaningful if Sky were the only WT team not to join the MPCC, but in fact only half the WT teams are currently members - some having never signed up, others having been kicked out for picking and choosing which of the MPCC's rules to follow. As an organisation that claims to be bringing credibility back to cycling, it's laughable.

[citoyen]

Is this a bit like where I can claim 300W average power for climbing Cheddar Gorge on Strava, but a power meter says I averaged 220W?

I'm not sure it's even that scientific. Vayer and Tucker are making at best educated guesses based on watching the Tour on telly, and then interpreting their invented data in a way that's consistent with the outcome they want to see.

[mrcharly-YHT]

Not really. Even if you can pick individual examples where Froome beat a time set by Armstrong or Pantani or whoever on a particular climb, the overall trend is slower climbing than in the 90s and 00s. You only have to watch clips of the Tour from the 90s and 00s to see the differences very clearly. Froome's best times on most of the major climbs are nowhere near the likes of Pantani or Armstrong or even 'Big' Miguel Indurain.

None of which proves Froome is clean, of course, but you need to be wary of placing blind faith in the pseudo-scientific witterings of people like Antoine Vayer and Ross Tucker.

And when froome did an amazing day, he didn't follow it with a day where he rode like a ferret on amphetamines.

That's the real difference.

[TimC]

Thank you, Cs! You see, Flatus, suspicion, allegations and rumours are not evidence. The fact that some with an axe to grind are loudly critical of Sky is not evidence. Sky's refusal to join the rather laughable MPCC is not evidence. A false claim that Sky's riders are faster than the Armstrong years is not evidence. The crap about the fucking book is not evidence.

What it comes down to, as far as I can see, is that in the same way I can't stand Mercedes F1 and Lewis Hamilton, you can't stand Sky and Bradley Wiggins. It's not something you can put your finger on (or at least, you've failed to put your finger on) but you just don't like them. And you're going to trash-talk them until either someone does produce evidence, or we all get totally fed up with the noise.

The subject of this thread is Wiggins' TUEs and was Sky gaming the system. The answer is yes they were, but what they did was legal. No bribery was needed; the rules pre-existed and were followed. To the letter, as far as I can see. It's quite possible that doing so gained them an advantage, but one that any team could themselves have exploited - and no doubt have done so. The rules have been changed since and, as far as I am aware, the same could not be done now. But there will be other loopholes, and someone will exploit them. And, as far as I'm concerned, that's perfectly ok. Professional sports rulemaking will always be a case of whack-a-mole, and any hope that 'gentlemen's agreements' can be effective is a waste of time. Write the rules properly, promptly, and comprehensively, and expect to see your mistakes punished by clever interpretation.

It's just the way life is.

[Hot Flatus]

Which famous person referred to Team Sky's 'marginal gains' as "bollocks"?
...
Greg Lemond.  Heard of him?

LeMond didn't call Sky's training methods bollocks, it's Brailsford's claim to have invented a new approach to training that he called bollocks. As far as LeMond is concerned, Sky are only using the same methods that he was using over 20 years earlier.

beating known doped ascent times

Not really. Even if you can pick individual examples where Froome beat a time set by Armstrong or Pantani or whoever on a particular climb, the overall trend is slower climbing than in the 90s and 00s. You only have to watch clips of the Tour from the 90s and 00s to see the differences very clearly. Froome's best times on most of the major climbs are nowhere near the likes of Pantani or Armstrong or even 'Big' Miguel Indurain.

None of which proves Froome is clean, of course, but you need to be wary of placing blind faith in the pseudo-scientific witterings of people like Antoine Vayer and Ross Tucker.

You have misquoted me, I didn't say that Lemond called Sky's training methods bollocks. I said he called marginal gains bollocks.

Here is what Lemond said:

"Others make us believe they are ahead of the best scientists, the famous Team Sky marginal gains! What bollocks! There are no new methodologies. That is wrong. In this area too, miracles do not exist."

He is calling the concept of 'marginal gains', bollocks. The key word here is 'gains'. It's an explanation for why Team Sky riders go faster, and it doest involve doping.

With regards to ascent times, I agree, it is very difficult to compare climbs because of differences in where they appear on a given stage on a given Tour and differences in the dynamics of the race on a given day.

And yet....

Froome holds the 3rd all time fastest ascent time up AX3. He beat two of Armstrong's ascents (03/05) but not Armstrong's 01 time.

Funnily enough here's what Brailsford said the day before Froome made his record climb:

"At some point in time, clean performances will surpass the doped performances in the past."


Yeah, Dave, of course they will.

Here's what Froome said immediately after the stage:

""absolutely no way I'd be able to get these results if the sport hadn't changed."

Here are the other top ten climb times of AX3...

1. Laiseka 22:57, 2001

2. Armstrong 22:59, 2001
3. Froome 23:14, 2013
4. Ulrich 23:17, 2003
5. Zubeldia 23:19, 2003
6. Ulrich 23:22, 2001

7. Armstrong 23:24, 2003
8. Vinokourov 23:34, 2003

9. Basso 23:36, 2003

10. Armstrong 23:40, 2005

So Froome is saying that he wins because he is not racing against dopers. And yet his climb on the day he said this was in top 3 when the other 9 times were all from known dopers.

Funny that isn't it.  Nothing to see here. No evidence. Move along....

[citoyen]

You have misquoted me, I didn't say that Lemond called Sky's training methods bollocks. I said he called marginal gains bollocks.

What is marginal gains if not a description of Sky's approach to training? The term is just management jargon anyway, it really doesn't mean anything.

In any case, LeMond's comments are ambiguous but he stops well short of accusing Sky of doping. I'd like to read the original interview rather than the garbled translation - just not badly enough to subscribe to L'Equipe.

Froome holds the 3rd all time fastest ascent time up AX3. He beat two of Armstrong's ascents (03/05) but not Armstrong's 01 time.

Funny that isn't it.  Nothing to see here. No evidence. Move along....

If it were evidence of anything, what exactly would it be evidence of?