Sky - gaming the system?

[Samuel D]

But what’s up with his handlebars? Ugly!

[LittleWheelsandBig]

DM, the benefits of a good doping doctor are very, very tempting. The definition of a good doping doctor is one that significantly improves a rider's performance without them testing positive.

Rabobank had repeated instances of doping and 'almost certain but not tested positive doping' going back years. Anybody hiring an ex-Rabobank doctor should have known they had probably been involved in doping. Nobody clean in top-level cycling, and I do mean nobody, should have hired a doctor with Rabobank on their CV.

Edited with an eye on the British legal system.

[Exit Stage Left]

Yes. I did some of my coaching classes with Heiko when he first went to Oz, straight from East Germany.

We owe a lot to the East Germans, Jürgen Gröbler got some great performances out of the asthmatic Steve Redgrave.

[Jaded]

But what’s up with his handlebars? Ugly!

We couldn't see from our seats.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Wiggo is using 3T Sphinx bars in a non-UCI-compliant position. The handlebars should get no more than 5cm in front of the front hub (probably to ban the Superman position) but his bars are further forward than that.
https://www.3tcycling.com/road/en/bike-components/handlebars/sphinx-ltd/

[Hot Flatus]

Employing a known doping doctor (and Leinders was known as a doping doctor before Sky hired him) is a massive fail for a team that investigates all of the angles and wants a squeaky-clean reputation.

So what possible explanation is there other than a screw up with Sky? If they were going to dope they'd be far better than that, surely. It seems to be a very silly thing to do for such an amazing criminal mastermind

It points to the possibility that they knew very well exactly what they were employing, David.

It might just be pure coincidence of course that after employing an experienced doping doctor, Sky (and in particular Froome) suddenly made a leap in performance (see Froome's performance in 2011 Vuelta)

Or it might just have been the fluffy pillows and warm downs...

I guess Occams razor would say it was the pillows. After all, there is no history of doping being used in cycling.

[Veloman]

It points to the possibility that they knew very well exactly what they were employing, David.

Anything could be POSSIBLE but without evidence then EVERYTHING is CONJECTURE!

Or it might just have been the fluffy pillows and warm downs...

Or it might be the culmination of the efforts from the support team as a whole, rather like what we saw in BC, or do we assume that folk like Kenny and Hoy were part of the Brailsford doping programme?

Or was is just Sky that were involved and the BC was a separate operation seeing gains by hard work, good support and appropriate professional support?

[Hot Flatus]

It points to the possibility that they knew very well exactly what they were employing, David.

Anything could be POSSIBLE but without evidence then EVERYTHING is CONJECTURE!

Or it might just have been the fluffy pillows and warm downs...

Or it might be the culmination of the efforts from the support team as a whole, rather like what we saw in BC, or do we assume that folk like Kenny and Hoy were part of the Brailsford doping programme?

Or was is just Sky that were involved and the BC was a separate operation seeing gains by hard work, good support and appropriate professional support?

I'm glad you accept, finally, that anything is possible.  You don't seem to have understood that if there was conclusive evidence we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You evidently will ascribe Froome's almost overnight transformation to a sudden response to Sky's training methods. Me? I think it's more likely to be a bit of dope.  Seemed to work well enough for other riders.

You've no evidence that it is Sky's methods that are responsible for Froome's improvement. Sky had the opportunity to provide some evidence, indeed they said they would release Froome's data. Yet what they released was all data from after the 2011 Vuelta, and not the data from before.  Their claim was that they didn't necessarily own the data from before September 2011.....and yet immediately after that Vuelta they claimed to have always known of Froome's abilities.

But this is Sky, and the constant excuses and inconsistencies are why I don't think they are telling the truth.

[David Martin]

Froome had never been a donkey - there were issues with Bilharzia (nasty disease, easy to test for and can be sporadic in it's resurgence.) which meant he was inconsistent. You may dismiss it as a concoction - it seems to be a very curious thing to choose as a made up excuse as the evidence would be clearly available if it were true. And transferring from a bottom rung team to a team that invests in training strategy and modern science would be expected, coinciding with his maturation as a rider, to make substantial differences.

A long hard look at Leinders would have ensured he wasn't in the frame for any post at Sky. However, the circumstances around his appointment were not a long slow deliberation but (allegedly) a rapid response to something they needed at the time, ie expertise on looking after riders in the heat. For that they need a medically qualified person who has experience with top level cycle racing. If they wanted someone with experience of doping to run a secret program whilst proclaiming innocence, Leinders would be a very strange choice.

Evidence is what is needed. What did Leinders sign off on? When was he involved and to do what?

[David Martin]

Froomes potential, not necessarily abilities. First indication is when someone who is self trained and managed turns up to the commonwealth games, takes out a marshal and still posts a very creditable time. Rides for teams as a domestique where finishing high up the order is not the objective but helping team leaders is. Then change to a different role and apparent performances go up. Not surprising.

There really isn't a huge amount there that is massively surprising unless you believe it to not be possible and then everything is suspicious..

[Veloman]

I'm glad you accept, finally, that anything is possible.  You don't seem to have understood that if there was conclusive evidence we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You evidently will ascribe Froome's almost overnight transformation to a sudden response to Sky's training methods. Me? I think it's more likely to be a bit of dope.  Seemed to work well enough for other riders.

Fully understand what I understand and fully understand a patronising posting when I see one.  And your post would also mean it is perfectly possible that Sky have not broken any rules and have achieved success by hard work and taking greater interest in areas that others have previously ignored, such as the introduction of warm-down sessions that is now copied by all other teams.  Which also means, as you accept, there is no conclusive evidence and that you are giving an opinion which does not constitute fact.  Your opinion is worth nothing more than a few keystrokes at the keyboard or whatever you use to post comments.

An overnight transformation did not happen with Froome and such statements are akin to tabloid journalism IMO.  You accuse Froome of doping.  I assume you also accuse his teammates of doping, or do you restrict your allegations to Wiggins and Froome?  No mention of Thomas, and he is part of Sky and has seen some marked improvement in performance.  What do you think?  And how about the others?

Oh, and how about BC riders such as Mr Kenny and Mrs Kenny?  Bit of a Brailsford connection, so must be part of the doping scene, or is it that Brailsford is only part of the doping regime in road racing?

Ah well, easy to knock folk rather than provide evidence and easy to deride the decisions of those in charge who make the decisions.

[Hot Flatus]

Why do you equate Kenny with Froome?  Last time I looked Kenny hadn't won 3 Tours.

Geraint Thomas?  You mean the guy who appeared high up on a leaked list of riders with suspicious blood profiles. Carry on...


I am entitled to my opinion, you are to yours. I'm not satisfied with the answers given by Team Sky when people ask pertinent questions. Sometimes they can't even get their story straight between themselves.  The revelations about Wiggins use of a well know PED, albeit via a TUE, and the unexplained mystery package aren't helping me overcome my scepticism.

Yes, it is easy to knock people, but in the context of pro-cyclibg the sceptics have usually been proved right.  As Landis says, clean cycling would be a different sport to the one we are used to seeing. Sky and Froome look all too familiar.

Not proof, not evidence, I agree. But as it stands I can't suspend my disbelief in the way you do with such apparent ease.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

A few things to think about:
- Even in USPS, there was a core of dopers and other riders that didn't.

- The lanterne rouge at the Tour de France is a one in a million physical specimen. Being designated as team leader won't let that rider achieve a top ten finish, let alone become the best rider in the world.

- Pretty much every previous time there has been a dramatic increase in cyclist performance mid- or late-career, it has later been found to be due to doping. The boring example is Armstrong who went from being a very good but not worldbeating athlete to world-class Classics rider who couldn't climb (while doped) to the best stage race climber and time triallist in the world (with even more dope).

- There have been lots of drug busts in cycling. Each time (for systematic doping), there has been more effort at concealment and less of a paper trail to find. Do you expect it to be easier to find incontrovertible evidence for the next big drug bust?

[sojournermike]

A few things to think about:
- Even in USPS, there was a core of dopers and other riders that didn't.

- The lanterne rouge at the Tour de France is a one in a million physical specimen. Being designated as team leader won't let that rider achieve a top ten finish, let alone become the best rider in the world.

- Pretty much every previous time there has been a dramatic increase in cyclist performance mid- or late-career, it has later been found to be due to doping. The boring example is Armstrong who went from being a very good but not worldbeating athlete to world-class Classics rider who couldn't climb (while doped) to the best stage race climber and time triallist in the world (with even more dope).

- There have been lots of drug busts in cycling. Each time (for systematic doping), there has been more effort at concealment and less of a paper trail to find. Do you expect it to be easier to find incontrovertible evidence for the next big drug bust?

Thank you LWaB, for posting intelligently and, very much, for taking some of the heat out of this

[Tewdric]

I see Ian Drake has stepped down.  I wonder if a shit:fan collision is imminent?

[Karla]

A few things to think about:
- Even in USPS, there was a core of dopers and other riders that didn't.
...

ISTR their doping strategy changed for different Tours depending on how vigilant the dope testers were being that year, so less important domestiques were sometimes kept off the dope in order to minimise risk rather than because they were whiter than white: e.g. in 2000, doping was concentrated on Lance, Big George and one other (Andreu?  Landis?)  while the rest were paniagua.  Oui?

[LittleWheelsandBig]

That is true but there were also a few riders on Armstrong's teams that actively avoided doping. I don't know how many of them made the TdF squads though. Roger Hammond rode for Discovery for a couple of years.

[Hot Flatus]

I see Ian Drake has stepped down.  I wonder if a shit:fan collision is imminent?

If his reasons for quitting are true (just wanted a change) it's a really odd time to announce leaving....right when there is a UKAD investigation into an unknown medical package by a BC staff member to Team Sky riders Wiggins.

Brailsford is purporting to know what was in the package but won't say until UKAD finish their investigation.

Seems odd....almost as if he knows but he won't say because UKAD might not find out. After all, he might not know the extent of the leak that allowed the information out in the first place.

Or, it might be all totally above board, just some saddle sore cream or hydration sachets from Leinders or something.

 

[toontra]

Or, it might be all totally above board, just some saddle sore cream or hydration sachets from Leinders or something.

 

Plus the mini pack of Haribo Starmix.

[Hot Flatus]

Or, it might be all totally above board, just some saddle sore cream or hydration sachets from Leinders or something.

 

Plus the mini pack of Haribo Starmix.

Yes, it was probably just  Wiggle order of chamois cream.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I'm currently doing some work connected with an EPO court case.









European Patent Office...

[Samuel D]

Robert Howden OBE, President and Chair, British Cycling, when pressed by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee a few minutes ago, committed to sending the committee within a couple of days full details of the contents of the infamous package should it prove to have been pharmaceuticals.

Shane Sutton now being grilled. Live here. Brailsford coming up next.

[Samuel D]

Fluimucil!

[Hot Flatus]

"Would you have ever had a conversation with a medical member in which you would ask them not to prescribe anything that may have a performance-enhancing side-effect?

 Brailsford: The medical team do not need any reining in or any advice of that sense. They are absolutely trustworthy and have the health of the athletes at their heart. They know where the lines are.”

Note how the question is in the past conditional, thus covering all possibilities since Team Sky's inception.

Brailsford answers it in the present tense. Maybe he doesnt want to talk about Geert Leinders 

[spesh]

Fluimucil!

Gesundheit.