Sky - gaming the system?

[LittleWheelsandBig]

But it isn't evidence, it's not a "data point" and it proves nothing.

Eventually you'll join the dots and be able to see the full picture, probably only after a 'mea culpa' from Sky.

[citoyen]

So are ex-dopers always guilty in those regs? Interesting.

Effectively, yes. That's why Leinders now has a life ban from the sport.

It's a measure of the hubris of Brailsford that he seemed surprised when his ill-considered decision to give Leinders a job came back to bite him on the arse.

[mattc]

2. Although previous convictions are not allowed to influence the verdict in the UK, they do influence sentencing. Are we there yet?

Are we at sentencing? Nope, not yet!

[mattc]

(another "data point"; in a UK court, past offences cannot be taken into account when assessing innocence/guilt. Dunno about other jurisdictions.)

True in most circumstances, but by no means all

pointless pedantry unless it applies to the Wiggo case:

I don't know exactly how WADA run their investigations. Is there any precedence of a case being turned on the fact that the accused's doctor was previously involved in doping? If so, these doctors are relevant.

[Whitedown Man]

(another "data point"; in a UK court, past offences cannot be taken into account when assessing innocence/guilt. Dunno about other jurisdictions.)

True in most circumstances, but by no means all

pointless pedantry unless it applies to the Wiggo case

Never has a pot so called a kettle black! 

[David Martin]

I prefer Hanlon's Razor rather than Occams in this case.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Sure, if this was once only but Sky would have to be improbably stupid too many times to end up in this situation while riding clean.

[Hot Flatus]

I really don't think that it is that outrageous to think Team Sky are dirty.
They've won 4 Tours. When has that ever been done clean?

It's worse than that though. They've won four Tours with riders with almost no pedigree.

Pro cycling in my lifetime has always been about suspension of disbelief. Team Sky are making it so much more difficult to do this. Perhaps that is why they are so hated.

Bring back more plausible dope cheats! 

[David Martin]

You are looking at a team starting from scratch in the second season of their existence. After 6 years there must be some willing to spill the beans..

[Hot Flatus]

It took 11 years for someone to spill the beans on Armstrong.

[sg37409]

Go Sky ! 

Team Sky's Geraint Thomas claimed a fine solo victory on stage two of Tirreno-Adriatico

A fine win regardless of everything else in this thread.

[Hot Flatus]

Go Sky ! 

Team Sky's Geraint Thomas claimed a fine solo victory on stage two of Tirreno-Adriatico

A fine win regardless of everything else in this thread.

Problem is, he IS tarred with the same brush.

I've two things to say about Thomas. Firstly, it is unfair that he is being asked questions that should be asked of others. He complained  about it yesterday saying that "Freeman and Brad" are getting to "Swan around" when they should be the ones being quizzed. He was supportive of DB but seemed very peeved about Wiggins and Freeman.

Secondly, when I think of Thomas I always think of the number 6. 

[sg37409]

I've two things to say about Thomas. Firstly, it is unfair that he is being asked questions that should be asked of others. He complained  about it yesterday saying that "Freeman and Brad" are getting to "Swan around" when they should be the ones being quizzed. He was supportive of DB but seemed very peeved about Wiggins and Freeman.

Secondly, when I think of Thomas I always think of the number 6. 

I can appreciate a win like this irrespective of what I think of Sky.  (and I'm not convinced he should be considered differently from the rest of the Sky machine)  I saw he was peeved about those others.   
Whats the number 6 ?   http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/british-riders-year-2014-number-6-geraint-thomas-150228  ?
Players number 6 ?

[Hot Flatus]

It was a reference to Thomas's score on a leaked UCI ranking of suspicious riders in 2010 TdF. Thomas scored 6/10, which was reported variously as inconclusive to definitely doping 

Yes, I agree with you. I can appreciate all (well, nearly all) wins too but that is because I view it all with the same suspension of disbelief  that I have employed forever.

I got a degree of enjoyment from Wiggins's doped wins too.

[Veloman]

Yes, I agree with you. I can appreciate all (well, nearly all) wins too but that is because I view it all with the same suspension of disbelief  that I have employed forever.

Which I assume means that whoever wins you will employ the suspension of disbelief that you have always had and always will have.

The enjoyment appears to be that although someone won, they were just better at concealing something than the other riders or teams in the race.  The inherent disbelief would appear to be a significant factor in how you view the sport of competitive professional cycling.

Surely an admission of a 'closed mind'?

[Hot Flatus]

Yes, I agree with you. I can appreciate all (well, nearly all) wins too but that is because I view it all with the same suspension of disbelief  that I have employed forever.

Which I assume means that whoever wins you will employ the suspension of disbelief that you have always had and always will have.

The enjoyment appears to be that although someone won, they were just better at concealing something than the other riders or teams in the race.  The inherent disbelief would appear to be a significant factor in how you view the sport of competitive professional cycling.

Surely an admission of a 'closed mind'?

So, three assumptions leading to a conclusion.
Nice little strawman you've built there.

[Veloman]

OK

Statement of fact from your words: I view it all with the same suspension of disbelief that I have employed forever.

What is not 'closed mind' about this statement?

You are admitting your view, interpretation of results is always viewed with the same suspension of disbelief.  Willing to accept the result may be genuine effort?

[IJL]

So, three assumptions leading to a conclusion.
Nice little strawman you've built there.

It's can be hard to be optimistic if you've been a cycling fan over the last 15 years. Sky had a TUE so it seems rules have not  been broken but their ethical stance and moral high ground seems to have crumbled into the swamp.

It feels like groundhog day for cycling, we've been here so often in the past.  Great wins fuelled by drugs that have no place in sport, the stench of suspicion,  endless online debates.  Is there less doping or are people getting better at getting away with it.

[Hot Flatus]

OK

Statement of fact from your words: I view it all with the same suspension of disbelief that I have employed forever.

What is not 'closed mind' about this statement?

You are admitting your view, interpretation of results is always viewed with the same suspension of disbelief.  Willing to accept the result may be genuine effort?

I literally cannot be arsed with this.

[Hot Flatus]

So, three assumptions leading to a conclusion.
Nice little strawman you've built there.

It's can be hard to be optimistic if you've been a cycling fan over the last 15 years. Sky had a TUE so it seems rules have not  been broken but their ethical stance and moral high ground seems to have crumbled into the swamp.

It feels like groundhog day for cycling, we've been here so often in the past.  Great wins fuelled by drugs that have no place in sport, the stench of suspicion,  endless online debates.  Is there less doping or are people getting better at getting away with it.

But it's still possible to enjoy the spectacle. I enjoyed the drama Armstrong injected, even though I knew his battles with Ullrich et al were more about who had the better doctor, connections, and willingness to take risks.

Now? Who knows....but with an unknown like Froome becoming dominant overnight on the back of a story about Bilharzia, and Wiggins winning through abuse of the TUE system, plus ça change.

[Karla]

....but with an unknown like Froome becoming dominant overnight on the back of a story about Bilharzia

I don't think that's really fair.  A rapid rise, but nothing too extraordinary.  He'd been around for a while and picked up wins and high placings for in his three pro seasons before 2011.  Anyone who gets to the top is by definition going to have a rapid rise.

Not that that exonerates him, but I'm less uneasy about Froome's 2011 than about Wiggins' 2009.

[Hot Flatus]

Srsly? Wins and high placings....but in what?

From this:

2005
1st Stage 2 Tour of Mauritius
2006
1st
Jersey yellow.svg
Overall Tour of Mauritius
1st Stages 2 & 3
2nd Anatomic Jock Race
2007
1st
Jersey yellow.svg
Overall Mi-Août Bretonne
1st Stage 5 Giro delle Regioni (Under-23)
1st Stage 6 Tour of Japan
2nd Berg en Dale Classic
2nd Time trial, B World Championships
3rd Road race, All-Africa Games
8th Tour du Doubs
2008
2nd Overall Giro del Capo
3rd Giro dell'Appennino
4th Overall Herald Sun Tour
6th Overall Volta ao Distrito de Santarém
2009
1st Stage 2 Giro del Capo
1st Anatomic Jock Race
4th National Road Race Championships
9th Gran Premio Nobili Rubinetterie
2010
5th Time trial, Commonwealth Games
9th Overall Tour du Haut Var


To this:

Second place in Vuelta in 2011.

Have you even heard of any of those races pre-2011?

[Pingu]

Anatomic Jock Race 

[Hot Flatus]

Quite. Not exactly grand tour level, is it...

[DuncanM]

To be fair, that was when he was a 21yo amateur. He turned pro aged 22 in 2007.
I understand the questions that come about from a jump in performances, but there are numerous examples of athletes performing well at very young ages who turned out to be on the juice from the beginning (eg Armstrong, VdB.) So I don't know whether it's more reasonable to see a progression from average pro to top class or to see someone jump in the deep end as top class from the start.