# Team Sky, Brailsford and doping



## Noodley (11 Oct 2012)

I have to admit I am disappointed in the reaction..."shock" "disappointment" - well get fecking hard on them!!!!


----------



## Noodley (11 Oct 2012)

...not that there is doping at SKY! I mean the previous associations!!!


----------



## raindog (12 Oct 2012)

Surely we all knew that trying to form a team where absolutely no member of staff had ever had a brush with doping somewhere in the past was always going to be impossible?


----------



## DogTired (12 Oct 2012)

raindog said:


> Surely we all knew that trying to form a team where absolutely no member of staff had ever had a brush with doping somewhere in the past was always going to be impossible?


 
Considering the 'shock' of people like Sean Yates is that true??? Also Sky have to be very careful of their claims if this is the case. Someone (I think Rich P) has made a good point regarding how would Sky go about checking their riders for proof of non-involvement in doping.


----------



## montage (12 Oct 2012)

Rogers under a bit of fire as well - I'm starting to wonder if a doping amnesty for the riders would be a step forward. Everyone admits everything anonymously or not, the riders get a verbal slap on the wrist and the network and structure behind doping is brought to light


----------



## Nearly there (12 Oct 2012)

I didn't realise Michael Barry was part of Armstrongs lot.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (12 Oct 2012)

I was surprised when Sky signed Rogers and Barry given their past associations. But I do remember Brailsford saying that he had had to abandon his completely strict initial policy because it was impossible to operate. In other words, the success demanded by the sponsors was not going to happen if the team were unable to sign people who had no hint of any past involvement with doping. Of course, that is in no way as bad as what USPS / DIscovery were involved in, but it is a small step down the same road.


----------



## rich p (12 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I was surprised when Sky signed Rogers and Barry given their past associations. But I do remember Brailsford saying that he had had to abandon his completely strict initial policy because it was impossible to operate. In other words, the success demanded by the sponsors was not going to happen if the team were unable to sign people who had no hint of any past involvement with doping. Of course, that is in no way as bad as what USPS / DIscovery were involved in, but it is a small step down the same road.


 I thought he relaxed the strict rule to allow staff with a dodgy history but not riders but |I'm not 100% certain.


----------



## Crackle (12 Oct 2012)

Rogers claims he used Ferrari for training only and curtailed his association when he joined t-mobile, at their insistence. Perhaps they had someone better


----------



## rich p (12 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> Rogers claims he used Ferrari for training only and curtailed his association when he joined t-mobile, at their insistence. Perhaps they had someone better


 ...and Frank Schleck gave Fuentes 7000 euros for a training programme while all his other clients were getting blood transfusions! You couldn't write it!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (12 Oct 2012)

Well, if you read the USADA document, what level of 'preparation' you got from Ferrari did seem to depend what you paid him, and I suspect that at the bottom there was a simple 'follow this training program' level for a couple of thousand Euros, in contrast to the hundreds of thousands that would get you an on-demand EPO dealer (in addition to a much more complex training program). The thing about Schleck is that Ferrari had already been blacklisted by this stage so even if he wasn't getting dope off him, he was still knowingly working with Ferrari which is enough to get him banned.


----------



## thom (12 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Well, if you read the USADA document, what level of 'preparation' you got from Ferrari did seem to depend what you paid him, and I suspect that at the bottom there was a simple 'follow this training program' level for a couple of thousand Euros, in contrast to the hundreds of thousands that would get you an on-demand EPO dealer (in addition to a much more complex training program). The thing about Schleck is that Ferrari had already been blacklisted by this stage so even if he wasn't getting dope off him, he was still knowingly working with Ferrari which is enough to get him banned.


 
Yeah, it was just against the rules so there is no ethical defence in Frank's case and he was just lucky the wire transfer failed (or whatever his flimsy defence was) even if he was just getting a bread and water training plan.

The whole thing is just so pervasive, it's hard to believe in much of the current peloton, particularly with stories of things like AICAR around. Leipheimer's testimony suggests LA would have been keen to give it a go in 2009/2010.

However I really think SKY are true to their advertised ethic in intention and in their rider support. Without more than scepticism to go on, I think there is a danger to point the finger at people like Brailsford too harshly, implying he is complicit in doping within SKY. They likely set the very highest standards in the peloton in practice. But for me, Sean Yates is not credible and Mick Rogers has questions to answer - I hope Brailsford will address these issues proactively without being forced to like in the case of Leinders.


----------



## Crackle (12 Oct 2012)

I agree about Yates. It's not credible he didn't know and that reflects heavily on Sky. He surely has to go.


----------



## rich p (12 Oct 2012)

Schleck gave money to Fuentes not Ferrari I believe but your point still stands.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (12 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> Schleck gave money to Fuentes not Ferrari I believe but your point still stands.


 
Sorry, it's easy to get the dodgy doctors confused...


----------



## rich p (12 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Sorry, it's easy to get the dodgy doctors confused...


 
Indeed, it's the F in doctors!


----------



## oldroadman (12 Oct 2012)

The years up to the end of the 90's were the era of two-speed racing. Those who did, and those who didn't. And it was very obvious who was in which group. So far as I can understand, we have moved into a different and far cleaner era - if you need to look for evidence, consider climbing speeds, average race speeds, and the inability of teams to dominate races without totally stuffing themselves. When UPPS could put nine riders on the front of a TdF climb and ride everyone off their wheel, something is a bit odd. Sky had a good go at this year's TdF, and did a great job in getting the win, but do you think with a clean ethic that would have been remotely possible when the "old regime" was still in place? Not a chance.
In a majority clean peloton the best prepared (by training and support) have the best chance.
The yates matter is another issue, he did ride in Armstrong, did win a TdF stage (TT), and was known as a massive diesel in the peloton. Whether he was aware of the ethic in that team is a matter between him and his conscience. Brailsford must surely have him on a short lead, and there are a number of DS's in Sky, so whether he now has to go is something the management and PR people have to think about. tainted by association, and all that. Something almost any rider from the mid to late 20th century could have laid against them, even if they rode clean.
I'm sad that Barry was not as truthful as he should have been, and alos hope Rogers is going to be cleared, but sadly mud sticks, and the association thing, mentioned above, may be a problem.
However, Sky are probably the strongest team at present, and doing it clean, which says quite a lot about the way other teams are behaving now.
Mr Bruyneel is another matter - no comment.


----------



## Booyaa (13 Oct 2012)

What I don't get is there are riders like Wiggo and Thomas (probably more) that have ridden on doping teams, has this never been mentioned? I don't think it should be but just curious certain people get singled out for this but not others.

For what it's worth I don't believe any of the Sky riders dope and am pretty confident the staff would be dead set against it.


----------



## raindog (13 Oct 2012)

Booyaa said:


> What I don't get is there are riders like Wiggo and Thomas (probably more) that have ridden on doping teams, has this never been mentioned?


it sure has


----------



## thom (13 Oct 2012)

Matt White offers up his sword to fall upon
Sean Yates, maybe something to think about ?

So far, is Matt white the only guy whose name is redacted from the USADA docs to have fessed up ? Can't think of anyone else at the moment.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (13 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> Matt White offers up his sword to fall upon
> Sean Yates, maybe something to think about ?


 
Absolutely.


----------



## raindog (13 Oct 2012)

Except Sean hasn't been mentioned by Landis?


----------



## thom (13 Oct 2012)

raindog said:


> Except Sean hasn't been mentioned by Landis?


http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/FA+Exhibit+A+-+photo.pdf


----------



## thom (13 Oct 2012)

Oh, looks like they are asking questions.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> Oh, looks like they are asking questions.


Worked well with Michael Barry didn't it?


----------



## thom (14 Oct 2012)

Nordhaug fingers Rogers
In Norwegian - using google translator (so need some pinch of salt for accuracy) for one of the passages gives :
- For example, Michael Rogers who says he drugged himself earlier in his career, but he stopped in 2006. It's something I choose to believe, and I think many in the sport feel now. There are cyclists with a past, but they have accepted that they gave with it a few years ago.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (14 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> Nordhaug fingers Rogers
> In Norwegian - using google translator (so need some pinch of salt for accuracy) for one of the passages gives :
> - For example, Michael Rogers who says he drugged himself earlier in his career, but he stopped in 2006. It's something I choose to believe, and I think many in the sport feel now. There are cyclists with a past, but they have accepted that they gave with it a few years ago.


 
Well, we knew that already, didn't we?


----------



## thom (14 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Well, we knew that already, didn't we?


SKY clearly say they didn't. Do you know a better source for such a claim ? I heard rumours but this is a little more than a rumour now.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (14 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> SKY clearly say they didn't. Do you know a better source for such a claim ? I heard rumours but this is a little more than a rumour now.


 
I guess it was just a 'rumour', but it must have been more than that within cycling circles.


----------



## thom (14 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I guess it was just a 'rumour', but it must have been more than that within cycling circles.


Yeah I only really heard it this last week and it was not clear whether he was guilty by association or whether there was something more to it. I think HTC was a clean team so don't doubt that at the very least he has been clean for a good number of years. One potential thing about Nordhaug is his motivation having just left SKY right. Certainly it makes it a little easier to report confidentialities but he might be slightly bitter and just embellishing rumours himself. I don't know but someone has been misbehaving in some way. 
Main thing is it places Rogers a little more in the spotlight.


----------



## Dayvo (14 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> Nordhaug fingers Rogers
> In Norwegian - using google translator (so need some pinch of salt for accuracy) for one of the passages gives :
> - For example, Michael Rogers who says he drugged himself earlier in his career, but he stopped in 2006. It's something I choose to believe, and I think many in the sport feel now. *There are cyclists with a past, but they have accepted that they gave with it a few years ago.*


 
I fear, and I hope I'm wrong, that my (and many others') favourite cyclist, Jens Voigt, _may_ fall into this category. He's been around plenty long enough to have been involved. I've not read of any denials/admissions of guilt.

Hopefully he's just a clean and tough-as-nails cyclist.


----------



## rich p (14 Oct 2012)

We know, and have done for years, that Rogers admitted to going to Ferrari but not that he'd admitted doping earlier in his career. I assumed something had been lost in translation as I'm not aware that MR has fessed up to anything other than getting limited training plans from Ferrari.


----------



## thom (14 Oct 2012)

Dayvo said:


> I fear, and I hope I'm wrong, that my (and many others') favourite cyclist, Jens Voigt, _may_ fall into this category. He's been around plenty long enough to have been involved. I've not read of any denials/admissions of guilt.


Here you go : https://twitter.com/thejensie/status/256302800655507457


----------



## thom (14 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> We know, and have done for years, that Rogers admitted to going to Ferrari but not that he'd admitted doping earlier in his career. I assumed something had been lost in translation as I'm not aware that MR has fessed up to anything other than getting limited training plans from Ferrari.


That's as I heard it recently - a low cost training plan consultation. However much you want to believe it, it sounds implausible.
Nordhaug seems to be going a bit further now.


----------



## rich p (14 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> That's as I heard it recently - a low cost training plan consultation. However much you want to believe it, it sounds implausible.
> Nordhaug seems to be going a bit further now.


 But Nordhaug implies that rogers has admitted earlier use of dope but I don't think he has so I'm not sure what he's implying.
As FM has said elsewhere, and as was said in the Ukranian rider's link you posted, it wasn't unheard of to get just training plans from Ferrari.


----------



## thom (14 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> But Nordhaug implies that rogers has admitted earlier use of dope but I don't think he has so I'm not sure what he's implying.
> As FM has said elsewhere, and as was said in the Ukranian rider's link you posted, it wasn't unheard of to get just training plans from Ferrari.


Yeah it would be better to have a reliable translation - I kind of read it to mean Rogers had said something to him in person on this. You're right, it's not clear but for me there's a question-mark.


----------



## rich p (14 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> Yeah it would be better to have a reliable translation - I kind of read it to mean Rogers had said something to him in person on this. *You're right, it's not clear but for me there's a question-mark*.


 Witch-hunter!


----------



## Dayvo (14 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> Here you go : https://twitter.com/thejensie/status/256302800655507457


 
Many other cyclists have said those same words, only to retract them at a later date, but if Jens says he didn't, that's good enough for me. 

Thanks, thom. Now I'll be able to sleep peacefully tonight!


----------



## thom (14 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> Witch-hunter!


LA is indeed a witch


----------



## Red Light (14 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> LA is indeed a witch



Warlock surely - or did the drugs change his gender?


----------



## thom (14 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> LA is indeed a witch


Turn the sound up. Then some more.


----------



## thom (14 Oct 2012)

a michael barry interview with canadian news 
his manner is very muted, in contrast to Tyler


----------



## StuAff (14 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> Turn the sound up. Then some more.



Feel Good Hit of the Summer might be somewhat apt for the topic as well


----------



## rich p (15 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> a michael barry interview with canadian news
> his manner is very muted, in contrast to Tyler


 His quote from his book about how an immature rider will buckle under the pressure and succumb to drugs is pretty telling in hindsight.
OT - if my surname was Arsenault I might consider changing it!


----------



## thom (15 Oct 2012)

Michael Barry writes in the NYT. It gets quite interesting in the 2nd half. I guess he will be looking to journalism from now on for a career.


----------



## Oldspice (15 Oct 2012)

If teams have dopers, do they have to hand prize money back as well as medals?


----------



## asterix (16 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> OT - if my surname was Arsenault I might consider changing it!


 
You are a Chelsea supporter?


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> LA is indeed a witch


disgraceful article. The man doesn't know the difference between curious and inquisitive!


----------



## thom (16 Oct 2012)

So here's a story about 1988, the Tour de France, Delgado, Theunisse, Verbruggen and Yates... And drugs. 

"Verbruggen tried to smooth talk them, asking that Theunisse be given the benefit of the doubt: "In the Tour of Belgium last year [1989] Sean Yates, positive with anabolic steroids, was given the benefit of the doubt. And Delgado in the Tour of '88 received the support of a minister. Why not Theunisse?"
Page two of the UCI's play book for dealing with doping cases: if in doubt, muddy the waters. (Page one: shoot the messenger.) Yates had been cleared because it was accepted a labelling error must have occurred and the tested sample was not his. Delgado skated because the UCI's rules allowed him to skate."


----------



## rich p (16 Oct 2012)

asterix said:


> You are a Chelsea supporter?


 Spurs!


----------



## asterix (16 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> Spurs!


 
I'm so sorry. I wish there was something more I could say to help.


----------



## johnr (16 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> So here's a story about 1988, the Tour de France, Delgado, Theunisse, Verbruggen and Yates... And drugs.
> 
> "Verbruggen tried to smooth talk them, asking that Theunisse be given the benefit of the doubt: "In the Tour of Belgium last year [1989] Sean Yates, positive with anabolic steroids, was given the benefit of the doubt. And Delgado in the Tour of '88 received the support of a minister. Why not Theunisse?"
> Page two of the UCI's play book for dealing with doping cases: if in doubt, muddy the waters. (Page one: shoot the messenger.) Yates had been cleared because it was accepted a labelling error must have occurred and the tested sample was not his. Delgado skated because the UCI's rules allowed him to skate."


 and interestingly, we see the first airing of a defence siezed upon by Frank Schleck nearly 25 years later:

"Never. Until now I've been happy but now I'm afraid of having drunk from a doped bottle. You know, a rider will drink from any bottle a spectator holds out during a race. It's the only explanation."


----------



## Flying_Monkey (17 Oct 2012)

Sky will ask all personnel to sign a new declaration on doping. Those who cannot will have to leave.


----------



## thom (18 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Sky will ask all personnel to sign a new declaration on doping. Those who cannot will have to leave.


It's about all they can do but it still doesn't prevent someone fibbing!
Perhaps there is some ratcheted up legal penalty for a false signatory making it new (and a good thing too) but I already thought they'd asked this sort of thing of the team...

Here's Will Foth in the guardian too.


----------



## Paul_L (18 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> a michael barry interview with canadian news
> his manner is very muted, in contrast to Tyler


 
I don't buy these apologies. I don't accept they're from the heart. The USADA investigations have been a convenient cleanser for these fellas, and we're meant to feel sorry for them??? Nah. Fact is if USADA weren't going for Armstrong the likes of Barry, Hincapie and the rest would have gone to their graves keeping the omerta.

I am starting however to feel a little bit of sympathy for Landis. And that feels odd!


----------



## rich p (18 Oct 2012)

I can't believe they didn't have this in place already. As I asked before, what on earth was their anti-doping policy?
Sean Yates was already busted in 1996(?) but it was conveniently waived aside by the UCI as a possible mix up over labelling. I can't see him surviving this.


----------



## thom (18 Oct 2012)

Paul_L said:


> I don't buy these apologies. I don't accept they're from the heart. The USADA investigations have been a convenient cleanser for these fellas, and we're meant to feel sorry for them??? Nah. Fact is if USADA weren't going for Armstrong the likes of Barry, Hincapie and the rest would have gone to their graves keeping the omerta.
> 
> I am starting however to feel a little bit of sympathy for Landis. And that feels odd!


Not sure I totally agree - guys like Barry and the Garmin riders eventually made choices to be on teams that had nothing to do with doping and there was no big possibility of any of this coming to light 5 years ago. I really think they didn't want to be part of it any more. LL and GH have been less forthcoming about their motivation - it is not clear whether this is because they cared less or they care not to spin their story.

btw, here are some other names from the USADA report, or at least educated guesses:


----------



## rich p (18 Oct 2012)

Bobby Julich will have to fill in Brailsford's form too.


----------



## Cheddar George (18 Oct 2012)

Easy enough to take on young riders and keep them clean, but to find a DS with racing experience who has never come into contact with doping is going to be tricky.


----------



## philipbh (18 Oct 2012)

User said:


> if you rode pre 2005-2006 you are a drug cheat, thats a lot of ex pro's with vast amount of knownledge to pass on...


 
So give them all a book deal as a farewell to the sport - then the "knowledge" is preserved before we get all sentimental about the value of this knowledge in the first place or technical about the myth of knowledge transfer


----------



## rich p (18 Oct 2012)

User said:


> what I don't understand is that SKY knew about this from day one of his employment, everybody understood that Yates received a nod and wink in1996 from the UCI, yet they still gave him a job,
> 
> the problem for Yates is at 52, what next for him and no matter what people think of him, he has done a good job at SKY, so by admitting any guilt, he is basicly ending his career,
> I not sure if hounding people like yates out of cycling is really the best thing for the sport, for one, who'd be left to run the teams, as I see it, if you rode pre 2005-2006 you are a drug cheat, thats a lot of ex pro's with vast amount of knownledge to pass on...


 I take your point but as was pointed out some years ago, Sky's strict anti-doping policy leaves them little or no wriggle room. There are any amount of other teams which Yates could go to.


----------



## philipbh (18 Oct 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/18/team-sky-pledge-anti-doping

DB seems to be offering a second chance at a second chance

Zero Tolerance "a team that cannot be questioned"< WRIGGLE ROOM > Rehabilitation "if you lie again, there will be no support"


----------



## beastie (18 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> Not sure I totally agree - guys like Barry and the Garmin riders eventually made choices to be on teams that had nothing to do with doping and there was no big possibility of any of this coming to light 5 years ago. I really think they didn't want to be part of it any more. LL and GH have been less forthcoming about their motivation - it is not clear whether this is because they cared less or they care not to spin their story.
> 
> btw, here are some other names from the USADA report, or at least educated guesses:


Who's the Korean rider at the bottom?


----------



## rich p (18 Oct 2012)

beastie said:


> Who's the Korean rider at the bottom?


 I think he's from Cameroon, the brother of Alex and Rigoberto.


----------



## johnr (20 Oct 2012)

The Chinese are spending a lot on sport and they'll take anyone


----------



## thom (21 Oct 2012)

Ooof ! The Mail have a story about a Sky rider with 3 people suggesting a doping past.
Is their zero tolerance policy destined to re-inforce a wall of dishonesty ?

Edit : Michael Ashendon questioning their stance too


----------



## Red Light (21 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> Ooof ! The Mail have a story about a Sky rider with 3 people suggesting a doping past.


 
So who's been around long enough to have been tested 103 times - about half as much as has been calculated for LA? There can't be many.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (21 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> So who's been around long enough to have been tested 103 times - about half as much as has been calculated for LA? There can't be many.


 
One fifth as many, surely?  Anyway, there aren't many. Incidentally, is there a rider whose name rhymes with 'punt' still riding for Sky?


----------



## thom (21 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> One fifth as many, surely?  Anyway, there aren't many. Incidentally, is there a rider whose name rhymes with 'punt' still riding for Sky?


Is this about the Leveson enquiry ?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (21 Oct 2012)

There was an excellent piece on Inner Ring a few days back arguing against Sky and for the Vaughters model. I agree.


----------



## ColinJ (21 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> One fifth as many, surely?  Anyway, there aren't many. Incidentally, is there a rider whose name rhymes with 'punt' still riding for Sky?


I think this a reference to someone who said that Armstrong had only actually had a couple of hundred drug tests, rather than the 500+ that he always mentions!


----------



## Red Light (21 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> One fifth as many, surely?  Anyway, there aren't many. Incidentally, is there a rider whose name rhymes with 'punt' still riding for Sky?


 
If you insist  Can't be him surely - he announced his retirement a couple of weeks ago? 

But it does raise questions about what the standard of proof is now. Is three riders saying you did enough to make you guilty and end your career? How about one?


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Oct 2012)

Should Paul Kimmage be a reliable source if he suggested something untoward?


----------



## thom (22 Oct 2012)

Did Steve Peters work with SKY ? He's at least left British Cycling now to go to UK Athletics...


----------



## woohoo (27 Oct 2012)

From the Telegraph website



> Sean Yates’ fate proves Team Sky will show no mercy in doping cull
> 
> First it was Bobby Julich, now Sean Yates and Steven de Jongh have followed. Those critics who wondered whether anyone at Sky would confess to doping merely because Dave Brailsford had asked them now have their answer.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...am-Sky-will-show-no-mercy-in-doping-cull.html


----------



## Dilbert (27 Oct 2012)

woohoo said:


> From the Telegraph website
> 
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...am-Sky-will-show-no-mercy-in-doping-cull.html


Looks like from reading it they are getting parachute payments for coming clean, whereas anyone outed later will not, so I expect that's a strong incentive to confess if you know it will come out.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (27 Oct 2012)

Lots of pretty experienced guys going, should be a benefit to other teams who are not so fundamentalist in their approach.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (27 Oct 2012)

Dilbert said:


> Looks like from reading it they are getting parachute payments for coming clean, whereas anyone outed later will not, so I expect that's a strong incentive to confess if you know it will come out.


How do you figure that ? I cannot see any suggestion of pay offs, maybe I misread.


----------



## raindog (28 Oct 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> How do you figure that ? I cannot see any suggestion of pay offs, maybe I misread.


Brailsford said a few days ago, that anyone who 'fessed up during the new interviews would be looked after financially, or words to that effect.


----------



## Paul_L (28 Oct 2012)

Yates has gone.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/28/sean-yates-quits-team-sky-cycling?newsfeed=true

EDIT - Apologies, didn't realise this was posted on the bottom of the previous page.


----------



## rich p (28 Oct 2012)

I'm checking the situations vacant pages.
Bradley McGee for DS at Sky?


----------



## PpPete (28 Oct 2012)

Rich .... are you not worried they will find out about your murky past ?


----------



## Dilbert (28 Oct 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> How do you figure that ? I cannot see any suggestion of pay offs, maybe I misread.


Ninth paragraph:
_Julich, Yates and De Jongh will all receive parachute payments for confessing to their past but any members of staff signing a declaration of innocence who are subsequently “outed” as proven former dopers will be sacked with no financial package._


----------



## Strathlubnaig (28 Oct 2012)

Dilbert said:


> Ninth paragraph:
> _Julich, Yates and De Jongh will all receive parachute payments for confessing to their past but any members of staff signing a declaration of innocence who are subsequently “outed” as proven former dopers will be sacked with no financial package._


Weird, when I open the links I can see no mention of this.


----------



## Dilbert (28 Oct 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> Weird, when I open the links I can see no mention of this.


There are two articles:
This is the one I got the quote from - having looked again its not the one linked in the previous post (I had followed a link from Micheal Hutchinson on twitter not the one on here), so that explains why you couldn't find it.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (28 Oct 2012)

Dilbert said:


> There are two articles:
> This is the one I got the quote from - having looked again its not the one linked in the previous post (I had followed a link from Micheal Hutchinson on twitter not the one on here), so that explains why you couldn't find it.


Thank goodness for that, thought I was losing it. Ta.


----------



## coldash (28 Oct 2012)

IMO, no great surprise about Yates but it also (IMHO) shows a lack of awareness on Brailsford's part in recruiting some of these guys.


----------



## Paul_L (28 Oct 2012)

Mmmmm. Yates has retired not been sacked! Not linked to the anti-doping statement APPARENTLY!

Anyone convinced by this.

Bit gutted TBH, i also thought Yates was a bit of a legend.


----------



## montage (28 Oct 2012)

Paul_L said:


> Mmmmm. Yates has retired not been sacked! Not linked to the anti-doping statement APPARENTLY!
> 
> Anyone convinced by this.
> 
> Bit gutted TBH, i also thought Yates was a bit of a legend.


 
Don't see why Sky would lie....but it is a bit odd timing wise!


----------



## oldroadman (28 Oct 2012)

See posting on another thread - health issues for Sean Yates, it seems.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (28 Oct 2012)

montage said:


> Don't see why Sky would lie....but it is a bit odd timing wise!


easy there, boo, that attitude sounds similar to the way some people could see no wrong doing by Lance.


----------



## IanSmithCSE (28 Oct 2012)

Good afternoon

I have mixed feelings about Sky’s purge.

The Sky team is an employer and the riders and team personnel employees, they may have service agreements that say they are contractors or some other fudge using service companies but by most peoples standards they are employees.

If you accept that the actions that Sky are taking are good, then surely you have to accept that your employer, if you are employed, has the same right to ask you similar questions.

When you take a job, you decide if you like the T&C, if you want a job in the defence industry you have to accept security vetting, but these terms are made clear at the start of the application process. When you take a job you enter into an agreement with the employer, it is not a one way arrangement, Sky appear to be unilaterally changing the T&C of employment.

So what level of questions would you be prepared to accept if you went into work tomorrow and you employer said we are probing into everyone’s background and if you don’t answer the questions, bye, bye?

The “Rehabilitation Of Offenders Act” was created to allow people with various minor and not so minor convictions to reintegrate with society with the concept of Spent Convictions. Depending upon the sentence passed Spent Convictions are those which occurred between 0 and 10 years ago, when asked about if you have any criminal convictions it is permitted to so no if the convictions are spent. For non special case employers is usually a criminal offence for an employer to ask if an individual has a Spent Conviction.

So you potentially have an interesting position, if a person supplied a rider with drugs in such a way that a criminal offence took place and he collected a criminal conviction then he can say No to the questions being asked by Sky anyway. 

Bye

Ian


----------



## jdtate101 (28 Oct 2012)

IanSmithCSE said:


> Good afternoon
> 
> I have mixed feelings about Sky’s purge.
> 
> ...


 
Part of my Job see's me having bi-annual random drugs tests. Failure to provide a sample or to fail a test is grounds for termination of employment. Such terms and conditions are not unusual. For example most people will find a termination clause in their contract for drink driving if their job is dependant upon them travelling for work using a car (eg travelling salesman).

I don't think SKY is changing it's terms, it's always had a zero tolerance policy, but what I suspect is that most people at the team are on fixed term contracts (ie 12months or 2yrs) and that they adjust the terms when the contracts come up for renewal. Also most employment contracts state that the employer reserves the right to change the terms in agreement with the employee, but can also be done forcefully without consent. You see the government doing this everyday to people's pensions, pay and conditions.


----------



## tigger (28 Oct 2012)

Those are interesting points you raise there. It's hard for me to know how a similar approach in my company would be received. Depends what they are asking I suppose. From my own point of view I don't have any criminal convictions or anything to hide, so it probably wouldn't be a big issue for me.

In Team Sky's case, I think they were clear right from the outset that this was a zero tolerance / history team. All they are asking is for people to reaffirm that and sign something to state this. (Makes me wonder why they never did this in the first instance? - hindsight? ) But it's interesting from an employment law point of view.


----------



## montage (28 Oct 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> easy there, boo, that attitude sounds similar to the way some people could see no wrong doing by Lance.


who?


----------



## Orbytal (29 Oct 2012)

If SKY are announcing it as they have a requirement to interview etc I would assume it is not part of T&Cs and they are asking for acceptance to change/alter contracts.

Outcomes

1 I doped I confess and have contract paid and move on to make more in my year than envisaged. Doper rewarded.

2 I did not dope or confirm not as feel safe and get no enhancement for it. Clean not rewarded.

3 I did not dope and don't like dopers getting paid more than me. My clean status is therefore valuable to SKY so I deserve more money. Clean rewarded.

Any other options or anyone know if clean riders etc got extra for their approach?


----------



## Strathlubnaig (29 Oct 2012)

jdtate101 said:


> Part of my Job see's me having bi-annual random drugs tests. Failure to provide a sample or to fail a test is grounds for termination of employment. Such terms and conditions are not unusual. For example most people will find a termination clause in their contract for drink driving if their job is dependant upon them travelling for work using a car (eg travelling salesman).
> 
> I don't think SKY is changing it's terms, it's always had a zero tolerance policy, but what I suspect is that most people at the team are on fixed term contracts (ie 12months or 2yrs) and that they adjust the terms when the contracts come up for renewal. Also most employment contracts state that the employer reserves the right to change the terms in agreement with the employee, but can also be done forcefully without consent. You see the government doing this everyday to people's pensions, pay and conditions.


If Sky have always had a zero tolerance policy in terms of a person past history as well as the future then how come they have hired Fabio Bartalucci ? They have moved the goalposts or never paid attention in the first place, pick one.


----------



## jdtate101 (29 Oct 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> If Sky have always had a zero tolerance policy in terms of a person past history as well as the future then how come they have hired Fabio Bartalucci ? They have moved the goalposts or never paid attention in the first place, pick one.


I was just stating their policy as published, if they selectively choose to apply it, that's on them. Don't shoot the messenger!!


----------



## thom (30 Oct 2012)

Skyfall : nobody expected the inquisition


----------



## Muguruki (30 Oct 2012)

So why has Alex Dowsett (Armstrong is still a legend) moved to Movistar?


----------



## thom (30 Oct 2012)

Muguruki said:


> So why has Alex Dowsett (Armstrong is still a legend) moved to Movistar?


Speculate as much as you like but this was a deal done months ago.
edit - rereading, maybe not clear that my point is this move is not a consequence of Sky's interviews due to USADA's report on LA


----------



## Flying_Monkey (30 Oct 2012)

Muguruki said:


> So why has Alex Dowsett (Armstrong is still a legend) moved to Movistar?


 
Because he will be their designated TT rider, I expect. He would be behind Wiggins and Froome at Sky.


----------



## Muguruki (30 Oct 2012)

Initially when I heard I thought good move and then I remembered Dowsett saying after the USADA report came out
"He is still a legend of the sport. A guy who had cancer came back and won the Tour de France,"


----------



## Strathlubnaig (30 Oct 2012)

Muguruki said:


> So why has Alex Dowsett (Armstrong is still a legend) moved to Movistar?


£ ?


----------



## Strathlubnaig (31 Oct 2012)

Rapha have introduced extra kit to team sky


----------



## Strathlubnaig (3 Nov 2012)

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...ance-just-leads-to-Omerta-all-over-again.aspx


----------



## Alun (3 Nov 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...ance-just-leads-to-Omerta-all-over-again.aspx


That's a fine head of hair for a man of his age.


----------



## Monsieur Remings (4 Nov 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...ance-just-leads-to-Omerta-all-over-again.aspx


 
This is such a spot on article and I agree with the guy. A doping amnesty which seems to be the implication, could well and truly get the sickest period of cycling history into the history books for good, as opposed giving rise to another generation of liars who, when exposed, could create even more harm to the sport given the teams in which they may belong or have belonged to. Using the excuse that they'd have lost their jobs if they'd 'fessed up at the time could prove counter-productive to the team they are involved with when they do get found out.

Bold work.


----------



## raindog (4 Nov 2012)

I don't agree. I think a certain type of person will still take peds and lie about it whatever system is in place. Hopefully though, the days of organised and systematic heavy doping USP style are now over.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Nov 2012)

Part of the problem is that is was not "USP" style, but also "Festina" style and just about every other team.


----------



## just jim (4 Nov 2012)

I think having Kimmage along for the ride for a few months would have been brave and fantastic for the sport - SKY bottled it though. Maybe it's not too late?


----------



## Alun (4 Nov 2012)

just jim said:


> I think having Kimmage along for the ride for a few months would have been brave and fantastic for the sport - SKY bottled it though. Maybe it's not too late?


I think it's well too late for Kimmage and SKY, having taken the bold action he has Brailsford is not going to have a ex doping journo on the bus.


----------



## just jim (4 Nov 2012)

Really, that's Brailsford's reason? I'm not sure he deserves the view from the moral high ground you've given him. Why would you trash Kimmage like that - he is potentially a key component in a painful but necessary examination of pro cycling.
Have you read "Rough Ride"? Your flippancy regarding Kimmage is.....disappointing.


----------



## Alun (4 Nov 2012)

just jim said:


> Really, that's Brailsford's reason? I'm not sure he deserves the view from the moral high ground you've given him. Why would you trash Kimmage like that - he is potentially a key component in a painful but necessary examination of pro cycling.
> Have you read "Rough Ride"? Your flippancy regarding Kimmage is.....disappointing.


I haven't afforded him any moral high ground, he has (rightly or wrongly) taken action to remove from SKY anyone with a history of doping
He has made his position quite clear. I would be very surprised if he now employed or embedded any ex dopers regardless of their current status.


----------



## just jim (4 Nov 2012)

Brailsford:
“Sean joined us in our first year and has been with us for three tough but rewarding seasons.

After a long career in professional cycling, he has told us that he wants to move on, for purely personal reasons.

Sean has been a great support to the riders on the road and a 
valuable colleague to us all. We wish him the best for the next step in
his life.”

Clear as mud more like...


----------



## rich p (4 Nov 2012)

I presume that Yates didn't get the financial support package since he walked.


----------



## raindog (4 Nov 2012)

Brailsford has, rightly or wrongly, made a rod for his own back with his policy of not employing anyone with a doping history. As Alun suggests, he can't really go back on that - if he does, then Sky will lose credibility in the eyes of the enormous UK following who are new to bike racing.
Nothing to do with Kimmage or moral high ground - and anyway, it's difficult to see what role a journalist could play in a pro team.


----------



## johnr (4 Nov 2012)

> Nothing to do with Kimmage or moral high ground - and anyway, it's difficult to see what role a journalist could play in a pro team.


 
I've read '21 Days fo Glory'; Kimmage would have been an asset.


----------



## thom (4 Nov 2012)

raindog said:


> Brailsford has, rightly or wrongly, made a rod for his own back with his policy of not employing anyone with a doping history. As Alun suggests, he can't really go back on that - if he does, then Sky will lose credibility in the eyes of the enormous UK following who are new to bike racing.
> Nothing to do with Kimmage or moral high ground - and anyway, it's difficult to see what role a journalist could play in a pro team.


I wonder how much the policy is dictated to him from James Murdoch. I think the track program is squeaky clean but given the bad rep News International has in the UK, it could be that a sponsorship condition for the extension to the road team is that it has to be able to show it is whiter than white regarding doping. News International can't really afford a doping scandal on top of their recent troubles


----------



## Alun (4 Nov 2012)

thom said:


> I wonder how much the policy is dictated to him from James Murdoch. I think the track program is squeaky clean but given the bad rep News International has in the UK, it could be that a sponsorship condition for the extension to the road team is that it has to be able to show it is whiter than white regarding doping. News International can't really afford a doping scandal on top of their recent troubles


If it is a condition of sponsorship, perhaps it's a clause that other sponsors should look at including in their contracts.


----------



## Orbytal (4 Nov 2012)

If the rules penalised Teams harder then we would see it change. SKY have made a noble gesture but it could backfire also, time will tell however if they find it hard in the future finding ex-riders/management who do ot have a doping conviction/accusation.

I sincerely hope it works out well for them as we want to see more UK wins in GT's.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Nov 2012)

just jim said:


> Really, that's Brailsford's reason? I'm not sure he deserves the view from the moral high ground you've given him. Why would you trash Kimmage like that - he is potentially a key component in a painful but necessary examination of pro cycling.
> Have you read "Rough Ride"? Your flippancy regarding Kimmage is.....disappointing.


 
Kimmage was less than complimentary about Sky and Wiggins, but one wonders just how much is a disagreement or clash betweenthe participants and how much is real concern



> “People ask me how I feel about Wiggins leading the Tour de France – I don’t know, I can’t answer the question. I should be jumping up and down and thrilled for the guys, but I don’t like what I am hearing,” he told VeloNation earlier this week. “When asked about doping, the answers from Wiggins now sound the same as with Armstrong and Floyd.”



Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx#ixzz2BIPtWJIK​


----------



## Alun (4 Nov 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Kimmage was less than complimentary about Sky and Wiggins, but one wonders just how much is a disagreement or clash betweenthe participants and how much is real concern
> 
> 
> ​Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx#ixzz2BIPtWJIK​


“The only thing I ever hoped about Sky is that they were transparent.*" I didn’t care if they won the Tour or not"*
I think this might illustrate the rift between the two parties. Brailsford wants to win races, and Kimmage would be at best be a distraction.
I get the increasing feeling that this is sour grapes by Kimmage. Why doesn't he get on someone elses bus, won't they have him either? 

​


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Nov 2012)

Alun said:


> “The only thing I ever hoped about Sky is that they were transparent.*" I didn’t care if they won the Tour or not"*
> I think this might illustrate the rift between the two parties. Brailsford wants to win races, and Kimmage would be at best be a distraction.
> I get the increasing feeling that this is sour grapes by Kimmage. Why doesn't he get on someone elses bus, won't they have him either?
> ​​


 
Quite possible that he is seen as "persona non grata" due to his part in bringing cycling down to the present position.

As much as many would like to think Armstrong was unique, as was the USPS doping system, it wasn't. The fact that there is still rejection of many who took part in the exposing of doping in this period speaks for itself.

With claims of clean riding, does a team want a journalist who has exposed PED use in the past working inside their cocoon?


----------



## rich p (5 Nov 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> .
> 
> With claims of clean riding, does a team want a journalist who has exposed PED use in the past working inside their cocoon?


 Evidently, they didn't but your implication as to why they didn't might be interesting. Are you suggesting they didn't want an investigative journalist embedded because they have something to hide?


----------



## just jim (5 Nov 2012)

Alun said:


> “The only thing I ever hoped about Sky is that they were transparent.*" I didn’t care if they won the Tour or not"*
> I think this might illustrate the rift between the two parties. Brailsford wants to win races, and Kimmage would be at best be a distraction.
> I get the increasing feeling that this is sour grapes by Kimmage. Why doesn't he get on someone elses bus, won't they have him either?
> ​​


 
What is your problem with Kimmage exactly?
He was a pro rider who took the decision to leave the sport he loved rather than take P.E.Ds.
He went on to be a respected journalist who has tolerated derision and the effects of omerta down the years. More and more people are now waking up and smelling the coffee, and noticing just how relevant his views are.
His probity is without question. Perhaps that's why SKY turned him down - he's not just another SKY sycophant to embed with the P.R team.


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Nov 2012)

rich p said:


> Evidently, they didn't but your implication as to why they didn't might be interesting. Are you suggesting they didn't want an investigative journalist embedded because they have something to hide?


 
Read the posts in order?

This was a clear reply as to why there was conflict between SKY and Kimmage

Alun then asked why not another team bus.....

I stated that it was possible that he was unpopular because of his previous work in exposing the use of PED, a proven occurence within the Peloton, and not having him working inside the cocoon for this reason . At the moment they can insulate themselves from an unpleasant past, Kimmage's resence is a reminder of how the teams have previously behaved.

If you wish to interpret that as them having something to hide then that is entirely your assumption and completely different from what was actually posted


----------



## lukesdad (5 Nov 2012)

just jim said:


> What is your problem with Kimmage exactly?
> He was a pro rider who took the decision to leave the sport he loved rather than take P.E.Ds.
> He went on to be a respected journalist who has tolerated derision and the effects of omerta down the years. More and more people are now waking up and smelling the coffee, and noticing just how relevant his views are.
> His probity is without question. Perhaps that's why SKY turned him down - he's not just another SKY sycophant to embed with the P.R team.


 
Kimmage left the sport because he was struggling to find a contract and realised journalism was going to be more lucrative to him than cycle racing.


----------



## just jim (5 Nov 2012)

That would be the cynical point of view of course. Thanks for nothing.


----------



## lukesdad (5 Nov 2012)

just jim said:


> That would be the cynical point of view of course. Thanks for nothing.


 Not a point of view , but don't let facts get in the way of a good story eh ?


----------



## just jim (5 Nov 2012)

Fortunately the passing of time has proved Kimmage correct, and what he has to say is more relevant than ever.
Agreed?


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Nov 2012)

just jim said:


> Fortunately the passing of time has proved Kimmage correct, and what he has to say is more relevant than ever.
> Agreed?


 
Not according to some!

Apparently he was very very naughty to criticise Wiggins, and what Kimmage says is a total irrelevance


----------



## johnr (5 Nov 2012)

The Millar interview in the Guardian today has been posted elsewhere
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/05/david-millar-cycling
His view on Kimmage and Sky are relevant here too.


----------



## thom (5 Nov 2012)

Ned Boulting speaks his mind about Sky's policy.
Interesting analogy with the Financial Crisis: The LA case is like Lehman brothers going bust. After that, you knew the other banks were probably screwed and there was worse to come for quite a while...


----------



## beastie (6 Nov 2012)

Richie Porte chips in , or toes the party line, depending on how you take it. 
The more I think about it, the happier I am with Sky's zero tolerance policy, whereas I thought previously that the Garmin Sharp model was the way to go. Personally I think the whole sport should embrace a truth and reconciliation period followed by zero tolerance for anything new that comes to light. Life bans from riding, coaching, all involvement with racing would be fine with me.

http://road.cc/content/news/70001-r...ero-tolerance-policy-regrets-staff-departures


----------



## thom (14 Nov 2012)

Not about doping this - Sky recruit another quality Aussie trainer.


----------



## Andrew_P (4 Dec 2012)

See Kimmage is having a pop @ Sky.. 

*BICYCLING: You’ve been critical of Team Sky and Bradley Wiggins. Why?
*Kimmage: The key things that I worry about with Sky are how dominant they were in the Tour—how dominant the whole team were. So it’s not one rider riding exceptionally well but a whole team riding exceptionally well—no bad days—and just incredibly thin and incredibly powerful at the same time. They’ve lost the weight but not the power. For me, that’s the question mark. It was interesting that [BMC’s] Cadel Evans—during the Olympics—sent out a tweet saying, _Oh, I see the skinny guys are still winning time trials. _How are these skinny guys winning time trials? Cadel’s a meaty fella—he’s got muscles. And he looks at these guys, these twigs, and how can they time trial so well? It defies logic for me.


----------



## thom (4 Dec 2012)

LOCO said:


> See Kimmage is having a pop @ Sky..
> 
> *BICYCLING: You’ve been critical of Team Sky and Bradley Wiggins. Why?*
> Kimmage: The key things that I worry about with Sky are how dominant they were in the Tour—how dominant the whole team were. So it’s not one rider riding exceptionally well but a whole team riding exceptionally well—no bad days—and just incredibly thin and incredibly powerful at the same time. They’ve lost the weight but not the power. For me, that’s the question mark. It was interesting that [BMC’s] Cadel Evans—during the Olympics—sent out a tweet saying, _Oh, I see the skinny guys are still winning time trials. _How are these skinny guys winning time trials? Cadel’s a meaty fella—he’s got muscles. And he looks at these guys, these twigs, and how can they time trial so well? It defies logic for me.


I think its reasonable and healthy to ask questions like this. Scepticism is entirely appropriate. It wasn't just the Olympics that Sky had their dominant form.

It started in March with Paris-Nice, going through to the Olympics in August and I think you have to go back a very long time to see similar team performances.

At the same time, Cadel perhaps had an off year, Contador wasn't at the races until the Vuelta and the Schlecks weren't anywhere. Cancellara didn't have a great year either and Tony Martin had various injuries/accidents. So Sky were probably lucky as to their opposition in terms of the team leaders.

However, the data of their performances, in terms of VAM, watts etc. I believe does not point towards untoward preparation. It appears they have developed ways to achieve and maintain peak form in athletes through hard work and deep physiological understanding and at times challenging much of the orthodoxy of the peloton.

I imagine there are/were quite a few areas of low hanging fruit in terms of legitimate training methods to adopt and exploit relative to the competition, partly because so many people were used to relying on doping that the requirement to innovate more subtly would be rendered inconsequential given blood doping and EPO were making around a 10% difference to your VAM (I think) over current performance levels.

Within this forum you can find people complaining about Wiggo not taking the Tour of Britain seriously. By the time of the World Championships, Froome and Wiggo knew better than to try to get to the start line because they were spent. What Wiggo did last year was extraordinary obviously, earned through commitment, accepting luck in some part but he earned everything he won and clearly had an additional motivation to progress his Olympic palmares at a home venue.

There is movement of riders and staff between Sky and other teams. If something dodgy is going on at a team level, there are opportunities for rumour to spread faster than ever but we're yet to see anything unexplainable (I hunk/hope...).


----------



## Andrew_P (4 Dec 2012)

It smacked a little of sour grapes about Wiggins not wanting him on the 2010 tour. But interesting none the less, can Sky afford to just ignore it or respond?


----------



## Hont (5 Dec 2012)

thom said:


> I think its reasonable and healthy to ask questions like this. Scepticism is entirely appropriate.


 
Agree with that. And that is pretty much what Kimmage's role appears to be. Even if you don't agree with what he's saying, the sport needs someone coming from that viewpoint.



thom said:


> ..challenging much of the orthodoxy of the peloton.


 
Indeed. Remember the hilarity everyone expressed when Wiggins warmed down after stages in Paris Nice.

More from that interview...

_What would make me happy is to watch a Tour de France and watch the Tour de France where the yellow jersey has some really bad days and it changes hands. What would make me happy is a Tour de France with guys like Dan Martin. The Tour de France with 190 Dan Martins and David Millars, who come out and win a stage, then lose 40 minutes the next day. That would make me happy. But these robots who ride for three weeks and go faster in the third week, that doesn’t make me happy_

I can't help but feel that Kimmage is lost a little bit in the 80s by expressing a belief that being clean *must* mean you are going to have bad days in Grand Tours . Sport science has moved on since then.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (5 Dec 2012)

Hont said:


> I can't help but feel that Kimmage is lost a little bit in the 80s by expressing a belief that being clean *must* mean you are going to have bad days in Grand Tours . Sport science has moved on since then.


 
I like Kimmage - and we need people like him around to say the unsayable - but I think you are right about his leanings. Riders today, in fact professional sportspeople in general, train in both in quanities and in methods that those active in the late 80s years ago would find hard to recognise. And tactically, the way that teams are ordered and operate is also vastly different. I think Kimmage is too much of a romantic and an idealist - he dislikes the cold, scientific professionalism of the top teams as much as he dislikes cheating.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (7 Dec 2012)

And... Michael Rogers has left Sky to join one of the most cynical of potential World Tour squads, Saxo Bank-Tinkoff. I guess he had to admit he wasn't as clean as he had previously pretended... and now he's found the perfect home.


----------



## thom (7 Dec 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> And... Michael Rogers has left Sky to join one of the most cynical of potential World Tour squads, Saxo Bank-Tinkoff. I guess he had to admit he wasn't as clean as he had previously pretended... and now he's found the perfect home.


His contract ended this year right ?

http://www.roadcycling.com/news-results/team-saxo-tinkoff-signs-michael-rogers#.UMH_4qWFXq0


----------



## Flying_Monkey (7 Dec 2012)

Yes, it did. But I am pretty sure he would not have been able to meet Sky's newly stated standards.


----------



## thom (7 Dec 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Yes, it did. But I am pretty sure he would not have been able to meet Sky's newly stated standards.


I'm not trying to argue, we know the rumours of Rogers being involved with Ferrari, at least as far as "training plans" are concerned at a time when Ferrari was not banned. 
Are you sure this breaches Sky standards, or in other words, do you know the specifics of Sky's standards ?
Are there other issues that I am ignorant of ? I'm just interested to know if there is more on him or if maybe Sky might have thought that it's not that he's breached something but that it doesn't appear good, so we won't extend his contract.


----------



## montage (7 Dec 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> And... Michael Rogers has left Sky to join one of the most cynical of potential World Tour squads, Saxo Bank-Tinkoff. I guess he had to admit he wasn't as clean as he had previously pretended... and now he's found the perfect home.


 
Not good news - somebody who knows the insides of team sky heading straight to the biggest rival. Must be due to the doping declaration, it is unlikely that pay and conditions at saxo bank are on par with sky.


----------



## thom (7 Dec 2012)

montage said:


> Not good news - somebody who knows the insides of team sky heading straight to the biggest rival. Must be due to the doping declaration, it is unlikely that pay and conditions at saxo bank are on par with sky.


I imagine he'll do well in terms of pay - he must have a good few points to help Saxo-Tinkoff and indeed he is valuable to Contador as the road captain of the previous TdF winner. It doesn't look good but we'll probably never really know the full story.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (7 Dec 2012)

montage said:


> it is unlikely that pay and conditions at saxo bank are on par with sky.


 
I'm not sure about that: Tinkoff Credit Systems is worth over 1 Billion. Oleg Tinkoff is one of those highly dubious Russian oligarchs with strong connections to Putin and the ruling elite.


----------



## rich p (7 Dec 2012)

I wonder if Sky will make a statement or just let it be unsaid.


----------



## rich p (7 Dec 2012)

As an aside, Kittel was pretty unimpressed the other day by Tinkoff saying that Argos was full of unknown riders!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (7 Dec 2012)

rich p said:


> As an aside, Kittel was pretty unimpressed the other day by Tinkoff saying that Argos was full of unknown riders!


 
Yeah, I saw that.  They are in a dogfight with A-S for the last World Tour place. And of course Rogers will add to the points total that SB-T are trying to accrue to make up for the fact that they can't count Contador's...


----------



## rich p (7 Dec 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Yeah, I saw that.  They are in a dogfight with A-S for the last World Tour place. And of course Rogers will add to the points total that SB-T are trying to accrue to make up for the fact that they can't count Contador's...


Good point - worth offering MR a fair bit of money for the points.


----------



## andrew_s (7 Dec 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Yeah, I saw that.  They are in a dogfight with A-S for the last World Tour place. And of course Rogers will add to the points total that SB-T are trying to accrue to make up for the fact that they can't count Contador's...


They won't be able to count Rogers' points either. It's points at the time of the World Tour application deadline that count.


----------



## thom (8 Dec 2012)

Roger's departure from Sky unrelated to internal doping investigation, say Sky.

"Michael was interviewed at the October training camp, like all riders, and there was no admission or disclosure that required him to leave,” the team statement said.
"He made the decision to join a new team with a new challenge after two years with us, and during that time there have been no doubts about his approach or success with us.
"We thank Michael for his work with Team Sky and wish him well for the next stage of his career."


----------



## Viktor Chebrikov (8 Dec 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I'm not sure about that: Tinkoff Credit Systems is worth over 1 Billion. Oleg Tinkoff is one of those highly dubious Russian oligarchs with strong connections to Putin and the ruling elite.


 
Was more honourable when KGB ran things. USSR won more medals.


----------



## thom (8 Dec 2012)

Viktor Chebrikov said:


> Was more honourable when KGB ran things. USSR won more medals.


But the east germans were best on the track and the Peace race wasn't meaningful.....


----------



## resal (8 Dec 2012)

thom said:


> Roger's departure from Sky unrelated to internal doping investigation, say Sky.
> 
> "Michael was interviewed at the October training camp, like all riders, and there was no admission or disclosure that required him to leave,” the team statement said.
> "He made the decision to join a new team with a new challenge after two years with us, and during that time there have been no doubts about his approach or success with us.
> "We thank Michael for his work with Team Sky and wish him well for the next stage of his career."


 
I really have as much difficulty with this as I do with Brailsford's assurances that Yates retired on health grounds. I see on another site that Richard Moore is quoted as tweeting that Rogers was at the team meeting with the press some time before, as a fully integrated part of the set up for 2013. Rogers admits he worked with Ferrari, not because he wanted to come clean but because he was outed. He then asks us to believe him when he states it was for physical coaching advice only.

I don't mind being lied to by a rider who won three World titles during the time when the PED arms race was reaching heights that were leagues beyond that could be dreamed of, only a generation before.

I don't mind being lied to by the manger of a team of dodgy pros that look like they care less about the fans or the sport than the paper hanging on the roll in the smallest room.

I do have a great deal of difficulty with the National Team manager of my Lottery funded home nation, who is paid enough out of the public purse so that he can afford to have the morals that will enable him to turn away from such robbery, trying to tell me things which I can not discriminate from to the nonsense I have heard over the last 20 years.


----------



## rich p (9 Dec 2012)

You could read and impute from Brailsford's statement that Rogers admitted nothing, signed nothing and said that he'd rather just leave the team. No admission of guilt as such.


----------



## Noodley (9 Dec 2012)

My interpretation of the Sky statement is:

"Rogers admitted nothing, in line with Omerta. What else did you expect? He has now decided to feck off and join a team that continues to support doping. He can feck off as far as we are concerned, and we'll do everything in our power to make sure he is made to suffer every time we ride."


----------



## thom (9 Dec 2012)

Can I just check again, does anybody have anything more on Rogers other than the "training plans" he obtained from Ferrari when Ferrari wasn't banned and for which he paid not really that much when it comes to monies Ferrari received?
Am I missing something factual ?

In addition, if you think the suspicion/evidence surrounding Rogers condemns him, what now is your position regarding this thread's original subject, which is to debate the possibility that Sky may be engaged in doping ?
Do you think for example, that surrounding Rogers' abuses, there may be evidence that Sky cannot control that may come to light and this is why they are keen to be rid of him ?


----------



## rich p (9 Dec 2012)

From what Leipheimer said, it wasn't just training plans but repeated visits to Ferrari training camps. Circumstantial evidence only but together with the timing of the move to Team 60% Riis it could add up.


----------



## thom (9 Dec 2012)

rich p said:


> From what Leipheimer said, it wasn't just training plans but repeated visits to Ferrari training camps. Circumstantial evidence only but together with the timing of the move to Team 60% Riis it could add up.


Thanks for clarifying rich. I think it's too unclear not to state opinions on this without caveats. It is clear Saxo-Tinkoff has cash and needs good riders. Sky pay well but not stupid amounts. Rogers' contract was up for renegotiation. Who's to say Sky didn't make a call on the likely deterioration in his physiology and decide it would not make sense to match a strong Saxo-Tinkoff offer ?


----------



## rich p (9 Dec 2012)

Of course, Thom, money talks and that could be it, but it doesn't seem to add up to me, unless you include me making 2 and 2 equalling 5
Rather than deteriorating, his form was better than for years at Sky and with better results. He was well-regarded by Wiggins as the road captain in the TdF. Maybe this encouraged Tinkoff to offer better money but I would have thought that he'd have been a better fit at Sky in his dotage unless their was more to it. But who knows.
Apart from Brailsford and Rogers and they're not likely to fess up.


----------



## thom (9 Dec 2012)

rich p said:


> Of course, Thom, money talks and that could be it, but it doesn't seem to add up to me, unless you include me making 2 and 2 equalling 5
> Rather than deteriorating, his form was better than for years at Sky and with better results. He was well-regarded by Wiggins as the road captain in the TdF. Maybe this encouraged Tinkoff to offer better money but I would have thought that he'd have been a better fit at Sky in his dotage unless their was more to it. But who knows.
> Apart from Brailsford and Rogers and they're not likely to fess up.


I agree the move doesn't look entirely normal but at the same time, I can imagine there is a lot that goes on in pro-cycling that is completely normal and which I have no conception of. I'm just a fan watching on TV.

I'm keen to understand the extent of the evidence though, really because I don't like doping riders and I think it is clear I try to share info I see. Thanks for pointing out what Leipheimer alleges.

There are a couple of things people have stated that in the spirit of sharing, it would be good to elaborate on out of respect for everyone that reads this forum.


----------



## rich p (9 Dec 2012)

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Leipheimer,+Levi,+Affidavit.pdf

I posted this a couple of months ago but Leipheimer mentions Rogers in no. 68 and 69. No smoking gun but the other names in that list are pretty unsavoury...
...Salvoldelli, Popovych, Mazzoleni, Kashechkin, Vino and Levi himself. It could be that MR was the only clean one there and didn't discuss EPO with Schumi but...


----------



## thom (9 Dec 2012)

rich p said:


> http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Leipheimer, Levi, Affidavit.pdf
> 
> I posted this a couple of months ago but Leipheimer mentions Rogers in no. 68 and 69. No smoking gun but the other names in that list are pretty unsavoury...
> ...Salvoldelli, Popovych, Mazzoleni, Kashechkin, Vino and Levi himself. It could be that MR was the only clean one there and didn't discuss EPO with Schumi but...


Thanks for sharing rich ;-)


----------



## Viktor Chebrikov (10 Dec 2012)

thom said:


> But the east germans were best on the track and the Peace race wasn't meaningful.....


 
In Moscow Olympics 1980 Soviet Union won more medals than East Germany winning Team Pursuit, Team Time Trial, and Road Race.
Furthermore, in Moscow Olympics 1980, a famous UK athlete failed a drug test during games, but KGB covered this up to ensure their agent's reputation and career were not destroyed.


----------



## oldroadman (10 Dec 2012)

Viktor Chebrikov said:


> In Moscow Olympics 1980 Soviet Union won more medals than East Germany winning Team Pursuit, Team Time Trial, and Road Race.
> Furthermore, in Moscow Olympics 1980, a famous UK athlete failed a drug test during games, but KGB covered this up to ensure their agent's reputation and career were not destroyed.


 And wo can disprove or indeed prove this from 32 years ago? You may state a truth, or it could simply be wild speculation. Care to name or do you like your house too much to have to sell it?


----------



## Viktor Chebrikov (10 Dec 2012)

oldroadman said:


> And wo can disprove or indeed prove this from 32 years ago? You may state a truth, or it could simply be wild speculation. Care to name or do you like your house too much to have to sell it?


 
With ex KGB it is not your house you worry about.


----------



## rich p (10 Dec 2012)

Naming no names but I've just found someone else to go on my ignore list.


----------



## Hont (10 Dec 2012)

thom said:


> I think it's too unclear not to state opinions on this without caveats.


 
This is a forum on the internet. I'm not sure it would exist if everyone waited for facts before stating an opinion ;-)


----------



## Viktor Chebrikov (10 Dec 2012)

Linda McCartney team under investigation. Big UK names rode in that team, Yates, Wiggins (signed but didn't race). Matt Stephens, Max Sciandri, Julian Winn, John Tanner,Charly Wegelius, Cearon Power. Some names there linked to Brailsford & Sky.


----------



## Crackle (10 Dec 2012)

rich p said:


> Naming no names but I've just found someone else to go on my ignore list.


How many personalities can one retired/guest member have eh!


----------



## oldroadman (10 Dec 2012)

Crackle said:


> How many personalities can one retired/guest member have eh!


----------



## thom (10 Dec 2012)

Hont said:


> This is a forum on the internet. I'm not sure it would exist if everyone waited for facts before stating an opinion ;-)


My point is that if you say "I know x" I would suppose that there is fact to back it up, even though this is an internet forum, otherwise say "I think x" and feel free to state an opinion, with which I have no issue. I mean, I don't have a problem with miss-statements really, as long as you are prepared to clarify if someone is interested in what you are saying.


----------



## thom (10 Dec 2012)

Viktor Chebrikov said:


> Linda McCartney team under investigation. Big UK names rode in that team, Yates, Wiggins (signed but didn't race). Matt Stephens, Max Sciandri, Julian Winn, John Tanner,Charly Wegelius, Cearon Power. Some names there linked to Brailsford & Sky.


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/cycling/article3625953.ece
http://road.cc/content/news/71882-u...ens-investigation-linda-mccartney-racing-team


----------



## Flying_Monkey (10 Dec 2012)

Wegelius has always been dubious. And we know all about Yates.


----------



## Viktor Chebrikov (10 Dec 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Wegelius has always been dubious. And we know all about Yates.


Chris Newton rode for McCartney and is now on BC coaching staff. I think recently working with Team Pursuit squad.
http://www1.skysports.com/cycling/n...h-in-qualifying-at-Track-World-Cup-in-Glasgow


----------



## thom (20 Dec 2012)

Travis says : Zero tolerance will not deter cheats


----------



## thom (22 Dec 2012)

*Un médecin belge "organisait le dopage" chez Rabobank*

Leipheimer says Leinders was *in charge* of organising EPO at Rabobank.


----------



## oldroadman (26 Dec 2012)

thom said:


> Travis says : Zero tolerance will not deter cheats


Tygart disagrees with everything that's not his personal opinion, so far as I can see. The Sky approach may not suit everyone, but it works for them, so why doesn't he just keep out of internal decisions made by teams, so long as they don't organise doping? I would have thought Sky were a model which any team (at any level) should think hard about following. What I can't take are the unrepentent ones, who do their two years and expect to just pick up where they left off, for me a minimum 4 years would be right for a first offence on anything like blood manipulation. They can always go off and ride big sportives, where the chance of a test seems minimal, and there is still money to be made. The Ricco plan.


----------



## BJH (4 Jan 2013)

Viktor Chebrikov said:


> Chris Newton rode for McCartney and is now on BC coaching staff. I think recently working with Team Pursuit squad.
> http://www1.skysports.com/cycling/n...h-in-qualifying-at-Track-World-Cup-in-Glasgow




Read the Hamilton book. Just because a young Wiggins or Newton were on the team does not make them cheats. 

Most of the squad were not in on the deal and even the TDF squad were not all using when the Texan won the first time.


----------



## rich p (14 Mar 2013)

Vayer casting the doubt that, no doubt, many around the world have about Sky
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vayer-calls-for-srm-and-blood-data-from-sky


----------



## raindog (14 Mar 2013)

Good idea. It might even be a first step to The Clinic shutting the f ck up, but I wouldn't hold my breath.


----------



## Noodley (14 Mar 2013)

Has there been anything published in print by David Walsh yet re his "embedded" expereinces at SKY?


----------



## rich p (14 Mar 2013)

It's the price cycling pays for its past I suppose. To a lot of people, the way Sky ride is too reminiscent of USPS and proving a negative isn't easy. I don't think it's down to Sky to show all their stats unless all the teams are doing likewise. Even that is fraught with misinterpretation by the armchair scientists. If we believed in the UCI then passport under independent scrutiny is surely the best way to go.
I suspect Walsh will keep his story quiet for the next book and Times serialisation.


----------



## thom (14 Mar 2013)

rich p said:


> Vayer casting the doubt that, no doubt, many around the world have about Sky
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vayer-calls-for-srm-and-blood-data-from-sky


I don't believe in 
1) making the data public
2) giving the data to the UCI

Give race level data to an independent agent, monitor against bio-passport levels for a period of a couple of years (or however long) and let them see if it correlates against suspicious behavior indicated from other signals. 
The virtue of the data is it's measured at pretty much every race (except perhaps Tommy V's Pyrenean escapades), so if you can ensure it's integrity and collect it efficiently, you could amass a deep picture within the peloton very quickly. 
The problem with it is that all it is is an image of a race, an output, like a video or a picture. It casts suspicion but as evidence on it's own, I doubt you could use it in isolation to convict someone of doping. Make it public and people will readily point fingers yet probably not understand the numbers properly.

In the right hands, it could be analyzed scientifically with other data and if a connection is found, it could provide a cheap way to flag up riders who need specific testing. Made public, it will just lead to mindless accusations.


----------



## raindog (14 Mar 2013)

thom said:


> Made public, it will just lead to mindless accusations.


Which is what we have now.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (14 Mar 2013)

raindog said:


> Which is what we have now.


True, plus the ''What have they got to hide?'' insinuations.


----------



## Crackle (14 Mar 2013)

rich p said:


> Vayer casting the doubt that, no doubt, many around the world have about Sky
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vayer-calls-for-srm-and-blood-data-from-sky


 
There's still nothing there but insinuation and some naive view about proving a negative plus the whole tone is just embittered, Vayer finding it hard to believe that there might be better training methods than his.

Given that even the experts don't always agree about the data why should any team release it into the public domain for every internet warrior to chew on, not to mention that I bet many team managers and riders would love to see rival power data.

2/10 Must do better.


----------



## ufkacbln (14 Mar 2013)

Question is just how much information this would give away about a team, their race preparation or tactics.... Would it do them harm?

If not then why not be open,and release the figures

Even if their was a loss of advantage to the team if competitors found this information out, why not release after say a year?


----------



## Hont (14 Mar 2013)

I'd like to see SRM data published. At the moment there are lots of people guessing at power outages based on climbs, speed and a lot of unknowns. It would be better to have proper data on this. Of course it couldn't just be Sky who had to publish this, you can't single one team out.

The point Vayer makes about training is odd. If he doesn't think better training methods give an advantage, why did he change the methods at Festina? I think he's trying to make the point that despite these methods they still doped. But it was the 90s. Better training is no match for EPO.


----------



## 400bhp (14 Mar 2013)

thom said:


> I don't believe in
> 1) making the data public
> 2) giving the data to the UCI
> 
> ...


 
You don't use it like that. You set trigger points and use the data to see if the trigger points are, well "triggered".

Once they are then you investigate a little deeper.

It's not dissimilar to what they have done in my field, albeit it's not there to catch cheaters per se.


----------



## beastie (14 Mar 2013)

Hont said:


> I'd like to see SRM data published. At the moment there are lots of people guessing at power outages based on climbs, speed and a lot of unknowns. It would be better to have proper data on this. Of course it couldn't just be Sky who had to publish this, you can't single one team out.
> 
> The point Vayer makes about training is odd. If he doesn't think better training methods give an advantage, why did he change the methods at Festina? I think he's trying to make the point that despite these methods they still doped. But it was the 90s. Better training is no match for EPO.



I would like to see certain telemetry published, preferably live. I think it was the Tour of California which had a NASCAR like tab on the screen indicating certain riders in the peloton, and showing their current speed. That can make a bunch sprint even more exciting, or a long chase where you can see the difference in speeds. Even power output in a TT. I would like to see that, even if for short windows of time. The tags and speeds especially. Also while I am at it, I would also have numerous on bike cameras mixed through the teams. All easy with existing tech. Cycling needs to move into the 21st century, while sticking with some great long established races and traditions.


----------



## oldroadman (14 Mar 2013)

This whole accusation thing is pathetic. People can't accept that a team can be so organised and trained that they all have to assume something. There is no proof. Nibali has a brilliant descent at T_A, and winsthe race. Should we ask to test his brain because he so good, and whilst at it, Spartacus too, because he goes well downhill? Add in Tony Martin - TT win too good to be true. What utter balls.
No-one with half a brain will release SRM data and blood values into the public domain to have it picked at by idiotic half-witted people with their own agenda and prejudices. It will cause endless rounds of PR and other teams will be very happy to see power outputs, then work out a way to try and match them.
I don't actually see Sky as totally dominant, they have a style and it's up to other teams to ride on the front if they believe they are good enough. When you select riders with a task in mind and run the team correctly this is the result. Mostly mud slinging and jealousy - no-one else had thought of bringing in coaches and support staff from other sports, it was always done "traditional" way, which included somepreparation that may have gone beyond what is correct. I see no evidence of this at Sky, and indeed many teams in all three divisions look as clean as I can remember.
people will disagree, and want to wreck the sport with wild, baseless, and ridiculous accusations saying riders and teams must "prove" they are clean. No, wrong, the idiots should "prove" they are not.
As someone who has been close to the sport for a lifetime (so far) these people who have usually achieved NOTHING except being a keyboard warrior (aka Troll), make me sick.
Rant over.
Back to trying to be helpful.


----------



## thom (14 Mar 2013)

400bhp said:


> You don't use it like that. You set trigger points and use the data to see if the trigger points are, well "triggered".
> 
> Once they are then you investigate a little deeper.
> 
> It's not dissimilar to what they have done in my field, albeit it's not there to catch cheaters per se.


That's kind of my point - to use it properly, you need to know and investigate more. 
What I worry about is if the data is public, people will look at it and try to make conclusions without really knowing enough or having the ability to investigate more deeply through other means.


----------



## ufkacbln (14 Mar 2013)

thom said:


> That's kind of my point - to use it properly, you need to know and investigate more.
> What I worry about is if the data is public, people will look at it and try to make conclusions without really knowing enough or having the ability to investigate more deeply through other means.


 
The problem is that if you don't release the data then it cannot be analysed either by professionals, scientists or researchers to establish base lines.

Many aspects of medicine use "normal limits" to assess where a particular result sits. Not necessarily a confirmation, but certainly an indication that further investigation of a disease process is appropriate. Ca Prostate is for instance regularly picked up by routine testing for a particular antigen. Further investigation can reveal benign, malignant or inflammatory conditions.

What is needed is to gain access to the data, establish those parameters for "normal riders" and then see how they work in practice.

Then and only then can it be used to indicate suspicious activity


----------



## oldroadman (15 Mar 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> The problem is that if you don't release the data then it cannot be analysed either by professionals, scientists or researchers to establish base lines.
> 
> Many aspects of medicine use "normal limits" to assess where a particular result sits. Not necessarily a confirmation, but certainly an indication that further investigation of a disease process is appropriate. Ca Prostate is for instance regularly picked up by routine testing for a particular antigen. Further investigation can reveal benign, malignant or inflammatory conditions.
> 
> ...


 
No such thing, there are very good riders, excellent riders, and winners. Oh, and non-finishers (aka a certain Luxembourger). The pro peloton is the world of genatic exception. A "median" rider does not win much, a winner does. So what do we want, a peloton of medians where anyone who excels is automatically suspect? No thanks.


----------



## ColinJ (15 Mar 2013)

oldroadman said:


> No such thing, there are very good riders, excellent riders, and winners. Oh, and non-finishers (aka a certain Luxembourger). The pro peloton is the world of genatic exception. A "median" rider does not win much, a winner does. So what do we want, a peloton of medians where anyone who excels is automatically suspect? No thanks.


I reckon that natural athletic ability gives the genetic freaks an unfair advantage over the rest of us, so they should undergo DNA tests and receive lifetime bans if they are found to be 'genetically doped'! The rest of us can battle it out and the winners will then be those who try hardest!


----------



## thom (15 Mar 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> The problem is that if you don't release the data then it cannot be analysed either by professionals, scientists or researchers to establish base lines.
> 
> Many aspects of medicine use "normal limits" to assess where a particular result sits. Not necessarily a confirmation, but certainly an indication that further investigation of a disease process is appropriate. Ca Prostate is for instance regularly picked up by routine testing for a particular antigen. Further investigation can reveal benign, malignant or inflammatory conditions.
> 
> ...


Dude, you need to look at what I said before arguing against me. I'm in favour of the data being examined confidentially and scientifically by professionals with appropriate qualifications and ethical standards but in a context anonymity. It would be necessary to prove some linkage between signals in the power data and doping activity as a first step. It may be there is none and the data ought not be used at all - a proper scientific analysis necessarily allows that possibility.
I'm not in favour of the data being published as a witch-hunter's wet-dream.


----------



## ufkacbln (15 Mar 2013)

thom said:


> Dude, you need to look at what I said before arguing against me. I'm in favour of the data being examined confidentially and scientifically by professionals with appropriate qualifications and ethical standards but in a context anonymity. It would be necessary to prove some linkage between signals in the power data and doping activity as a first step. It may be there is none and the data ought not be used at all - a proper scientific analysis necessarily allows that possibility.
> I'm not in favour of the data being published as a witch-hunter's wet-dream.


 
Not arguing against, just a slightly different angle, I have agreed with what you said..... establish baselines, and use them as indicators for further investigation

However after the problems of the last decade or so, there is a need to be transparent, and the problem with keeping the information under wraps is that this is in turn (to use your phrase) " a witch-hunter's wet-dream" as absence of data implies that it is being kept under wraps because there is something to hide.


----------



## ufkacbln (15 Mar 2013)

oldroadman said:


> No such thing, there are very good riders, excellent riders, and winners. Oh, and non-finishers (aka a certain Luxembourger). The pro peloton is the world of genatic exception. A "median" rider does not win much, a winner does. So what do we want, a peloton of medians where anyone who excels is automatically suspect? No thanks.


 
Hence the reasons to investigate.

This has happened before when EPO was "undetectable" and the Haematocrit values were used to assess riders.

This varied for many reasons and the investigation sorts this out.

A sprinter will have a different ability to provide high power outputs for short periods, where as a climber will have a high power for longer periods of time.


That is also the reason why your assumption about "medians" is incorrect, That is why "normal riders" is in inverted commas and the suggestion that it would have to be seen to work in practice - there will probably be a "normal range" established, but then there outliers that establish an upper limit, and that is how it could work.


----------



## thom (15 Mar 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> However after the problems of the last decade or so, there is a need to be transparent, and the problem with keeping the information under wraps is that this is in turn (to use your phrase) " a witch-hunter's wet-dream" as absence of data implies that it is being kept under wraps because there is something to hide.


Blood passport info is all confidential right ? All doping tests get done anonymously and the part that would need to be established would be a connection between those doping tests and power readings. With power readings, there are so many situational variables that would effect performance (motivation, team instructions, weather, where you are in the peloton, par-cours to name but a few) that I expect only very sophisticated analysis could show anything useful, if at all.


----------



## ufkacbln (15 Mar 2013)

Which all needs to be proved or disproved.

It is already the subject of conjecture, used to make allegations and insinuations.

If the data is analysed and shows that it can be utilised to identify riders that are significantly different to the others that investigation is required then there is another weapon that can be used in anti-doping

If when used in practice there are no links then it stops the conjecture.

However as long as we have accusations that rider X's performance could only be achieved by doping the problem will continue


----------



## ufkacbln (15 Mar 2013)

ColinJ said:


> I reckon that natural athletic ability gives the genetic freaks an unfair advantage over the rest of us, so they should undergo DNA tests and receive lifetime bans if they are found to be 'genetically doped'! The rest of us can battle it out and the winners will then be those who try hardest!


 
Genetic doping is a current issue!



> The possibility of gene doping, defined as the transfer of nucleic acid sequences and/or the use of normal or genetically modified cells to enhance sport performance, is a real concern in sports medicine. The abuse of knowledge and techniques gained in the area of gene therapy is a form of doping, and is prohibited for competitive athletes. As yet there is no conclusive evidence that that gene doping has been practiced in sport. However, given that gene therapy techniques improve continuously, the likelihood of abuse will increase.
> 
> Gene doping: an overview and current implications for athletes (Br J Sports Med doi:10.1136/bjsports-2012-091288)


----------



## ColinJ (15 Mar 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Genetic doping is a current issue!


Flipping heck, what next - male athletes pretending to be female so they can enter women's events? Oh, hang on, that has been done too - example!


----------



## ufkacbln (15 Mar 2013)

ColinJ said:


> Flipping heck, what next - male athletes pretending to be female so they can enter women's events? Oh, hang on, that has been done too - example!


 
Suggesting that Victoria Pendleton or Laura Trott is a man may not be popular?


----------



## oldroadman (15 Mar 2013)

ColinJ said:


> Flipping heck, what next - male athletes pretending to be female so they can enter women's events? Oh, hang on, that has been done too - example!


 Looking around women's sport a few years ago there were a few women who must have been close to the chromosome edge....and there are still one or two who have a very masculine type of build, but stil, that's the world of genetic exception.


----------



## albion (15 Mar 2013)

I wonder if Kenya's popularity as an athletes training base will wane a bit now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/21771213

It's mildly amazing how many go away to return bigger and better.


----------



## oldroadman (17 Mar 2013)

albion said:


> I wonder if Kenya's popularity as an athletes training base will wane a bit now.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/21771213
> 
> It's mildly amazing how many go away to return bigger and better.


 They should set one up in Jamaica too, if only to stop the accusations and suspiscions flying around. The a proper and thorough out of competition one for tennis (rich sport so easily afforded). I'll just wait to hear all the whining about "rigts to privacy" being bandied about, probably from the people who need to be heavily checked. ADAMS (the whereabouts system) is coming to you soon, guys and gals of the grunting classes.


----------



## User169 (18 Mar 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Genetic doping is a current issue!


 
I can't see your article - 30EUR is a bit much for me. Nevertheless, I'd be really surprised if anyone were really doing this. I'd be even more surprised if it were working. 

Gene therapies are not trivial to make and there aren't that many people that know how to use them. There are just so many questions, not least what do you use as the target gene. What do you then use as vector - viral or non-viral, if viral, what virus - lentivirus, adenovirus, HSV - or are you going for naked DNA? What promoter are you going to use - constitutive, inducible (good luck with that one)? Once you've got your therapy together, how, when, where are you going to administer it? Once you've got it in, will you be able to shut it off? 

It would be monumentally expensive - you'd have to start up your own research program effectively. 

I reckon there's still more mileage in small molecules and recombinant proteins.


----------

