# Team Sky, Walsh & doping.



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Try this article -

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto...e?shareToken=ccea51abc589211e28ad23ea10f8b076


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Ok. I am impressed.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

I'm impressed too. Teams with those policies are what is needed to turn this sport around. 

This really impressed me. Mothers have to worry enough about crashes, they shouldn't be worried about the life threatening risks of doping too.



> “It is my responsibility,” he says, “to make absolutely sure that we do everything in our power to say to Mrs Dombrowski and every other parent that your son will never be put in a position where he has to decide, ‘Should I dope or should I not?’


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

It's a nice gesture, but a couple of thoughts:
a) Remember Lance's "independent testing program" ?
b) journalists have had "full access" to teams that doped for x length of time before and saw nothing
c) power data. POWER DATA. Please release it to the public, or at least to Walsh.
d) Walsh is *to some degree* partial to Sky already. Very different from Kimmage.

Regardless, good move. Pretty smart, which is surprising giving Sky's generally abysmal PR when it comes to doping.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

David Walsh is not just any journalist. He is totally credible and unlikely to be fooled. They invite him in, they aren't playing.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

I wouldn't be so sure. Walsh's position on Wiggins is completely different from his position on Armstrong.
And as I already said, without power data, essentially it isn't anything more than a nice gesture. The drugs obviously would be stored somewhere else than in the doctor's room in any non-idiotic team (for example, the French police has a nasty tendency to conduct surprise searches during the tour) and even in USPS only the A team would dope, so someone like Dombrowski, who they put the emphasis on, isn't really at risk of seeing anything. 

The PR success of this is guaranteed. The actual progress in terms of credibility will be hard to pinpoint, since it hinges on the depth of Walsh's investigation while he stays with the team, and no one will really know how much he dug in. Personally I think since he already believes Sky to be clean, he's not going to look too far. 

So I'm sticking with smart PR move, and hoping this is the start of a change of mentalities at Sky, for riders' sake. Their stance on doping recently has really hurt their credibility.

EDIT: Tim Kerrison. The guy was a swimming coach, no background in cycling, yet Bradley credited him with "revolutionizing" his training and essentially making him transform into a Tour-winning rider Obviously, the transformation itself being pretty suspicious, and the guy coming out of nowhere, people were going to talk. The fact that he comes from a swimming background, where doping is probably one of the worst kept secrets, doesn't help his case. I feel bad for him though, if he is / was not involved in any doping, I can only imagine how terrible it is to google your name and find out everyone in the Clinic says you're a doper (further proof if you needed any that a ton of pros watch the Clinic forum  )


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Walsh was pretty friendly with Armstrong at first. How did that work out for Lance?


----------



## albert owen (Jul 7, 2008)

Walsh is a great journalist. His integrity would survive being hoodwinked, which in this case I doubt very much, but cycling would not survive. 

To repeat what I've said before: If SKY are a dirty outfit then that would complete the job that Lance almost managed all by himself .....namely to end cycling as a mainstream sport and relegate it to the level of Wrestling and Pro Boxing, in other words a complete joke.

Lance apologists should be careful what they wish for!


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

albert owen said:


> If SKY are a dirty outfit then that would complete the job that Lance almost managed all by himself .....namely to end cycling as a mainstream sport and relegate it to the level of Wrestling and Pro Boxing, in other words a complete joke.


If Sky bugger it up then the whole bloody sport of competitive cycling should be sh!tt-canned and governing bodies closed down. It should only exist at the recreational level and it should be illegal for any two people to race each other. Strava should be illegal too.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Good. 

I also have a fear of needles; I have fainted after a blood draw. So I can really identify with Dombrowski. Just reading about the blood draw made me squeamish. 



moskowe said:


> [Wiggans] coming out of nowhere


again with that canard?

LOL


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

I think I've made it clear what my position on Wiggins is, and more importantly, why. 
However, when I wrote "the guy coming out of nowhere," I was referring to Kerrison, not Wiggins. Kerrison was a complete unknown when he joined Sky. 

I'm also pretty sure that Sky turning out to be dirty won't be the end of cycling, just like the USPS debacle didn't destroy the sport either. Sponsors will pull out, everyone will make fun of the sport (as if they don't already), but the show will go on. We did have a Tour winner get popped the year he won it, only to have some of the top contenders get popped in the middle of the next one a year after. Pro cycling didn't die from that.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

my apologies for misreading your post.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

Outside of Europe, cycling is not a mainstream sport so if Sky gets "popped" - it will not matter much f.exs in the States (where after this Lance thing goes away), cycling will return to the obscurity from whence it came. 

A Sky-fall (pardon the pun) would hurt in GB,where Wiggo and Sky are being adored in much the same way as Lance/US Postal were in the Sataes. The mainland would be uneffected and perhaps even amused that the Anglos are taking another hit. Cycling on the continent will roll on without a hitch.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

Kerrison wasn't an unknown at all. He trained elite level rowers before swimming too, do you think the swimming community were winking at each other because a rowing coach was doing swimming? 

Just because you hadn't heard of him doesn't make him an unknown!


----------



## JustTooBig (Aug 11, 2005)

roddjbrown said:


> Kerrison wasn't an unknown at all. He trained elite level rowers before swimming too, do you think the swimming community were winking at each other because a rowing coach was doing swimming?
> 
> Just because you hadn't heard of him doesn't make him an unknown!


I think the very clear and reasonable inference that was made was that he was unknown to the cycling community, no?


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

Mike T. said:


> Try this article -
> 
> http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto...e?shareToken=ccea51abc589211e28ad23ea10f8b076


"The shared article you were trying to view was free for a limited time only and has now expired. 
Why not sign up to gain full access with packages starting from just £4 per week?"

Lame.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

SauronHimself said:


> "The shared article you were trying to view was free for a limited time only and has now expired.
> Why not sign up to gain full access with packages starting from just £4 per week?"
> 
> Lame.


Pro tip: clear your cookies.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

JustTooBig said:


> I think the very clear and reasonable inference that was made was that he was unknown to the cycling community, no?


"Kerrison was a complete unknown when he joined Sky"

Not sure that is clearly cycling related. Regardless it's pretty irrelevant as he'd been working with the British track team for some time before that.


----------



## gobes (Sep 12, 2006)

Didn't Brailsford make a similar offer to Kimmage and then changed his mind?


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

gobes said:


> Didn't Brailsford make a similar offer to Kimmage and then changed his mind?


He did, after Wiggins suddenly decided he didn't want him around. Suspicious


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Pretty good timeline from a guy who ain't necessarily buying what Brailsford is selling.

http://twitter.com/PaulKimmage


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

But wait, I am confused. I thought this coup was "impressive" and "what is needed to turn the sport around." 

Kimmage is going to lose support with the Brits for that, but someone needed to remind everyone of the "clean and transparent" policies behind Sky.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

moskowe said:


> It's a nice gesture, but a couple of thoughts:
> a) Remember Lance's "independent testing program" ?
> b) journalists have had "full access" to teams that doped for x length of time before and saw nothing
> c) power data. POWER DATA. Please release it to the public, or at least to Walsh.
> ...


Well how long was it before Armstrong stopped his independent testing program? I don't even think it lasted 1/4 of the season he announced it.

Additionally I think Sky has more incentive to stay clean because if a doping program existed Brailsford would actually do jail time AND the entire GB Olympic program would be fudged.

As for Kimmage vs Walsh, one could argue that Kimmage is like the old jaded cop who sees every ethnic person driving a fancy car as a hoodlum and says (and I have known cops who have said this)...there are no real victims only potential offenders. Not to say though that with the beating he has taken over the years such a jaded attitude is unjustified.


----------



## albert owen (Jul 7, 2008)

LostViking said:


> The mainland would be uneffected and perhaps even amused that the Anglos are taking another hit. Cycling on the continent will roll on without a hitch.


I disagree. The Continent has taken a huge hit already with sponsors pulling out and some teams already hanging on by a thread. 
If (and I stress IF) Sky are cheats, then forget cycling continuing in its present form anywhere - including the Olympics. 

IMO all this anti-Sky stuff is being put out for its cathartic effect on shell shocked former Lance lovers who are still in mourning for their fallen hero. 
Brits are a far more cynical bunch who do not see the world through rose tinted glasses. Remember, Britain is the Nation who dumped the one and only Winston Churchill the first chance it got after WW2.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

albert owen said:


> I disagree. The Continent has taken a huge hit already with sponsors pulling out and some teams already hanging on by a thread.
> If (and I stress IF) Sky are cheats, then forget cycling continuing in its present form anywhere - including the Olympics.


sponsors have always come and gone. Is the rate of sponsors leaving higher than in the past? 
Are budgets smaller (inflation adjusted) than, say, 10 years ago?


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

badge118 said:


> Well how long was it before Armstrong stopped his independent testing program? I don't even think it lasted 1/4 of the season he announced it.


Yes. He didn't know that his cheating was that obvious.
But as we all now Armstrong was still a protected rider back then, and his data was not scrutinized by the UCI. Later blod profile experts have said the chance of him being clean in '09 being very close to silch %.

As for Sky, I think they are clean. But it takes more to prove it than showing Walsh internal testing of a neo-pro. Remember David Millar started out squeeky clean. 
The twitterati have asked for complete blood profiles. I think that would be proof. If I understand Ashenden correctly a complete longitudinal blood profile would catch EPO micro-dosing too.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

The last Brailsford offer lasted...less than a month. Perhaps that explains Kimmage's (and my) skepticism.
Kimmage never relented. He was crazy enough to go challenge Armstrong face to face when he was having his "return to cycling" press conferences. He's a god, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

albert owen said:


> I disagree. The Continent has taken a huge hit already with sponsors pulling out and some teams already hanging on by a thread.
> If (and I stress IF) Sky are cheats, then forget cycling continuing in its present form anywhere - including the Olympics.


I think you're overstating the importance of Sky. Very few people outside of the British Isles are looking at them as a beacon for clean sport, and if they were found to be dirty the jaded public would barely bat an eyelash at this point. It would be devastating for the inbred British cycling community, but the ripples wouldn't likely cause any more of an effect than the departure of Rabobank. The damage is already done by the Postal/Puerto perfect storm, so the effect will likely be minimized.



albert owen said:


> IMO all this anti-Sky stuff is being put out for its cathartic effect on shell shocked former Lance lovers who are still in mourning for their fallen hero.
> Brits are a far more cynical bunch who do not see the world through rose tinted glasses. Remember, Britain is the Nation who dumped the one and only Winston Churchill the first chance it got after WW2.


So anyone who casts a jaded eye on the Sky team is automatically a Lance fanboy? That makes me giggle. Scrutiny and skepticism is a healthy thing, and this wouldn't have gone nearly this far if there had of been more of that sort of thing after Festina.

I don't think Sky is clean. To be honest, I don't think there is a clean team out there, except for maybe Garmin, and they're mostly former dopers who rarely make a significant dent in the results sheet. Even the French, once thought to be the cleaner teams out there, are showing cracks in their armor.

The "smart" teams through all of this are keeping quiet (instead of making loud statements about how outrageous this all is), tying up loose ends, ensuring their riders aren't too obvious or are properly tapered, and waiting for the storm to blow over. Judging by past experience, this seems to be an effective strategy.

It will be interesting to see who gets results this year, and who is conspicuously absent.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

If you actually believe there are no clean teams in pro cycling, what do you folks want? Why are you here?


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

moskowe said:


> He's a god, as far as I'm concerned.


Well, not quite a "god" but I would def take his word over that of Brailsford.

Fun to see how the Sky-supporters automatically roll out the sour grapes argument when someone dares to question Wiggo, Brailsford and Sky - sounds familiar doesn't it?


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

Didn't read the article (would rather not clear cookies to read it), but I did read last year's TdF and Olympics and I found that a pretty convincing argument against Sky. It's not the fact they won, it's how they won. The "all in" technique - that is, vowing on their mother's grave etc. etc. to have never ever cheated - is reminiscent of Lance and is painting a very ugly picture ahead if the dirty secrets surface. I'm sure they're banking on being able to keep it all under wraps, unlike what USPS could do. But all it takes is one disgruntled insider.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

foto said:


> If you actually believe there are no clean teams in pro cycling, what do you folks want? Why are you here?


I want to see clean racing, although I have been conditioned over the last decade or so to take everything I see in pro cycling with a grain of salt. 

I find spectacular efforts followed by spectacular blow-ups more compelling than sustained dominance, and more believable. Doping minimizes the achievements of the doped and clean alike.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I find it funny that you're a jealous LA fanboy if one questions Team Sky and that we learned about all this from US Postal......*BUT* I think it is more like T-Mobile 1996 IMO.  Even then, Lance never hold form like Wiggo during the season. US Postal/Disco never pulled off the 1-2 on the podium, nor did they support a sprinter. 

I hope for clean racing, but I don't expect to see it at this point. If anything, I think the modern peloton is learning how to be more secretive, nice to their team mates, and keep their mouth shut.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

spade2you said:


> I find it funny that you're a jealous LA fanboy if one questions Team Sky and that we learned about all this from US Postal......*BUT* I think it is more like T-Mobile 1996 IMO.  Even then, Lance never hold form like Wiggo during the season. US Postal/Disco never pulled off the 1-2 on the podium, nor did they support a sprinter.
> 
> I hope for clean racing, but I don't expect to see it at this point. If anything, I think the modern peloton is learning how to be more secretive, nice to their team mates, and keep their mouth shut.


I don't care one way or another, but to set the record straight:

Sky did not support a sprinter until the last stage of the tour
This was probably the weakest GC field in the last 20 years
It was an easy parcours
The break stayed away on almost every mountain stage

It was definitely a dominating tour, and a big season for Wiggins. But it wasn't an awe inspiring beat-down that some of the USPS rides were.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Alaska Mike said:


> I want to see clean racing, although I have been conditioned over the last decade or so to take everything I see in pro cycling with a grain of salt.
> 
> I find spectacular efforts followed by spectacular blow-ups more compelling than sustained dominance, and more believable. Doping minimizes the achievements of the doped and clean alike.


Someone can cast the doping doubt on just about any performance. 

Sustained performance: Doping
Coming out of nowhere: Doping
Bad day: Bad blood bad
Good day: Transfusion
One strong rider on a team: Doper
Three stronger riders: Inner circle of dopers
Strong team: Big doping program
Riding tempo: Doping
Crazy attacks: Doping
Smiling: Doping
No emotions on the face: Doping
Big chin: HGH
Smooth Forehead: Botox



This isn't to say that so-and-so is clean. It's really a matter of how you want to look at it. If you come in conditioned to see doping everywhere you're going to see doping everywhere. 


I actually don't think that a surprise victory or someone coming out of nowhere is evidence of doping. Van Summeren had a good day when he won Paris-Roubaix -- was he accused? I also do not think that Froome being on the verge of breaking Wiggo off riding tempo was evidence of doping--if Wiggo is doped to the gills, why not break everyone off? And so on. 

Ultimately, I put more weight in tests and biopassports than how someone won.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

foto said:


> I don't care one way or another, but to set the record straight:
> 
> Sky did not support a sprinter until the last stage of the tour
> This was probably the weakest GC field in the last 20 years
> ...


Cav doesn't win without being supported during the race. The support of keeping a leash on the breakaways throughout the day is seldom shown when they televise the races. 5+ hour races are televised as 2 hour races with 30 minutes of ads.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

spade2you said:


> Cav doesn't win without being supported during the race. The support of keeping a leash on the breakaways throughout the day is seldom shown when they televise the races. 5+ hour races are televised as 2 hour races with 30 minutes of ads.


The sprinter teams did the chasing, Cavendish was pure opportunist at the last tour, and got in a number of crashes as a result because he had to fend for himself.

Lotto, Greenedge, Liquigas, Argos, those were the teams doing the work to make the sprint happen, Sky only protected the GC interests.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Forgot to address your thread about a lack of a GC threat. Didn't that happen in '99?


----------



## Skaha (Oct 30, 2012)

roddjbrown said:


> "Kerrison was a complete unknown when he joined Sky"


While spinning away the winter hours on my trainer, I've been watching the 2012 season over. There are two observations that I have of Sky that have been consistently reinforced.

1. They had the best teamwork of any team in the 2012 season. The protection and pacing they provide day after day for Wiggins is beyond what I've seen from any other team in years.
2. Wiggins is incredibly strong, as is the whole team. It has been my thought that they either have a good team wide doping program or they have discovered a new training technique that is putting them ahead of the other teams. Having someone like Kerrison join their coaching team may very well have provided that "new thing".


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Skaha said:


> ...or they have discovered a new training technique that is putting them ahead of the other teams. Having someone like Kerrison join their coaching team may very well have provided that "new thing".


... and so it has been proclaimed dozens of times for the past 25 years for many, many teams... and it wasn't true in every single instance.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

spade2you said:


> Forgot to address your thread about a lack of a GC threat. Didn't that happen in '99?


Yes, that's true.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Just imagine if Sky had paced Wiggi and given Cavendish proper leadouts. 

Yellow and Green Jersey: Doping.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

albert owen said:


> IMO all this anti-Sky stuff is being put out for its cathartic effect on shell shocked former Lance lovers who are still in mourning for their fallen hero.
> Brits are a far more cynical bunch who do not see the world through rose tinted glasses. Remember, Britain is the Nation who dumped the one and only Winston Churchill the first chance it got after WW2.


That is a strange take, since I linked to Paul Kimmage's tweets re: his skepticism of Brailsford and Wiggins. I guess Kimmage is a closet Lance fan boi. I am also willing to bet money that those cynical bunch of Brits you refer to have very little idea of who Geert Leinders is, or the strange 180 degree turn of "Sir Brad's" anti doping stance.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Cableguy said:


> Didn't read the article (would rather not clear cookies to read it), but I did read last year's TdF and Olympics and I found that a pretty convincing argument against Sky. It's not the fact they won, it's how they won. The "all in" technique - that is, vowing on their mother's grave etc. etc. to have never ever cheated - is reminiscent of Lance and is painting a very ugly picture ahead if the dirty secrets surface. I'm sure they're banking on being able to keep it all under wraps, unlike what USPS could do. But all it takes is one disgruntled insider.


Tbh I think one the things people are missing about Sky is MONEY. Brailsford found a sponsor that is passionate about the sport and has some of the deepest pockets in the world. Sky does NOT need the exposure. They are already one of the largest Networks owned in part by one of the largest media conglomerates in the world.

Brailsford is basically using the same method British Cycling used on the track...spend a butt ton of money and get results.

Does this mean there is no doping? Of course not, but not taking into account the impact finances can have on performance means you are missing half the picture.

It's actually why I think pro-cycling should take some pages out of US sports. Raise minimum salaries and institute Salary caps. Just putting teams on an more even playing field financially would make a huge difference imo.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Local Hero said:


> Ultimately, I put more weight in tests and biopassports than how someone won.


That's just the problem we've had for the last couple decades- people trusting that the testing is sufficient to catch the dopers. Postal wasn't the only set of riders that didn't get caught during that era. The greatest anti-drug cases of this era (Festina, Puerto, Lance...) didn't have their beginnings in drug testing, but in informants and police raids. Forgive me if I'm skeptical.

So now, in addition to the incredible things Team Sky has done with marginal gains, they've revolutionized the concept of teamwork? I'm not buying that. When you're the strongest team in the race (for whatever reason), it's much easier to use teamwork. When all of your domestiques are strung off the back, it's a little harder.

I _hope_ that they are clean. However, I can't just go with their say-so anymore. Too many riders (not just the American ones) have professed their innocence only to admit later that they were doped to the gills and knew exactly how to get past the doping controls.

Based on recent history, there is no presumption of innocence for riders and teams. If they don't like it, they should find another sport. This is going to be front and center for a while. Every time they do a press conference, the questions will be asked. Another profanity-laden response is not going to convince anyone, because dopers have been known to deny loudly as well. They're going to have to face facts that there are a good number of people that don't trust them, and a good number of the press corps have decided that they won't lay down anymore. That's the playing field these days.

As for Johan Van Summeren, his win in Roubaix was a result of a strong rider taking advantage of the team tactics the others were using against Boonen and Cancellara. As I recall, the UCI ranked him as a 3/10 in the 2010 TDF "Index of Suspicion". Doesn't sound too bad until you consider that Lance was a 4/10, and there were more than a few current and former dopers in the categories around him. Again, relying on drug testing to be proof of guilt or innocence no longer cuts it, especially when the UCI was cutting Biological Passport funding during those years. I'm not saying he's dirty, because I love it when a true domestique (not the "super" variant) wins a big race. I'm not saying he's clean either. What I'm saying is that I don't know, and I'm going with a jaded view of the peloton. I'm still going to celebrate their victories, but I'm not going to contribute to any defense funds a month later.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Alaska Mike said:


> That's just the problem we've had for the last couple decades- people trusting that the testing is sufficient to catch the dopers.


That's not what I said.

Can you explain what wild speculation accomplishes? Why is it superior to testing? 

What about presuming that riders are guilty? How does that help?


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

*Re: Team Sky, Walsh &amp; doping.*



Alaska Mike said:


> That's just the problem we've had for the last couple decades- people trusting that the testing is sufficient to catch the dopers. Postal wasn't the only set of riders that didn't get caught during that era. The greatest anti-drug cases of this era (Festina, Puerto, Lance...) didn't have their beginnings in drug testing, but in informants and police raids. Forgive me if I'm skeptical.
> 
> So now, in addition to the incredible things Team Sky has done with marginal gains, they've revolutionized the concept of teamwork? I'm not buying that. When you're the strongest team in the race (for whatever reason), it's much easier to use teamwork. When all of your domestiques are strung off the back, it's a little harder.
> 
> ...


Kinda like if you don't want to be stopped for DWB don't drive in a white neighborhood? I mean lets be serious, what business does some kid from the ghetto have in that neighborhood..... 

I am sure you could see where that conversation would continue to go and the logic there and the logic you are espousing are largely identical.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Local Hero said:


> Ultimately, I put more weight in tests and biopassports than how someone won.





Local Hero said:


> That's not what I said.
> Can you explain what wild speculation accomplishes? Why is it superior to testing?


You essentially implied that you trust the testing, or place some measure of faith in it to differentiate the clean from the dirty with that comment, didn't you? As recent confessions have shown, exceptional performances have roots that the testing does not always catch. There are far more riders keeping quiet than those that are coming forward. The TRC may increase the flow, but I have a feeling that the main ones that will come forward are not active riders, but rather the recently retired that are looking for a DS or other support gig in the future. Given the fragile nature of sponsorships and the hand that Levi was dealt post-confession (deserved or not), can you blame them?

It's not wild speculation or tinfoil hat theories. It's watching trends and making logical assumptions. You may see the same set of data and come to a different conclusion. To some degree it's a coping mechanism on my part, because I don't want to be let down again. Perhaps you want to believe, because maybe the sport would meaningless to you if you didn't. I don't know you, so I'm just making an assumption about you based on your posts here, which may or may not be correct.


Local Hero said:


> What about presuming that riders are guilty? How does that help?


I think the sport needs a healthy dose of skepticism. Too long those that knew winked and acted like it didn't exist. For many people (including a lot of fans), doping was a part of "being a professional", and those that didn't weren't doing their jobs.

There needs to be a stigma attached to doping, so that those that do are shunned inside and outside the peloton, instead of being described as having "exceptional form today" or whatever catchphrase for doping they want to use. Clean riders should not be the exception, or something that is touted as being unique and special, but rather the norm.

Until that happens, the pressure should come from all sides (fans, teams, sponsors, federations...) not to dope. You may not remember it, but the last time we turned the page on doping and had a bright, clean future was in '99. How'd that turn out? There was a real chance to turn things around, and nearly _*everyone*_ dropped the ball, and those that didn't were negated. A healthy dose of skepticism is exactly what the sport needs.

...and for the record, I believe in Saul Raisin.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

badge118 said:


> Kinda like if you don't want to be stopped for DWB don't drive in a white neighborhood? I mean lets be serious, what business does some kid from the ghetto have in that neighborhood.....
> 
> I am sure you could see where that conversation would continue to go and the logic there and the logic you are espousing are largely identical.


If that kid also had a rap sheet as long as his arm, driving a stolen car, and a trunk full of silverware, your comparison would be apt.

We're barely down the rabbit hole, and we haven't heard but a small fraction of the story. It wasn't just Postal and Rabobank that had programs. We haven't heard detailed descriptions of the other teams that obviously had organized programs, and many of their riders are either still active or performing support roles for the teams. I'm not saying that they are bad people (or that I wouldn't have made the same choice if I was in their shoes), but old habits die hard (Omerta) and undetected doping is a proven way to ensure a job in a sport with few guarantees for riders. How many times in the the last few years have you seen a guy in his late 30s riding at the front, and how many times has Liggett commented about how he's "never seen him ride so well"? As Lance would say, _not normal_.

For me we've moved beyond "trust but verify", and it seems the ADA world agrees. Passports/other longitudinal and OOC testing are not something you do if you place a lot of trust in an athlete being clean. Instead, you go through the considerable expense and hassle because you _don't_ trust the athletes. Otherwise, you would test at the race and be done with it, and assume that what you see there is indicative of the rest of the year. Is it 100% effective? Nope, but it's the best we've got at the moment.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

This is all one big bummer. I don't believe the cynics here will ever be satisfied with any of the current generation of cyclists, no matter what they say and do. For example, last year this board had way more traffic than Pro Cycling did, even during the middle of the Giro when perhaps one of the cleanest riders in the peloton won.

I remember when posts started picking up in Pro Cycling during last season, second week of the tour when Sky was running their Man Train -- to come in and claim they are all cheating.

Sad.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

I think it's easy to make the case that they've earned our disrespect.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

foto said:


> This is all one big bummer. I don't believe the cynics here will ever be satisfied with any of the current generation of cyclists, no matter what they say and do. For example, last year this board had way more traffic than Pro Cycling did, even during the middle of the Giro when perhaps one of the cleanest riders in the peloton won.
> 
> I remember when posts started picking up in Pro Cycling during last season, second week of the tour when Sky was running their Man Train -- to come in and claim they are all cheating.
> 
> Sad.


Doubting that a world class cyclist rides clean is like doubting that the heroin addict really wants the $20 to go get treatment... and I'm pretty sure Sky, along with most other teams, are just going to use my $20 to buy more heroin.


----------



## thighmaster (Feb 2, 2006)

Mike T. said:


> If Sky bugger it up then the whole bloody sport of competitive cycling should be sh!tt-canned and governing bodies closed down. It should only exist at the recreational level and it should be illegal for any two people to race each other. Strava should be illegal too.


What part of "everyone of them" don't you get? How come with all the pervasivness, you still think it's just a few? I want to beleive too, but every other one has fallen. But don't cave to the Make it illegal deal. Be the straight one who can hold ones head high.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Alaska Mike said:


> You essentially implied that you trust the testing, or place some measure of faith in it to differentiate the clean from the dirty with that comment, didn't you?


Rather than talk about what I _essentially implied_, we can look to what I actually said 



> To some degree it's a coping mechanism on my part, because I don't want to be let down again.


I understand how someone emotionally vested would feel jaded. It sounds personal. Understand that for a myriad of reason there are others who may not share your heartbreak or disillusionment.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Local Hero said:


> Rather than talk about what I _essentially implied_, we can look to what I actually said


My fault, I thought I was. Perhaps I misinterpreted your statement. Would you like to elaborate?

We could go around and around about what constitutes proof. Some require concrete failure of a drug test, while others point to other metrics that may indicate something that the tests did not catch. If anything, relevations during the last couple years have indicated that there are far more dopers than failed drug tests. I believe the numbers of dopers and the extents to which they will go has decreased significantly thanks to improved testing, but there are still a lot of dopers out there.


Local Hero said:


> I understand how someone emotionally vested would feel jaded. It sounds personal. Understand that for a myriad of reason there are others who may not share your heartbreak or disillusionment.


Emotionally invested and heartbreak are stong words, which I don't usually apply to cycling, or to heroes in general. In fact, I can honestly say I don't look at any professional athlete as a hero or idol. There are ones I admire for various reasons, but I recognize that they are human, and can and will make mistakes. It's how they deal with their mistakes that is more important to me. Several riders have shown themselves to be less than I would have hoped.

It's not personal, it's pragmatic. I've never torn my garments and wailed at the sky because some rider got popped. I recognize it as part of the sport, as it is part of most (if not all) professional sports to one degree or another. Competitive humans are naturally wired to seek every advantage, and not every one has the moral strength to resist going the extra step. Do I get upset when a rider I suspect is doping wins? Not really. Where there's one, there's another- this does not happen in a vaccuum.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

To elaborate: I didn't prop up drug testing. I said that speculating is even less reliable than testing.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

and I would add that the only thing to pin on Sky at the moment is speculation.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Local Hero said:


> To elaborate: I didn't prop up drug testing. I said that speculating is even less reliable than testing.


If history is any guide, that is open to debate.

I know you go with high standards of proof, and that is an admirable stance. However, I maintain that standard has protected dirty riders for decades, and done far more to hurt clean riders than an assumption of guilt ever has.

Then again, I'm in the military in the Homeland Defense field. We trust no one.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

DrSmile said:


> ... and so it has been proclaimed dozens of times for the past 25 years for many, many teams... and it wasn't true in every single instance.


Exactly. There's no "new thing" in training that isn't widely known within minutes (i.e. ED drugs to improve performance at altitude), and most of the real new things are worth at best the tiniest fraction of 1%. Getting amazingly close to your genetic potential doesn't require any magic new training method in the first place. Simply put, evolution didn't favor humans that needed precise, detailed training programs to outrun a predator or catch a meal.

I think the most likely scenario with Sky is the team itself is "clean", the riders are dirty, and this is all to establish the "did everything we could" defense. Putting that much money into anything guarantees there is pressure for results and that alone is enough to lead to getting there by any means necessary.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

I think you're wrong. There is much hope in the upcoming (i.e. younger than 25) generation of cyclists. Guys like Kittel, Sagan (alright perhaps a bad example), Pinot, Phinney, etc...These guys are seeing the actual changes, yet you don't hear them prattle on about "the past." They ride, they do the work, they say what they actually think about guys who didn't do the work, and they win races.
There's even some hope for some of the current "top of their form" riders, like Greipel, who at 30 is coming out hard against doping. 

But there is very little hope for the old guard. As far as I'm concerned, they're almost all dopeheads and ex-dopeheads. When you hear Cancellara on cyclingnews today say that he doesn't want to focus on "old stuff that hapened in 1994 or 2004," what else can you do but dismiss every veteran in the peloton ?
I hate to lay some on Hesjedal, but he went toe to toe with Rodriguez (suspicious), he did ride US Postal for 2 years and Phonak for a year (suspicious), and he rides for the most hypocritical team in the peloton. If only based on my first point, you should be suspicious of his performance, and it pains me to say that because he's a great guy and could help the development of road cycling in Canada a lot. 
And seriously, how can you not expect this board to have traffic when Katusha is leading a GT ? lol

Anyway, to get back on topic, I hope Walsh gets past his bias, honors his reputation as a solid investigative journalist, and takes his assignment at heart by trying really hard to dig some dirt. If he doesn't find some, all the better for cycling.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

moskowe said:


> But there is very little hope for the old guard. As far as I'm concerned, they're almost all dopeheads and ex-dopeheads. When you hear Cancellara on cyclingnews today say that he doesn't want to focus on "old stuff that hapened in 1994 or 2004," what else can you do but dismiss every veteran in the peloton ?


I agree with this. I was disappointed to hear the "let's not dwell on the past" refrain from Spartacus. Not much doubt anymore that his blood bags were in Fuentes' care.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Alaska Mike said:


> If that kid also had a rap sheet as long as his arm, driving a stolen car, and a trunk full of silverware, your comparison would be apt.


Ummm you forgot something. You don't find out if the kid has a rap sheet or a trunk full of silverware UNTIL you have stopped him just because he was ethnic. Kinda the same way you are addressing cyclists.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

badge118 said:


> Ummm you forgot something. You don't find out if the kid has a rap sheet or a trunk full of silverware UNTIL you have stopped him just because he was ethnic. Kinda the same way you are addressing cyclists.


Again, I'm involved with Homeland Defense, so I believe profiling has a role in law enforcement.

I also think that you would have discovered that the kid has a rap sheet or a trunk full of silverware, once you noticed that he was driving a stolen car. The stolen car, in the case of cyclists, are results outside an established norm. The human race and the limits that it can achieve have not evolved in the last 30 years. Doping development has made exponential strides.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Alaska Mike said:


> Again, I'm involved with Homeland Defense, so I believe profiling has a role in law enforcement.
> 
> I also think that you would have discovered that the kid has a rap sheet or a trunk full of silverware, once you noticed that he was driving a stolen car. The stolen car, in the case of cyclists, are results outside an established norm. The human race and the limits that it can achieve have not evolved in the last 30 years. Doping development has made exponential strides.


Um yeah, your not supposed to admit that. Profiling is illegal. At least officially.

Not to mention the obvious ethical issues, which i would be happy to discuss with you down in PO, if you want.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

double post


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Alaska Mike said:


> results outside an established norm.


That's the rub. 

What are we talking about here, when we say an _established norm_? Is it a sprinter averaging 22mph up some HC climb or domestiques tapping out a boring "tempo" on the climb? 

Is _an established norm_ a track sprinter transitioning to grand tour sprinter or a track endurance racer transitioning to grand tour contender? 

I'm not challenging you to answer these questions. I agree that someone going beyond what we expect for natural human capability should raise eyebrows. I just think people can disagree on the smaller details, like whether the look of someone's chin or eyebrows are evidence of HGH. Or whether an expression-less face is evidence of EPO.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Alaska Mike said:


> Again, I'm involved with Homeland Defense, so I believe profiling has a role in law enforcement.
> 
> I also think that you would have discovered that the kid has a rap sheet or a trunk full of silverware, once you noticed that he was driving a stolen car. The stolen car, in the case of cyclists, are results outside an established norm. The human race and the limits that it can achieve have not evolved in the last 30 years. Doping development has made exponential strides.


And I am a cop for 15 years. Yes profiling has a place. RACIAL profiling, or any single criteria profiling does not. There is a difference not only ethically but legally as well. Sadly too many people, including some involved in LE, miss the all important distinction.

I'll give you an example I was given in a counter-terror course. Stopping any male because he appears arab? No. 

Stopping and talking to the person who looks arab, has an uneven tan on his face due to the very recent removal of a thick beard, a zebibah (prayer bump) on his forehead, wearing a jacket inappropriate for the weather, an almost robotic type walk due to the extra weight of explosive (also they may be under the influence of an intoxicant), a 1000 yard stare, concealed hands etc. This is a person you wish to intercept.

The problem is your definition does NOT firmly exist. You will find NO doctor who would write a paper saying "X is the absolute limit of human performance." So you wish to base a profile on something that can not be quantified. Ergo it is subjective and also devoid of an all important criteria of circumstantial evidence..."the totality of the circumstances" as the X quantity can not be defined.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

As law enforcement, do you feel that people can change?

Even as hospital personnel, I don't have the brightest outlook for people. Then again, all the cheating I saw in college didn't help my opinions, either.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

I think I'm going to bow out, because at this point we are pretty well set in our opinions. Do consider this, though:

You're applying US standards of justice to a multi-national organization, which has member associations for countries that have much lower standards of proof and different stances on "innocence until proven guilty"/profiling than the US. 

The last time I was in Europe, I don't know how many border guards pulled my bus driver over and searched him, his papers, and his vehicle thoroughly- because he was Belgian. 5 drivers in the convoy (2 Swiss, 3 Belgians), and the only 3 stopped for "random" searches were the Belgians. At each and every one of the 14 border crossings we did, at least one of the Belgians was hassled. Their papers, run through the company, were in order, and were processed by the same people as did the Swiss drivers papers. Profiling? Maybe, or they just really hate the Belgians. At least they were of Persian descent.

Again, I'm out of this one.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

No doubt. Law Enforcement is a little different than international security, and like you said, many other countries don't have this Constitution thing protecting the rights of individuals from unlawful search and seizure, and what the 14th one does, the everyone is equal one.



Alaska Mike said:


> I think I'm going to bow out, because at this point we are pretty well set in our opinions. Do consider this, though:
> 
> You're applying US standards of justice to a multi-national organization, which has member associations for countries that have much lower standards of proof and different stances on "innocence until proven guilty"/profiling than the US.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Sky's former Doctor under criminal investigation

Report: Leinders to face criminal investigation | Cycling News


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

moskowe said:


> I think you're wrong. There is much hope in the upcoming (i.e. younger than 25) generation of cyclists. Guys like Kittel, Sagan (alright perhaps a bad example), Pinot, Phinney, etc...These guys are seeing the actual changes, yet you don't hear them prattle on about "the past." They ride, they do the work, they say what they actually think about guys who didn't do the work, and they win races.


The problem is the teams (and governing bodies) are run and controlled by the old guard- the managers, doctors, DS's, soigneurs, etc from the "bad old days". It's hard to find a team that doesn't have significant ties to the EPO era.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

RRRoubaix said:


> The problem is the teams (and governing bodies) are run and controlled by the old guard- the managers, doctors, DS's, soigneurs, etc from the "bad old days". It's hard to find a team that doesn't have significant ties to the EPO era.


Agreed. There's a lot of (bad) experience out there. Like anything else, they learn from mistakes and simply get better at it. Needless to say, I think staff learned a few things about what not to do with US Postal.


----------

