I wonder if it explains the teamgGB clique of riders who were treated well, and those who were bullied out of the program. Are the inner circle those who were more receptive to doping?

I wonder if it explains the teamgGB clique of riders who were treated well, and those who were bullied out of the program. Are the inner circle those who were more receptive to doping?

It’s a theory. And not a terrible one.

Another theory is that Sutton is a massive bellend.

Both theories may be true of course.

Interestingly, (or not), depends on your POV I guess, I’ve just asked one of my GPs if she’s knows whether giving testogel to a rider would help his performance. Her answer: “no idea” Now, she’s not a sports doctor, and not a follower of cycling, but she had to think about it, and she commented afterwards; “I’m not sure the teeny amounts in Testogel would make any difference to a  trained athlete”

So, just so’s you know. Just because we assume that doctors know about this stuff, some don’t.

Contador won 3 grand tours after Froome won his first? Valverde has 6 tour podiums and 13 top 10s in that period.

So sky weren’t dominating them then?

So sky weren’t dominating them then?

C’mon, this isn’t difficult to understand..

Team Sky/Ineos won the TDF in 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 & 2019.

Contador entered 5 of those and lost every time (retiring in 2017).

Valverde entered every single one of those and lost every time.

You don’t need to dominate to win, you just need to be a tiny fraction faster than everyone else.

Winning 7 out of 8 Grand Tours is domination, whichever way you look at it.

Besides which, “What constitutes dominating?” really is splitting hairs – the issue is doping.

The basic facts are: A clean team hires blood doping doctors and consistently beat world class dopers with climb times that are comparable with doping eras. They try to cover up/deflect doping stories (Brailsford/Daily Mail), destroy / lose laptops, and lie about illegal drugs ordered, as well as order dodgy TUEs before big races.

They are of course clean, as that’s what they claim, and we all know this is the new clean era.

They are of course clean, as that’s what they claim, and we all know this is the new clean era.

I think you’re willfully misinterpreting the general attitude of UK cycling fans, which IME is now that Sky were definitely not squeaky clean, but also probably not organising blood or EPO-based doping.

Wiggo’s halo is permanently tarnished. Rules have definitely been bent. But it’s by no means clear that Froome was cheating – he may just have been the best rider in the best team with the best domestiques and the best budget.

The murkiness of the whole situation is the frustrating thing, but we’ve had to learn to enjoy the sport without the guarantee that what we’re watching is clean.

he may just have been the best rider in the best team with the best domestiques and the best budget.

I agree this is a possibility. Just a highly unlikely one, given all the smoke.

Hiring Leinders to heal cuts and bruises, when everyone in cycling knew his practices.
Massive improvements in rider performance.
Regularly beating known dopers, with the Sky train dominating Mountain stages a la US Postal.
Plenty of lying and attempted cover ups.
dodgy TUEs
illegal Testostorone ordered

Based on cycling’s past, all of this is very very suspicious, and given the fact they’ve already lied multiple times, I personally find their version of events highly unlikely to be true.

When I watch racing I do it with the expectation/understanding/knowledge that I’m watching doped riders. Its still a race, so I often wonder, does that change the enjoyment.

For me the enjoyment is tarnished because they pretend not to cheat. I wonder if they didn’t pretend, would that make it more enjoyable to watch. Do I dislike the lying more than the doping ?

I’m sure a few of us watched in amazement at Van D Poles 1000+ watt up hill sprint the other day – that was good to see. But how many of us think he is clean ? Sure, its nice to think he is clean, but is it realistic ?

Does it matter ?

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/about/article/20210312-about-bc-news-British-Cycling-statement-on-the-Dr–Freeman-tribunal-0

I’m sure a few of us watched in amazement at Van D Poles 1000+ watt up hill sprint the other day – that was good to see. But how many of us think he is clean ?

Well I try to default to thinking they are clean, especially a youngster of his pedigree racing the classics (where the day-after-day recovery benefit of doping is not so relevant).

The last racing I remember watching and actually getting angry while the race was still happening was Chris Horner winning the Vuelta, and that was back in 2013.

Oh the ironing – using Valverde’s palmares as a stick to beat Sky 🤣 Thanks to the Spanish judiciary he was the only Puerto cyclist not to get a ban – along with the Spanish tennis player, motor racing driver, footballerists and athletes who all had a perfectly normal, professional relationship with a gynaecologist…

Thing is cycling is such a brutal sport at the top level, that I don’t think it will ever be clean. I think it is a lot cleaner than it was, especially compared to the crazy EPO era. But someone will always try to break the rules.

There will be riders and/or staff that will know who this was for, but nobody will say anything unless they are desperate to sell a story. A bit like Floyd Landis, if he had been given a spot on the team with Amrstrong after his doping ban ended he would have never spilled the beans and nobody would be any more the wiser and Armstrong would still be regarded as a major cycling hero.

The thing I would like to know is who paid for Freeman’s defence?
This farce,sorry trial has gone on for over 2 years which must have cost someone a fortune!,did the former team Sky pay for this to stop him dropping the rock on them? Now he has been found guilty how long will it be before Freeman flogs his story to the tabloids?

This farce,sorry trial has gone on for over 2 years

Hasn’t a lot of that time just been adjournments because he was troubled in his health?

There do seem to have been loads of hearings though, so it’s a valid question.

Sutton is a massive bellend.

I thought not, given Freeman’s claim.

Oh, you said is, not has.

Perhaps if the sponsors did more about the cheating it would become harder to cheat and not worth it. So Sky need to ask for their money back from everyone in the team.

That will make them squeak and spill the beans and act as a disincentive to other cheaters.

Contador entered 5 of those and lost every time (retiring in 2017).

Valverde entered every single one of those and lost every time.

2012 Contador won the vuelta beating froome in the process
2013 Contador beaten in tour by sky (ill in run up to it?) but still fourth
2015 Contador had won the giro, beating sky and crashed heavily in the tour losing multiple minutes
2016 tour, had lost three minutes in a crash before binning
2017 busted flush.

Not really sky dominating Contador and during that period did the doped up sky win any other GTs ? Vuelta in 2017, strangely little for such a doped up team.

Valverde has only been a tour contender in his head and Movistar planning meetings

Perhaps if the sponsors did more about the cheating it would become harder to cheat and not worth it. So Sky need to ask for their money back from everyone in the team.

Because as the hearing stated, there’s no proof that any rider doped.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/56367117

This was a GMC hearing to determine Freeman’s conduct, fitness to practice and if he ordered the Testogel knowing or believing that it was to be used for doping purposes.

The murkiness of the whole situation is the frustrating thing, but we’ve had to learn to enjoy the sport without the guarantee that what we’re watching is clean.

I’d like to believe Sky et al were not systematically doping, but I’m pretty sure marginal gains will have pushed the boundaries. Anyone thinking that any team is truly beyond any suspicion is naive I fear.

Have we destroyed the idea that Froomes improvement was due to the treatment for undiagnosed bilharzia?

Really hoped this thread was going to be half-life related

Wiggo lost 8kgs to win the TDF & it didn’t turn him into a world class climber – it just meant he didn’t get totally blown away on the climbs.
Sky didn’t always dominate on the mountain stages either. IIRC Movistar, on more than one occasion, ran them ragged.
Lying? I’d say they are economical with the truth. David Walsh might say “No smoking gun….yet”
Dogdy TUE? Without doubt, but thems the rules & they are all at it. Blame the game, not the player?…
(Let’s not talk about Froome’s shady puffer…I have my doubts but Sky’s explanation does seem just about plausible & is mostly believed).

There’s plenty of reason to doubt Sky, but as yet, no proof. Not yet anyway. There’s certainly no reason either to point the finger & say they were ALL at it. It does have hints of Armstrong all over again…..but I do believe everyone is innocent till proved otherwise.

FYI I FING HATE CHEATS.

Paris Nice highlights at 7pm on ITV4 (or 8pm on +1) has a discussion about the outcome if anyone is interested…

.but I do believe everyone is innocent till proved otherwise.

I agree. But also if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck.. given where pro cycling has been since forever, it’s hard to believe in them either. So, innocent* but in the shade of a large cloud of suspicion that in this area doesn’t seem to be going away.

*Then I remember the PEDs fine line of ‘legal but shady’.

One of the things in this threads that annoys me is the lines. No previous track record. Not a great time trialist or f2f ride before this date.

It shows shows zero understanding of stage racing.

You only ride a time trial fast with your teams permission. You can ride 30 average time trials in your career because thats your job. They want you fresh for the next day. Then one day you get the order go for it. Save with climbing, same gc

Does anybody know why Brailsford wasn’t questioned/ asked to give evidence? Is it because it’s a GMC thing? His statements would be interesting.

The thing I would like to know is who paid for Freeman’s defence?

Most likely his indemnity provider. It’s what every clinician pays annual fees for.

Strange use of the word Hero . He wasn’t saving lives , just helping sportsmen train better.

I’ve long maintained that there is no way to prove an athlete is clean. You can either pass or fail doping  control but passing is no indicator of clean.

working in the medical sector I’m not expecting the gmc to actually do much. There is little chance of him being struck off. I have seen cases of doctors making some serious mistakes causing life changing damage to patients and the gmc do nothing

Well they all seem suspect to me. The team Dr didn’t give them performance enhancing drugs without the riders knowing. That’s pretty impossible.

Come to mention that the team Dr would not give them banned substances without the team manager knowing

Not the same sport, but I know someone who was a dr for a professional football team. Everything they did went through the manager. They left when the club asked them to start doing stuff they didn’t agree with.

As to GMC, the rules of cycling determine you can’t give the drugs, a doctor could well be allowed to prescribe the drug for medical reasons

Does anybody know why Brailsford wasn’t questioned/ asked to give evidence? Is it because it’s a GMC thing? His statements would be interesting.

Because it was a Medical Practitioner’s Tribunal. There were 22 charges against him

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/freeman-tribunal-the-full-damning-list-of-allegations/

The purpose of the tribunal was to assess his fitness to practice, it was not about doping (or even really about cycling).

Sutton was a witness because he was used as the defence – the claim being that the testosterone was a quiet “add on” to the normal medical orders for the team to treat his erectile problems. He denied that.

During the whole hearing, none of it was specifically about Sky/Ineos, Dave B, Team GB, British Cycling or even really cycle sport in general. The way this thread has gone off into the usual anti-Sky “they must all have been doping” seems to be an indication that very few people have actually understood what it was about.

Strange use of the word Hero . He wasn’t saving lives , just helping sportsmen train better.

I believe the OP was suggesting that a Sky TdF winner might be going down.

And making what appears to be an unfounded assumption about the testosterone and that Jiffy Bag.

Unless I missed a link to that in the evidence?

crazy-legs link is worth reading.

@crazy-legs thanks, well explained.

Yes, my reference to “hero” in the future was a suggestion that this may lead to the loss of wins from a riders palmares, either olympic or uci. I’m aware that this trial is purely a medical trial about freeman, but the very fact that he’s been found guilty of ordering testosterone “knowing or believing it was intended for a rider” means there will be a follow up investigation to attempt to determine who that rider was, and why and when it was used. It’s not definite that it will lead to any convictions or sanctions, hell it’s not definite that they’ll ever determine who it was, but that possibility is there

Just because we assume that doctors know about this stuff, some don’t.

I actually assume doctors (especially jack of all trade GPs) know very little outside of their wide but shallow field.

What’s interesting to me here is that some would want to see direct proof or evidence before thinking a rider (Sky, etc) was ‘at it’. That’s fair. Others look at the Freeman example, the ‘marginal gains’ vs some poor record keeping and TUE line-pushing against the background of road racing and it creates an impression. That’s less fair, though we know not all crimes or cheats are proven or detected.

Would we say/think the same about politicians or business dealings for example, or personal relationships? Are we consistent?

Which side of things I sit on here is more emotive than evidential and it’s not a position I’d call an opinion, just a reaction. An impression that makes belief near impossible. There’s a few riders that I do believe in, some of them were on the Sky team though and this means the questions are there. It’s sad really, the team and management did that more than any individual rider. I expect if I truly understood racing, the process, had followed every shred of detail in all this maybe I would trust them. Shouldn’t need that level of understanding though, why isn’t ‘clean’ easy to demonstrate, is it that hard to avoid contradictions and be transparent? Dunno. Interested because underneath all the scepticism I do want to see riders do great things and know they did it the right way. I think we do, still.

Edit to add – the link about the Freeman trial purpose sort of backs this up, we see a Dr ordering something banned and create links to riders. Those links are not evidence or even valid. What I do see is a team who weren’t as on top of the details as they (very clearly) said they were, an example of credibility lost. I suppose what I’m getting at is that I’d support a team who didn’t win but put the effort into total transparency and working harder to overcome the baggage that pro racing has. Would a sponsor? OT.. or maybe not – winning creates the pressure to flex or break rules but that’s what’s undermining the sport and why sponsors get wary.

I just saw this on Twitter. I’ve lost the original tweet now thanks to Twitter refreshing, but it was asking along the lines of “can we believe that a team who knew the weight of the paint on a riders bike world not know what the doctor was doing”

https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2021/mar/12/marginal-or-medical-gains-freeman-verdict-leaves-questions-unanswered?__twitter_impression=true

What I find most odd in this is Freeman’s claim that the Testogel was for Shane Sutton. He was never going to admit to that was he? Far better to claim it was for himself.