Right to be cynical about Sky

Info request submitted to
Info request submitted to WADA and UCI. Just preparing a freedom of info to Sheffield Uni.

stumps wrote:Dropped

stumps wrote:

Dropped wrote:

Freedom of Information Act only applies to UK Government organisations so any application to WADA and UCI would be entirely pointless.

Apologies, i didn’t make myself completely clear. WADA have an information system whereby you can apply for info through their website. Likewise the UCI have a list of contacts for similar info requests.

Oh, right – I’ll ask WADA for all Henao’s data? Get real – have you heard of data protection?

However, Sky did state at the time that Sheffield Uni ‘hoped’ to produce a research paper based on their findings. Genuine question – does this paper exist?

BTW, didn’t DB study for an MBA at Sheffield Uni?

daddyELVIS wrote:bashthebox

daddyELVIS wrote:

bashthebox wrote:

Sky are remarkably more open than most other teams – it may just be because the media spotlight is always on them, but you see far more about Sky’s training camps, nutrition, techniques, technology than any other team.
They do put themselves is a rather impossible position with the zero tolerance policy – pretty much anyone in their 40s/50s who would be suitable as staff would have been around or near doping during their career.
Interestingly, if you listen to the recent Telegraph podcast interview with Brailsford, he basically says there isn’t enough evidence to conclusively say Knaven doped, and the man himself categorically denied it to Sky’s management. To sack him on the basis of inconclusive evidence would be to open Sky up to an employment tribunal – you can’t go sacking people for no good reason.

Haha, that’s right – it could have been renal failure!

Sky fans are so funny!

BTW, have Sky ever released the Sheffield Uni research paper into Haeno and the effects of altitude training on altitude natives (as promised by DB)? Or has that slipped away and been forgotten about?

From a legal point of view, with the evidence currently on had, yes it could have been renal failure or whatever bollocks is being said. I’d assume Knaven ad doped in the past, but the point is he’s not admitting it and there’s not enough evidence to say he was – so Sky can’t lose him. That kinda suits them, I imagine – he’s by all accounts a good DS and being forced to sack more staff is bad PR.
As for Henao – yeah I’d like to know what happened too. Simplest explanation, and most plausible, is that he went off for his winter hols and boshed a shit load of banned things. But I’d be far more fascinated if the high altitude explanation bore out – there’s not been much in the way of studies of high altitude natives.

Freedom of Information Act
Freedom of Information Act only applies to UK Government organisations so any application to WADA and UCI would be entirely pointless.

hammond83 wrote:The question

hammond83 wrote:

The question is can a clean rider beat a doped rider? I don’t think so.

That’s an incredibly simplistic comment – doping is not some sort of magic bullet which allows you to win races; you still have to have the training, the diet, the equipment, the team support, and the tactics. So yes, I’d say that a good clean rider could easily beat a bad doped rider.

Greg Lemond constantly claimed that Lance’s VO2 numbers were too low to be able to perform as he did. Also riders with a lower natural hct had more to gain by inflating it up to the magical 49.9% mark.

And how does Greg know this exactly? We’re talking here about a bitter angry man with a massive axe to grind, he’s not exactly a reliable impartial source of evidence – how does he know what LA’s haemocrit levels were? And again, it’s very simplistic – winning a bike race is not solely about VO2 Max.

All the comments on these doping threads repeat the same mantras, the same “oh I read it on the internet” or (even worse “oh I read it in the Daily Mail”) so it must be true. No source, no citations. If this was Wikipedia, the page would have been taken down and that’s saying something given that Wiki itself isn’t allowed as a quotable source or valid reference in most schools!

bashthebox wrote:Sky are

bashthebox wrote:

Sky are remarkably more open than most other teams – it may just be because the media spotlight is always on them, but you see far more about Sky’s training camps, nutrition, techniques, technology than any other team.
They do put themselves is a rather impossible position with the zero tolerance policy – pretty much anyone in their 40s/50s who would be suitable as staff would have been around or near doping during their career.
Interestingly, if you listen to the recent Telegraph podcast interview with Brailsford, he basically says there isn’t enough evidence to conclusively say Knaven doped, and the man himself categorically denied it to Sky’s management. To sack him on the basis of inconclusive evidence would be to open Sky up to an employment tribunal – you can’t go sacking people for no good reason.

Haha, that’s right – it could have been renal failure!

Sky fans are so funny!

BTW, have Sky ever released the Sheffield Uni research paper into Haeno and the effects of altitude training on altitude natives (as promised by DB)? Or has that slipped away and been forgotten about?

stumps wrote:daddyELVIS

stumps wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

stumps wrote:

So then an early exponent of the EPO test states that the low level of EPO in the sample is EITHER a problem with the kidneys or misuse of EPO. He CANNOT say it was entirely down to misuse can he ? No, he cant so where would that leave any prosecution, absolutely nowhere because they cannot prove beyond all doubt that Knaven misused drugs.

Its just a theory, just like because Nibali rides for Astana he must also be tainted by drug use blah blah blah.

Until irrefutable evidence comes to light that Knaven or any other rider, past or present, has misused drugs then its all just pie in the sky and in the thoughts of very gullible posters.

You are the gullible one! The words used in the article are ‘significant renal damage’. Have you studied the whole case surrounding the Knaven situation? If you do, then still believe in Sky’s ‘zero tolerance’, then your faith is blind!

Your having a laugh aren’t you ? I have studied the article and it DOES say that the expert CANNOT say for definite that it was EPO abuse and he goes on to say it could be caused by renal damage. So that leaves us absolutely nowhere other than the blood sample showed a low level of EPO and not how it came to be there.
As for being gullible i’m not the one who automatically believes every article written about Sky putting them down is correct beyond all doubt. Sky have had their faults, just look at Rogers, Yates etc but they have also been a victim of jealousy by writers, journo’s and other parties, which to you are all telling the truth.

I said ‘the case’ (as in the TVM case), not the article! Although, since you’re clinging to the possibility that it was renal damage, all Knaven needs to do is confirm that ( he could easily back that up with medical records).