Sky to employ dopers

andyp

Brailsford finally recognises that his zero policy doping stance when it comes to staff is unworkable;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/fe ... sky-doping

He also admits to interviewing Neil Stephens. I hear Manolo Saiz is looking for work still...

iainf72

I guess I can retire my tinfoil hat now....

woodford2barbican

very very disappointing.

iainf72

Will Fotheringham has just suggested in a tweet that there is more in the article that will raise an eyebrow or two.

Jez mon

Disappointing in some ways, but at least Brailsford seems to be taking a more realistic approach to things after last year's disappointments.

Nevertheless, at a time when last years tour winner being banned and an Italian cyclist performing a blood transfusion are both (relatively) prominent items of sports news, it's not really what cycling needs!

Overall, probably shouldn't have had such a hard-line policy in the first place, and probably shouldn't have announced it's removal at this time!

LangerDan

Will they give Scott Sunderland his job back now?

woodford2barbican

"realistic", "pragmatic" = all sound like code for doping.

DaveyL

And slightly less sensationalist than the thread title

"We'll probably stick to our policies at the moment. I don't see us signing somebody who has come back after a doping ban. But maybe somebody who is a 45-year-old sports director, who has held his hand up and said this is what I did in the past, and has since worked for clean teams for a long period of time and has vast experience that would benefit the team … that's a decision which is a bit more difficult to decide."

Exactly how does this differ from the Vaughters, for example, runs his team?

Jez mon

DaveyL wrote:

And slightly less sensationalist than the thread title

"We'll probably stick to our policies at the moment. I don't see us signing somebody who has come back after a doping ban. But maybe somebody who is a 45-year-old sports director, who has held his hand up and said this is what I did in the past, and has since worked for clean teams for a long period of time and has vast experience that would benefit the team … that's a decision which is a bit more difficult to decide."

Exactly how does this differ from the Vaughters, for example, runs his team?

Well Vaughters was happy to hire Millar, Brailsford says he wouldn't do so

andyp

I was being deliberately provocative.

It isn't at all different from how Vaughters runs his team (although, sadly, Vaughters himself has yet to come clean). If Brailsford was sensible he'd have adopted a similar approach last year, rather than saying that the team would never employ anyone with a doping conviction, then hiring a number of staff with questionable backgrounds.

Interestingly, Daniel Benson's latest tweet reads "Sorry, but since when has Sky had a 'zero tolerance' policy?"

federalski

Michael Barry has previous if Landis is to be believed...

Garry H

DaveyL wrote:

And slightly less sensationalist than the thread title

"We'll probably stick to our policies at the moment. I don't see us signing somebody who has come back after a doping ban. But maybe somebody who is a 45-year-old sports director, who has held his hand up and said this is what I did in the past, and has since worked for clean teams for a long period of time and has vast experience that would benefit the team … that's a decision which is a bit more difficult to decide."

So he's happy to sign someone who got away with doping, but not someone who was caught. Why make that distinction?

Le Commentateur

Jez mon wrote:

Nevertheless, at a time when last years tour winner being banned and an Italian cyclist performing a blood transfusion are both (relatively) prominent items of sports news, it's not really what cycling needs!

It's also another shot fired in the battle against News Corp.

dulldave

Isn't this just a repetition of what Dave B was saying at the end of last year? Doesn't seem to be anything new here.

jibberjim

Garry H wrote:

So he's happy to sign someone who got away with doping, but not someone who was caught. Why make that distinction?

'cos those that got away are obviously better at doping... why would you hire the failures?

BarryBonds

hire the lucky ones, its better on sooooo many levels
Ave


Oh sorry i dont do that now

eh

There are two ex-dopers on the setup already as I understand it.

How long before Ferrari is their special adviser :evil:

shockedsoshocked

Is Brailsford taking the piss?

Yates, Sutton, Sunderland, all known chargers.

Tom Butcher

It's a bit of a non-story isn't it - personally I'd rather they employed staff with a doping conviction whose subsequent actions suggested they were now actively anti doping than staff without a conviction but lots of suspicion who now do nothing much to suggest they are actively against doping.

That goes for riders as well as DS and back room staff.

dave_1

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

Is Brailsford taking the wee-wee?

Yates, Sutton, Sunderland, all known chargers.

suderland hasn't any scandal or tests against him.

iainf72

Full article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/fe ... d-team-sky

Hate to say I told you so....

inkyfingers

I don't see anything startling in that article. As another poster said, they seemed less fussy about the history of their DS's from the start.

Of all the teams in pro cycling Sky still have fewer "suspect" riders than just about anyone else bay maybe Columbia?

pedro118118

Re: Barry, "...people like his persona...".
Well that's alright then - seems unfair to castigate an eloquent cheat.

r0bh

I really can't see anything in that article worth you lot getting all hot and bothered about.

But then I forget, this is Team Sky - who are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Which, frankly, is getting pretty boring.

Tom BB

pedro118118 wrote:

Re: Barry, "...people like his persona...".
Well that's alright then - seems unfair to castigate an eloquent cheat.

Quite possibly the best post of the year!

As for sky 'employing dopers' it really is a big non stroy isn't it? Nothing said that wasn't already in the public domain.

Pross

Unfortunately it is a sad indictment on our sport when a team boss suggests it is almost impossible to find staff that are completely without the taint of doping in their past. The most important thing is that the riders are riding clean though and there's nothing to suggest they aren't. Hopefully in 20 years time all teams will be run by clean ex-riders but I won't hold my breath.

inkyfingers

You also have to remember that these teams are employers and the riders are employees. You cannot critiscise or fire an employee just because you hear a rumour from a person who is at best, a very questionable source. I also can't imagine that any investigation by Sky would get very far, it's too long ago and too much of it is hearsay.

iainf72

Full transcript

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/bike-bl ... transcript

rick_chasey

iainf72 wrote:

Full transcript

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/bike-bl ... transcript

Someone's reading a lot of the internet today!

It's link after link.

iainf72

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's link after link.

Not found any of them myself, it's all been via the twitter.

shockedsoshocked

Dave_1 wrote:

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

Is Brailsford taking the wee-wee?

Yates, Sutton, Sunderland, all known chargers.

suderland hasn't any scandal or tests against him.

Maybe not, but there's plenty of people who raced against him. You don't have to talk to many people in cycling to find out info like that.

My point still stands for Yates and Sutton though.