Bruyneel's tough love?

13»

Comments

  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    cycling5280 wrote:
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    Sorry, I wholeheartedly retract that statement about Rubiera. I meant Manuel Beltran.

    As to the rest, Heras only started cheating when he went to Liberty did he? Hamilton, Landis, Vaughters, Andreu, Livingstone and every other American who was called perjured themselves to a grand jury did they?

    Thanks on clarifying Rubiera. Yeah I think Beltran was a doper.

    Those Americans went through the grand jury process but nothing substantial or concrete enough was given to even make the Feds want to bring Armstrong in for a testimony.

    It's my understanding that Grand Juries do not question people they are investigating.
    LA was never there and neither were any of his lawyers.
  • cycling5280
    cycling5280 Posts: 279
    dennisn wrote:
    cycling5280 wrote:
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    Sorry, I wholeheartedly retract that statement about Rubiera. I meant Manuel Beltran.

    As to the rest, Heras only started cheating when he went to Liberty did he? Hamilton, Landis, Vaughters, Andreu, Livingstone and every other American who was called perjured themselves to a grand jury did they?

    Thanks on clarifying Rubiera. Yeah I think Beltran was a doper.

    Those Americans went through the grand jury process but nothing substantial or concrete enough was given to even make the Feds want to bring Armstrong in for a testimony.

    It's my understanding that Grand Juries do not question people they are investigating.
    LA was never there and neither were any of his lawyers.


    They do. That's what got Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens in trouble. Lies to a grand jury if caught is no good. Lance never even got to that stage.
    http://www.1kmtogo.blogspot.com
  • jimmythecuckoo
    jimmythecuckoo Posts: 4,719
    The Mad Rapper wrote:
    When I first became interested in road cycling I thought Lance was God on Earth. Then I opened my eyes and realised he's just a drug addled dirt bag. I hope you have a similar moment of clarity.
    Probably one of the best posts in BR history.
    http://fendrieneu.home.blog
    My blog and pod...
    Beers of Belgium Cycling Club UK
  • timoid.
    timoid. Posts: 3,133
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    cycling5280 wrote:
    andy_wrx wrote:
    Anyone who stubbornly still believes Lance is clean must also believe in Father Christmas and virgin births

    ...that Wiggins is clean.

    Tedious.

    Wiggins rides for a team with one of (if not the) the strictest anti-doping policies in the sport.


    Out of curiosity where might one see this anti-doping policy. This statement is often trotted out on these boards, but what is it backed up by.

    Not saying Sky is dirty, I just think there is some blind faith on here that they are clean. I see them as no more or less clean than the likes of Liquigas or BMC.
    It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,680
    Well the fact that they won't hire riders with a doping background is part of it.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    Well the fact that they won't hire riders with a doping background is part of it.

    Won't they?
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • richard wants a baum
    richard wants a baum Posts: 744
    Weren't they looking a Contador at one point?
    Take care of the luxuries and the necessites will take care of themselves.
  • B3rnieMac
    B3rnieMac Posts: 384
    I believe DB started off with a "no doping history" policy to begin with and then, realised how naive he was. he's said as much in interviews, it would be next to impossible to hire any experienced backroom staff and coaching guys with sparkling clean records. its just the nature of the sport. you can only hope that you hire these people and your own checks and tests are strenuous enough that it stamps out any doping possiblities.
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,680
    iainf72 wrote:
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    Well the fact that they won't hire riders with a doping background is part of it.

    Won't they?

    Well that's what Millar says, but maybe they just didn't want him?

    Brailsford has said it plenty of times. I'm not aware of any proven ex-dopers on the team, but you're welcome to enlighten me.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • secretsqirrel
    secretsqirrel Posts: 2,140
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    Well the fact that they won't hire riders with a doping background is part of it.

    Won't they?

    Well that's what Millar says, but maybe they just didn't want him?

    Brailsford has said it plenty of times. I'm not aware of any proven ex-dopers on the team, but you're welcome to enlighten me.

    'Proven'? Don't prove anything around here.

    The UCI Index of Suspicion (remember that?) gave Wiggins a '5' same as Contador and Vinokourov. That doesn't prove anything either.
  • peterst6906
    peterst6906 Posts: 530
    cycling5280 wrote:
    They do. That's what got Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens in trouble. Lies to a grand jury if caught is no good. Lance never even got to that stage.

    Not quite. The investigation that got Bonds and Clemens was the Balco investigation, not direct investigations into either of them. It was the nature of their testimony to the Grand Jury that then led to charges against them, but not direct investigations into them.

    The original statement was correct. Grand Jury's don't question the people they are directly investigating. They are a prosecutorial process only, no defence. That part is left to trial if indictment's result from the GJ.
  • timoid.
    timoid. Posts: 3,133
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    Well the fact that they won't hire riders with a doping background is part of it.

    Won't they?

    Well that's what Millar says, but maybe they just didn't want him?

    Brailsford has said it plenty of times. I'm not aware of any proven ex-dopers on the team, but you're welcome to enlighten me.

    Bruyneel also says he runs a clean ship. Name me a known doper USPS or Radioshack signed? I don't think it proves anything.

    Garmin has signed a couple of ex-dopers in Millar and Dekker, but I have a lot more faith in them being clean.
    It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,259
    Timoid. wrote:
    Bruyneel also says he runs a clean ship. Name me a known doper USPS or Radioshack signed?

    Basso for 2007. And he broke the teams' agreement to do it.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • timoid.
    timoid. Posts: 3,133
    RichN95 wrote:
    Timoid. wrote:
    Bruyneel also says he runs a clean ship. Name me a known doper USPS or Radioshack signed?

    Basso for 2007. And he broke the teams' agreement to do it.

    He hadn't been convicted at the time. It was still alleged. Same way Mick Rogers was alleged to have visited Freiburg and Michael Barry was accused by Landis of goofing up at USPS.

    Shades of grey. Still don't see why Sky is some paragon if cleanliness.
    It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,259
    edited June 2012
    Timoid. wrote:
    He hadn't been convicted at the time. It was still alleged. Same way Mick Rogers was alleged to have visited Freiburg and Michael Barry was accused by Landis of goofing up at USPS.

    Shades of grey. Still don't see why Sky is some paragon if cleanliness.

    Basso was under police investigation and had been thrown off the Tour, and was ultimately suspended. The others were just heresay some years after the event (and may be true, but also may not be).

    Ultimately, Sky have done nothing to make us doubt them. If you want to consider a team dirty until they 'prove' themselves clean, then you're in for a long ugly wait.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,680
    RichN95 wrote:
    Timoid. wrote:
    Bruyneel also says he runs a clean ship. Name me a known doper USPS or Radioshack signed?

    Basso for 2007. And he broke the teams' agreement to do it.

    Has anyone on Sky bought training plans from a gynaecologist?

    And I can't see Popovych and Kloden riding for Sky anytime in the future either....
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    RichN95 wrote:
    Ultimately, Sky have done nothing to make us doubt them. If you want to consider a team dirty until they 'prove' themselves clean, then you're in for a long ugly wait.

    If they were a Spanish or Italian team and had a Cecchini coached rider, someone linked to Freiburg and confirmed as "coached" by Ferrari and someone Fladis said was shooting up EPO like it was high grade smack, we'd be rolling our eyes.

    I don't think they're doing anything dodgy now, but having if you say that's what's happening now, you're not sure about the past, then that's a bit better. More Garmin style.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • timoid.
    timoid. Posts: 3,133
    RichN95 wrote:
    Timoid. wrote:
    He hadn't been convicted at the time. It was still alleged. Same way Mick Rogers was alleged to have visited Freiburg and Michael Barry was accused by Landis of goofing up at USPS.

    Shades of grey. Still don't see why Sky is some paragon if cleanliness.

    Basso was under police investigation and had been thrown off the Tour, and was ultimately suspended. The others were just heresay some years after the event (and may be true, but also may not be).

    Ultimately, Sky have done nothing to make us doubt them. If you want to consider a team dirty until they 'prove' themselves clean, then you're in for a long ugly wait.

    You're getting my point arse over tit. I'm not saying that anything points to Sky being dirty. I'm just saying that there is no evidence to suggest that it is cleaner than a bunch of other teams. Empirical evidence says there are worse teams for sure, but I do not buy the perception of many forumites that there is something that points towards some particular morality nor the oft trotted out, but not written anywhere policy. I suspect it is a natural bias towards a British team.
    It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,259
    Timoid. wrote:
    You're getting my point ars* over tit. I'm not saying that anything points to Sky being dirty. I'm just saying that there is no evidence to suggest that it is cleaner than a bunch of other teams. Empirical evidence says there are worse teams for sure, but I do not buy the perception of many forumites that there is something that points towards some particular morality nor the oft trotted out, but not written anywhere policy. I suspect it is a natural bias towards a British team.

    Put it this way. How does a man get a reputation for being a 'nice bloke'? The answer is - by appearing to everyone to be a nice bloke and having no evidence to the contrary. And that's it. The longer this goes on, the stronger the reputation becomes. The same applies to a reputation for being a 'clean team'

    It's not British bias. Garmin aren't British. Neither are FdJ or Cofidis and others.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    RichN95 wrote:
    Put it this way. How does a man get a reputation for being a 'nice bloke'?
    These days by employing a good PR and 'Reputation management' team, employing people to 'Astroturf', to work as sock puppets and to demand that anything showing them in a negative light be removed from the internet, and perhaps by setting up a 'Charitable foundation'...
  • mrushton
    mrushton Posts: 5,182
    It's nothing new tho' People like the Rockefella's,Andrew Carnegie, W.R.Hearst etc were all incredibly rich and set up charitable foundations, founded auditoriums/libraries etc so history would see them as not robber barons but philanthropists.
    M.Rushton
  • Monty Dog
    Monty Dog Posts: 20,614
    There's a bit of a difference between giving away your own money for honorable causes and 'suckering' millions into giving money to an organisation that serves no useful purpose other than promoting itself.
    Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Everyone has seen this, right?

    Looks like the RadioSchleck guys have a SOH.

    http://twitter.com/philmaertens/status/ ... 9862146048
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    "Personally, if I was a manager I wouldn't try to solve problems with my riders through the press," Schleck is quoted in the newspaper as saying. "I would discuss them internally. Maybe Bruyneel was being rushed by the team sponsors, who might be getting impatient."

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/andy-sc ... e-prologue
    Contador is the Greatest
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,730
    frenchfighter wrote:
    "Personally, if I was a manager I wouldn't try to solve problems with my riders through the press," Schleck is quoted in the newspaper as saying. "I would discuss them internally. Maybe Bruyneel was being rushed by the team sponsors, who might be getting impatient."

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/andy-sc ... e-prologue

    Yet it's OK for Andy to try and solve problems with his manager, through the press.
    No hypocrisy there, then.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • ellerslierd
    ellerslierd Posts: 266
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    frenchfighter wrote:
    "Personally, if I was a manager I wouldn't try to solve problems with my riders through the press," Schleck is quoted in the newspaper as saying. "I would discuss them internally. Maybe Bruyneel was being rushed by the team sponsors, who might be getting impatient."

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/andy-sc ... e-prologue

    Yet it's OK for Andy to try and solve problems with his manager, through the press.
    No hypocrisy there, then.

    My thoughts exactly
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,259
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    frenchfighter wrote:
    "Personally, if I was a manager I wouldn't try to solve problems with my riders through the press," Schleck is quoted in the newspaper as saying. "I would discuss them internally. Maybe Bruyneel was being rushed by the team sponsors, who might be getting impatient."

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/andy-sc ... e-prologue

    Yet it's OK for Andy to try and solve problems with his manager, through the press.
    No hypocrisy there, then.

    But it's not hypocrisy, really.
    Here's an analogy. A man says he hates violence. Then someone starts hitting him. It's not hypocrisy to fight back.

    God knows what Bruyneel is up to. In other sports (I'm particularly thinking football), you very rarely see a manager publicly criticising specific players. Even as a power struggle it seems a bit odd.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • cycling5280
    cycling5280 Posts: 279
    I just hope Andy's legs do more talking than his mouth at this point. If he doesn't win the Tour there is no one to blame but himself. He should really just stay quiet, obey team orders and ride his TT bike more.
    http://www.1kmtogo.blogspot.com
  • TMR
    TMR Posts: 3,986
    In case it hasn't been posted already, videos of Andy and Johan's POV here: http://www.cyclingtips.com.au/2012/06/a ... -marriage/

Categories