Yates to confess??
Comments
-
iainf72 wrote:r0bh wrote:So, what should Sky do? OK so we can all agree that their stated aim of not employing anyone with any doping history was too high a bar but what were the alternatives?
They should have said they'd only employ people who wanted to do the right thing while accepting the reality that they may have history.
What they've created is a situation where the riders need to lie, which means Brailsford needs to lie and everyone ends up looking stupid. So someone like Rogers is on the team, and the balance of probability says that he probably shouldn't be there based on their initial hiring criteria. And he's a guy who was instrumental in Wiggins tour team.
hmmm....and CVV was hugely instrumental in Ryder winning the Giro. And came 4th in the 08 Tour himself. And helped Wiggo to 4th in the 09 Tour. The teams might have different hiring policies but not sure one can get far with the 'Rogers helped Wiggo win the Tour' differentiation from CVV and Ryder.0 -
I think RR hit the nail on the head - from my understanding SKY were not keen unless they could be guaranteed (truthfully or otherwise) that this was a 100% dope free team.0
-
r0bh wrote:
I really fail to see what Garmin are doing that is so progressive and seems to make them immune from criticism by IFP (Internet Forum People
They admit there are problems, and support the riders and encourage them to speak to the correct authorities without fear of being sacked.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:r0bh wrote:
I really fail to see what Garmin are doing that is so progressive and seems to make them immune from criticism by IFP (Internet Forum People
They admit there are problems, and support the riders and encourage them to speak to the correct authorities without fear of being sacked.
And with that encouragement it took VdV etc 5 years before they spoke to the correct authorities, and only then because they were implicated. Seems to be working well.0 -
r0bh wrote:iainf72 wrote:r0bh wrote:
I really fail to see what Garmin are doing that is so progressive and seems to make them immune from criticism by IFP (Internet Forum People
They admit there are problems, and support the riders and encourage them to speak to the correct authorities without fear of being sacked.
And with that encouragement it took VdV etc 5 years before they spoke to the correct authorities, and only then because they were implicated. Seems to be working well.
Better than the sky approach surely!You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
ThomThom wrote:There was no chance that his positive test could be from his cancer medicin. No chance.
Of course not. It's completely impossible for medications taken by Armstrong during his cancer treatment to be detectable in his system months/years later when he had recovered enough to be racing again. Hell, EPO has a detection window of hours. The guy on the steroids forum is severely confused in his thinking, but then what do you expect to find on those forums?
Armstrong's cancer probably wasn't caused by doping. Evidence linking AAS and testicular cancer is starting to come out, but it's still a very weak link and very recent - the research I posted was one of the first serious pieces to make the link, and it came out less than six months ago.
Which is not to say that Armstrong's health has not been affected by his doping. Anyone else think that his paranoia and reflex aggression have more than a hint of the chronic AAS abuser about it? (apologies for going so far off-topic)I have a policy of only posting comment on the internet under my real name. This is to moderate my natural instinct to flame your fatuous, ill-informed, irrational, credulous, bigoted, semi-literate opinions to carbon, you knuckle-dragging f***wits.0 -
I just think of Garmin as a sanctuary for ex-dopers who perceive themselves as victims (sort of like an alcoholics anonymous support network) rather than a team trying to cleanse cycling as a whole. Sky, on the other hand, is the holier than thou new kid on the block which sticks to the anti-doping message like it is a fundamental principle of the Sky religion, and believes it will receive respect from the dirty kids for its position.0
-
I'd give both teams credit for trying to achieve the same thing with slightly different approaches.
There are plenty of worse teams out there.0 -
I think that's an excellent point. To digress slightly, I always wondered how a sprinter like Dwain Chambers who spent x number of years training to the max with a little help from his friends, was then able to compete again after serving a 3-4 year ban. Surely, all that juice helps build a physical specimen that is not going to wither over night, especially if you keep your eye in on the training front.r0bh wrote:Vande Velde, as an example, was hailed for his 4th in the 2008 Tour as a victory for clean cycling but in reality he'd been doping until Apr 2006.
Now, perhaps that is not the best parallel, as cyclists are not interested in building the muscle mass, as sprint runners are. But surely, one can not claim to be clean the minute they stop doping. :?: :!: :?:0 -
coriordan wrote:Sorry, yeah I meant you rob, sorry!
Thanks for the link. Just had a quick google search and also found this, a more recent piece:
http://thinksteroids.com/forum/steroid- ... 06033.htmlTake Lance Armstrong, 7-time Tour de France winner. He had CANCER... “I didn’t dope.” But he ALSO was saying, “The drugs saved my life”, and mentioned steroids and EPO that he took as a cancer patient. Obviously Armstrong DID take the drugs that WOULD normally be banned but because of his cancer treatments, before at least his first Tour de France victory, he may well have had a TUE because obviously he needed the drugs to save his life. That’s in my view probably why he tested positive before his first tour victory, a result which L’Equipe Magazine leaked without pointing to a likely TUE. Why didn’t Armstrong just say this, tie the two facts together, and instead of being considered a goat all over the world with suspicion of cheating, he’d be a hero to the cancer community about the drugs saving his life. Be OPEN about it. I can’t think of anyone denying a cancer survivor the opportunity to compete. Also, AFTER that first improperly released positive, which does not count if you have a TUE, he never again tested positive. So he did truly save his life and then won six more Tours de France. But it may not be that simple… why did he get testicular cancer in the first place at that young age… that’s also a symptom of steroid abuse. So I leave the questions there.
sorry its quite long
That's obviously from a scientific journal, for sure ;-)0 -
yup, that settles it for me ...0
-
I don't think that just be because a rider doped he'll necessarily be a DS who encourages doping...
That's a big big assumption.
Even before you look at whether they even did dope in the first place.0 -
Didn't he fail a drugs test in 1989 anyway?0
-
Wasn't Yates working as a manual labourer on building sites before he became a DS? Given the choice of careers, with a family to support, I think I would turn a blind eye to a few things - it would have gone on with or without him and it's not like he could have stopped it.
And if he did a few drugs back in the 80s, how long are you going to hold that against him? Will you condemn him and champion Kimmage just because the latter wrote a book?
If someone did a few amphetamines (either as PEDs or recreationally) back in University in the 90s but never tested positive because there was only one test a year, are they now fit to hold high positions in major teams in their sport now? Or should they be drummed out of the sport?
Witchhunts don't help anyone or anything - look up Joe McCarthy.Twitter: @RichN950 -
To expand on the discussion on Sky's policies - this is how it works across four teams.
Staff doping policy:
Sky - "No-one at out team has ever done drugs, in fact they have never seen drugs. Correction. They don't even know what drugs are"
Garmin - "Let's be honest, we all did a little 'pot' back when we were young. Now we know that was a little daft so we're going to run some sort of AA program"
Astana - "Vino brings the drugs, you bring the vodka"
Katusha - "F*ck off"
What the media thinks:Sky: "Really. So anything less than 100% we can blow up into a story? You make this too easy. Does Andrew Mitchell mean nothing to you?"
Garmin: "We feel your pain, man. Group hug?"
Astana; " :roll: :roll: :roll: Ah, Vino. You just have to laugh"
Katusha: "I have f*cked off. Now please stop pointing that gun at me"
Reaction to a question about a link to a former Ferrari client:
Sky: "We will have a full enquiry and if Mick says that he's innocent we will believe him. He's not doping now, but if you lot find some more evidence I look like the new Bruyneel"
Garmin: "It was crazy times, man. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. If The Man comes knocking he should abide. Peace dude"
Astana: "Michele Ferrari has been given the freedom of Almaty."
Katusha: "Our press officer Yuri will tell you in a back room. He has pictures of your family outside your home. Be careful my friend."Twitter: @RichN950 -
Nice one rich!!0
-
Matt White resigns as Greenedge and Aussie Director because of involvement with LA....how long now for SY0
-
+1 - i thought he'd been caught doping, so there's nothing to confess?0
-
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
Oh dear?
I don't speak Norwegian, but the translation suggest he is skeptical about certain ex-dopers coming back and riding clean. Nothing to suggest he is skeptical of the case against Armstrong.
He said this on the day the report was released:
LPN: It seems to have been a crazy scheme in US Postal. It's hard to believe other teams have operated the same way but the probability that other teams had doping programs is large.0 -
No, but he does say his current team mate, Freiberg Mick is a doper.
The pub landlord won't be pleasedFckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Yeah I did notice the Rogers bit. Hard to tell if something was lost in translation or if he has actually fessed up in private.0
