Team Sky- position on doping
Comments
-
Turfle wrote:At best they were encouraged to come clean nearly 5 years after joining Garmin. If they and Vaughters had their way they would still not have come clean.
We can't look at the negatives of Sky policy and not address the negatives of the Garmin policy. It's a policy that allows ex-dopers a safe haven in which to ride free from the pressure of actually telling the truth, even when riders like Landis were telling the truth to the media.
I think Garmin's position has been that if the authorities want to talk to you, you should cooperate.
Neither are perfect, but Sky are not moving things forward. It's just telling people you must lie more and more. And if you lie, and we know you're lying, we'll sack you. If we can prove it. If not, and we know you're lying but can't prove it, we'll lie to the public and say it's ok
Was Rogers working with Ferrari and being in T-Mobile when Frieburg happpened a big secret? Nope.
Was chunks of your staff being on TVM a secret?
Was Yates history unknown?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
What option do they have in a sport where so many skeletons have been uncovered, when it is so easy to connect the dots? They set their position which is the only logical stance, and wait for the personnel to catch up with it. If all goes well, Sky will come out the other side well ahead of the other teams, including the Holy Sisterhood of St Vaughters. If it doesn't go well and the sport shows itself not to have significantly cleaned itself up then Sky will probably be gone anyway.iainf72 wrote:Turfle wrote:At best they were encouraged to come clean nearly 5 years after joining Garmin. If they and Vaughters had their way they would still not have come clean.
We can't look at the negatives of Sky policy and not address the negatives of the Garmin policy. It's a policy that allows ex-dopers a safe haven in which to ride free from the pressure of actually telling the truth, even when riders like Landis were telling the truth to the media.
I think Garmin's position has been that if the authorities want to talk to you, you should cooperate.
Neither are perfect, but Sky are not moving things forward. It's just telling people you must lie more and more. And if you lie, and we know you're lying, we'll sack you. If we can prove it. If not, and we know you're lying but can't prove it, we'll lie to the public and say it's ok
Was Rogers working with Ferrari and being in T-Mobile when Frieburg happpened a big secret? Nope.
Was chunks of your staff being on TVM a secret?
Was Yates history unknown?
To be honest Garmin is doing a great job as well, but it is as easy to belittle their efforts as those of Sky. They should both be applauded compared to some other teams.0 -
Either way - the Garmin Vs Sky routes - it's about PR stance/politics: with each team choosing their path in accordance to the context they find themselves in.
Although they're both professional cycling teams at the pinnacle of the sport (and employ lots of hoary old pros who've seen some sh!t), Team Sky and Garmin have very different genealogies. Especially now, after Olympic year and Tour success, Team Sky now have a brand recognition in the UK that I'd be very surprised that Garmin will ever achieve in the US (for the right reasons, anyway). But the real clincher, for me, is the interlacing Sky has with the whole GB track programme, the youth teams and the Sky Ride events - you can't have druggy cyclists mixing with the kiddies, now, can you!
I think a big part of why they've taken their puritanical PR stance is to make it a relatively simple and straightforward process for the man and woman in the street - all the new cycling fans - to get a grip on what their policy is. Like 'em or loathe 'em, the Sky brand has taken some big hits of late: this is their attempt wrest some stability in the quagmire. While us hoary old cynics may bicker over the details and denounce it as unworkable or laughably sanctimonious - as might foreign critics from countries with a far deeper cycling culture and understanding (and with the potential for Sky to trip over their own nobly principled babble down the line - like an old college mate of Brailsford writing in The Mail about how Dave used to love Ecstacy followed by spliffs in their clubbing days... that sort of thing), at least, as we say goodbye to some familiar old Sky faces, the general public should feel unequivocal about their policy.
Having said that, I can't think of a single precedent in history where puritanism led to anything good.0 -
Zabriskie and one other (I'd guess VDV) approached the USADA pretty much as soon as the Landis emails were made public. That's hardly being backed into a corner.dougzz wrote:
Tell the truth to who Iain? As I understand it they told the truth when backed into a corner, at the point when continuing the lie was going to expose them to greater risk than the truth. They knew the net was closing in, didn't know who was confessing and who was keeping quiet, they knew LA's clout was diminishing and they didn't want to be the odd man out, so in continued self-interest they suddenly told the truth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/sport ... 8mdI6GkYtg0 -
Do we think Garmin should be open to accept those who dope in 2012 and beyond? Or 2012+ dopers who didn't get caught?
Just trying to sort it all out in my head, because I genuinely don't know what I think.0 -
OCDuPalais wrote:Either way - the Garmin Vs Sky routes - it's about PR stance/politics: with each team choosing their path in accordance to the context they find themselves in.
Although they're both professional cycling teams at the pinnacle of the sport (and employ lots of hoary old pros who've seen some sh!t), Team Sky and Garmin have very different genealogies. Especially now, after Olympic year and Tour success, Team Sky now have a brand recognition in the UK that I'd be very surprised that Garmin will ever achieve in the US (for the right reasons, anyway). But the real clincher, for me, is the interlacing Sky has with the whole GB track programme, the youth teams and the Sky Ride events - you can't have druggy cyclists mixing with the kiddies, now, can you!
I think a big part of why they've taken their puritanical PR stance is to make it a relatively simple and straightforward process for the man and woman in the street - all the new cycling fans - to get a grip on what their policy is. Like 'em or loathe 'em, the Sky brand has taken some big hits of late: this is their attempt wrest some stability in the quagmire. While us hoary old cynics may bicker over the details and denounce it as unworkable or laughably sanctimonious - as might foreign critics from countries with a far deeper cycling culture and understanding (and with the potential for Sky to trip over their own nobly principled babble down the line - like an old college mate of Brailsford writing in The Mail about how Dave used to love Ecstacy followed by spliffs in their clubbing days... that sort of thing), at least, as we say goodbye to some familiar old Sky faces, the general public should feel unequivocal about their policy.
Having said that, I can't think of a single precedent in history where puritanism led to anything good.
Pretty much in agreement with this. Sky are in a totally different place from Garmin and their different path reflects this. Their priority is about securing the good stuff that's come out of the grass roots programme, the trackies, the success of the Tour etc - and the positive vibes for the Sky brand. The lofty vocalised goals of Vaughters and Millar - backed up by most of the multitudes of professional and armchair commentators - to let it all out and tear down the omerta..nah, its not their priority at all.
and frankly nor is it the priority of 95% of the other ProTour teams, given their silence.
DB will have a process and an audit trail (as I've said before) for the Sky board.
He and the team might come a cropper down the road with this approach. But its become increasingly clear why they're taking this path.0 -
DeadCalm wrote:
Zabriskie and one other (I'd guess VDV) approached the USADA pretty much as soon as the Landis emails were made public. That's hardly being backed into a corner.dougzz wrote:
Tell the truth to who Iain? As I understand it they told the truth when backed into a corner, at the point when continuing the lie was going to expose them to greater risk than the truth. They knew the net was closing in, didn't know who was confessing and who was keeping quiet, they knew LA's clout was diminishing and they didn't want to be the odd man out, so in continued self-interest they suddenly told the truth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/sport ... 8mdI6GkYtg
Some might say they were backed into a corner by Landis's emails...0 -
Exactly, the train was starting to roll, and they jumped on. They didn't wake up one day and think, hey, I'll come clean. They woke up and thought, coming clean is now my best option, the did what best served their own interest, which is what got them there in the first place. I'm not saying they're evil, or even on balance bad people, I'm just a little fed-up with the idea it was about doing the right thing, it was about political expediency, as it always is. I think it was Jez Mon who asked if Garmin had the same policy as Sky would the truth about Armstrong have come out. Maybe a better question is If Floyd had got a decent ride when he came back, would we be where we are now.r0bh wrote:
Some might say they were backed into a corner by Landis's emails...DeadCalm wrote:
Zabriskie and one other (I'd guess VDV) approached the USADA pretty much as soon as the Landis emails were made public. That's hardly being backed into a corner.dougzz wrote:Tell the truth to who Iain? As I understand it they told the truth when backed into a corner, at the point when continuing the lie was going to expose them to greater risk than the truth. They knew the net was closing in, didn't know who was confessing and who was keeping quiet, they knew LA's clout was diminishing and they didn't want to be the odd man out, so in continued self-interest they suddenly told the truth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/sport ... 8mdI6GkYtg0 -
On a lighter note
Did you read the Mail article ianf72, Or did you just plan to.
PTP winner 2015.0 -
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
iainf72 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:I guess it's more I think guys like DZ and VdV are getting away with an awful lot - which I don't think is fair.
They're not getting away with anything, they're just signed with a team who have a more realistic view of the world than Sky.
Danielson, VdV, DZ etc emerge from all of this with a shorter ban than Christophe Bassons. I think a lot of people would call that "getting away with it".0 -
One of the many flaws in the Sky proposal is this - What are they going to do if Yates signs the declaration?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
ddraver wrote:
I declare meself a bit of a Rich-tea Porte fan. Some opportunities next year for both him and JTL to show the kind of fast acceleration they both have when it goes uphill, would go some way to combating the eternal Sky-boring-in-mountains moaning.
Anyway...back to the topic pf the day. Maybe Sky could make it easier for the press and do it Strictly-stylee - have all the riders and DSs stand on a stage and have the spotlight on each one turned off, one by one, to denote they've signed the sorority pledge.0 -
stanislav wrote:On a lighter note
Did you read the Mail article ianf72, Or did you just plan to.
Read it, blanked out, found myself over the road from my house trying to set fire to a cross. No idea why.
:P
If you admitted doping in the past to the Sky-quistion, would they report you to your national ADA?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:stanislav wrote:On a lighter note
Did you read the Mail article ianf72, Or did you just plan to.
Read it, blanked out, found myself over the road from my house trying to set fire to a cross. No idea why.
:P
If you admitted doping in the past to the Sky-quistion, would they report you to your national ADA?
I had to go to the Daily Hate's site to read the Daley Thompson's article, loathsome thing as it is. Blurgh...
Anyway, good question about reportage to the ADAs. Pub Landlord! Oi! Question for you....0 -
May I humbly thank and congratulate posters to this thread for their informed contributions, their unimpeachable grammer, brevity, and saintly courtesy.
Following spoiler threads (for years) enhanced my enjoyment of the sport. I became a combatant to highlight the quality of this thread in an ocean of innuendo and desperate distortion. Bravo.
(The boy Chasey moderated a binder /pander)
For the record I think it's ridiculous to whack Sky over what may prove to be a PR omnishambles before eviscerating teams based in less Stalinist regimes. Team Sky has no choice. They must be seen as 'tied for the number one cleanest team in the world'. I'm as comfortable with this as I am with the Garmin approach.
If your problem with pro racing is that Sky or Garmin have deviated from the true path, there's a Romnney for sale....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
Macaloon wrote:A post with some big words in it
...a strange psuedo-articulate post which was difficult to understand.
In fact I tried putting it in google translate but it couldn't do anything much with it.
Google translate result:
"Garmin something Sky something else."
Call me thick if you like but I hope the posts get a little easier to understand 0 -
mfin wrote:Macaloon wrote:A post with some big words in it
...a strange psuedo-articulate post which was difficult to understand.
In fact I tried putting it in google translate but it couldn't do anything much with it.
Google translate result:
"Garmin something Sky something else."
Call me thick if you like but I hope the posts get a little easier to understand
Have one of Mikey23's fig rolls-as-performance enhancers - helped my translation no end0 -
TailWindHome wrote:One of the many flaws in the Sky proposal is this - What are they going to do if Yates signs the declaration?
Yatey's one of my heroes.
Awkward.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:mfin wrote:Macaloon wrote:A post with some big words in it
...a strange psuedo-articulate post which was difficult to understand.
In fact I tried putting it in google translate but it couldn't do anything much with it.
Google translate result:
"Garmin something Sky something else."
Call me thick if you like but I hope the posts get a little easier to understand
Have one of Mikey23's fig rolls-as-performance enhancers - helped my translation no end
I might just have to do that! ...I phoned Russell Brand to ask him what it all meant but the most insight he could give me was a short 'I dunt fakking know mate'0 -
Macaloon wrote:May I humbly thank and congratulate posters to this thread for their informed contributions, their unimpeachable grammer, brevity, and saintly courtesy.
Following spoiler threads (for years) enhanced my enjoyment of the sport. I became a combatant to highlight the quality of this thread in an ocean of innuendo and desperate distortion. Bravo.
(The boy Chasey moderated a binder /pander)
For the record I think it's ridiculous to whack Sky over what may prove to be a PR omnishambles before eviscerating teams based in less Stalinist regimes. Team Sky has no choice. They must be seen as 'tied for the number one cleanest team in the world'. I'm as comfortable with this as I am with the Garmin approach.
If your problem with pro racing is that Sky or Garmin have deviated from the true path, there's a Romnney for sale.
Welcome.
You get that the Sky approach is making a rod for their own back in all this, right? It's so inflexible it sets them up for more scandal, hassle, and PR shiteness than is at all necessary.
No-one would have turned off sky if they took a Garmin line - with perhaps less of the lovey dovey stuff.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:
You get that the Sky approach is making a rod for their own back in all this, right? It's so inflexible it sets them up for more scandal, hassle, and PR shiteness than is at all necessary.
No-one would have turned off sky if they took a Garmin line - with perhaps less of the lovey dovey stuff.
I think anyone with a functioning cerebellum and an evolved amygdala can see both sides. But who's giving the third side a square go. (I'm referring to all the other teams which are not called Sky or GBS.) I completely agree that when Sky started they should have done a Garmin. But in the post hacking and USADA world, there's no room for finesse.
Thanks for the generous embrace from y'all. My linguistic inspiration is FF'S graphic art....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
-
Richmond Racer wrote:Have one of Mikey23's fig rolls-as-performance enhancers - helped my translation no end
Exactly man. Demist the goggles....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
anyone else been keeping an eye on what's happening over in Oz? Seems to be a lot of angst, involving Cycling Australia and Austalian Sports Commission and ASADA and the Minister of Support. I suppose it was 2 x CA guys who admitted. OGE have got several exposures in addition to White, including Allan Davis, Neil Stephens and Laurenzo Lapage0
-
TailWindHome wrote:One of the many flaws in the Sky proposal is this - What are they going to do if Yates signs the declaration?
OK I have lurked on here, far too long not to finally share an exasperated RTFM rant.
My understanding is that Yates has no positive tests. For those unaware of the system that means a failed A PLUS a filed B sample that ensures that laboratory contamination doesn't lead to the innocent being prosecuted!
All other accusations as set out here are guilt by association with others and ......"he must have known/seen/participated" from a time when he was a cog in the backroom team where there was bad stuff definitely going on.
No proof offered, just the ability to raise legitimate questions or troll without apparent risk of libel charges which the inter web appears to offer to both the informed/well meaning (albeit with a bit to much bile for my liking) and the scumbag alike.
Ignoring employment law if Brailsford/Sky fire Yates if he signs the declaration based on the potential libel broadcast here and on other blogs he could take them to the cleaners.
.......However, if they don't renew his contract when it next expires .... No issue. Normal commercial decision ....
Go figure.0 -
rjgr wrote:Ignoring employment law if Brailsford/Sky fire Yates if he signs the declaration based on the potential libel broadcast here and on other blogs he could take them to the cleaners.
.......However, if they don't renew his contract when it next expires .... No issue. Normal commercial decision ....
Go figure.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/dav ... r-team-sky
Read that?
If Brailsford is going to be transparent, anyone going now needs to be explained. He's made this rod for his back, not me.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Christ, given the tone of Benson's usual articles on Sky and DB, that's actually quite reasonable.0
