Team Sky- position on doping

frenchfighter

fish156 wrote:

David Brailsford interview on Radio 5 right now.

Thanks.

He is saying that they are financially supporting the people who leave now, like Jullich.

Then he says he will take them on face value if they say they were never involved - 'it is not their responsibility to investiage'....odd

frenchfighter

Jew-lick or You-lick

mroli

Brailsford came across well I think. Feel sorry for Julich, but sounds as though he will be looked after. Tough Sky stance. But what would you prefer?

Ron Stuart

Isn't there an old saying about the Devil you know?

So this ex pro is looking for a job says: "I have never doped, can I get the job"?

Only if you sign this bit of paper saying you have never been involved in drug taking.

Sure.

When can you start only the seasons about to start and we have no staff.

Right away Dave.

Turfle

iainf72 wrote:

Turfle wrote:

The question that needs asking, would Julich have confessed if Sky didn't have this policy? If he was at any other team would Julich still be in the closet?

I think the question is actually : Would Sky have had this policy if they had got away with Barry being on the team? I'd be pretty confident they knew he doped, so they hedged their bets it wouldn't come out. And lost.

And now everyone pays.

Did Sky not know Bobby came 3rd in a Tour. In 1998. Or that some of their management rode for TVM. In 1998. None of this stuff is a secret yet it's suddenly a problem.

Everyone pays? Ex-dopers pay.

What they may or may not have suspected in the past isn't relevant at all. It's their policy now, and they're the team most willing to put pressure on their employees to actually confess out loud. Those who said this policy would stop people from confessing have been proved wrong.

Good for Sky, and good for Bobby Julich. If only more people were willing to take a personal hit in order to make the sport better.

Richmond Racer

True, Turfle. It does negate the 'tell them they're fired if they confess' argument.

Just wish it didnt have to go this way.

iainf72

If Barry hadn't fessed up, would they have this policy?

No.

So they're paying for his sins. The guys he was coaching will pay if they got good results with him.

How is it making the sport better?

Turfle

Richmond Racer wrote:

True, Turfle. It does negate the 'tell them they're fired if they confess' argument.

Just wish it didnt have to go this way.

Me too. And despite my increasing bolshiness in defending Sky's zero tolerance, I still don't know that I'm for it, I just think some are critical while not looking critically at the alternatives. Maybe I'm just becoming less convinced by the alternatives.

iainf72 wrote:

If Barry hadn't fessed up, would they have this policy?

No.

So they're paying for his sins. The guys he was coaching will pay if they got good results with him.

How is it making the sport better?

Barry DID fess up, and that along with everything else that's going on, resulted in a change of/tightening of policy.

Maybe I'm entirely missing the point, but I don't understand why that is an issue.

Richmond Racer

iainf72 wrote:

If Barry hadn't fessed up, would they have this policy?

No.

So they're paying for his sins. The guys he was coaching will pay if they got good results with him.
How is it makiing the sport better?


What do you mean, Iain? Non comprende

RichN95.

While I disagree with Sky's policy for a number of reasons, I don't think it is without merit in the anti-doping movement. The policy does not encourage people to confess, but neither do most other teams' policies.

However, what we have learned from dopers is that they started because it was the culture and everyone else was doing it and they were told they couldn't compete clean. This idea often came from DSs and doctors. They could point to the clean French teams and how they struggled. But if the no. 1 team (by a mile) is also zero tolerance, and believably so (to cyclists, not the public), then that sends out a stronger message than any number of people saying the doped in 1998, 2003 whenever because it was the only option.

It won't stop the self appointed guardians of clean cycling on twitter slaughtering them though.

Richmond Racer

RichN95 wrote:

While I disagree with Sky's policy for a number of reasons, I don't think it is without merit in the anti-doping movement. The policy does not encourage people to confess, but neither do most other teams' policies.

However, what we have learned from dopers is that they started because it was the culture and everyone else was doing it and they were told they couldn't compete clean. This idea often came from DSs and doctors. They could point to the clean French teams and how they struggled. But if the no. 1 team (by a mile) is also zero tolerance, and believably so (to cyclists, not the public), then that sends out a stronger message than any number of people saying the doped in 1998, 2003 whenever because it was the only option.

It won't stop the self appointed guardians of clean cycling on twitter slaughtering them though.

Yes, zero tolerance was a handy stick for the Taliban to use to beat Sky, until zero tolerance suddenly became unfahionable. Pompous ar5es.

r0bh

iainf72 wrote:

If Barry hadn't fessed up, would they have this policy?

No.

How on earth do you know that? Have you got a machine that lets you see into parallel universes or something?

Turfle

I shouldn't have done it, but I went over to the other place.

Sky are just weeding out riders and staff who can't be trusted to keep the omerta. I can't believe it didn't occur to me.

Anonymous

hahaahaha

RichN95.

r0bh wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

If Barry hadn't fessed up, would they have this policy?

No.

How on earth do you know that? Have you got a machine that lets you see into parallel universes or something?

Iain knows things. He really does. You just need to accept that. I think he knows a lot of cycling journos. Or he's Pat McQuaid. I'm not sure which.

LeicesterLad

RichN95 wrote:

r0bh wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

If Barry hadn't fessed up, would they have this policy?

No.

How on earth do you know that? Have you got a machine that lets you see into parallel universes or something?

Iain knows things. He really does. You just need to accept that. I think he knows a lot of cycling journos. Or he's Pat McQuaid. I'm not sure which.

In this case though he just used his 'state the bleedin' obvious' machine.

RichN95.

Turfle wrote:

I shouldn't have done it, but I went over to the other place.

Sky are just weeding out riders and staff who can't be trusted to keep the omerta. I can't believe it didn't occur to me.

I think my favourite quote from there today was, in response to asking why other teams weren't getting flack for dodgy staff: "Sky are getting **** because Andersen, Ibarguren and Ekimov's teams never claimed to be a clean revolution."
So there you go. If you make no attempt to try and be clean, you get a free pass to do what the hell you like.

Many of those on the internet who claim to be anti-doping are nothing of the sort. They want the gossip, they crave the gossip. Cycling without dope is an abhorrance to them.

ocdupalais

Whilst browsing through reams of jaded old twaddle earlier, I read something that struck a chord, even if it was by some numpty abroad

what we have learned from dopers is that they started because it was the culture and everyone else was doing it and they were told they couldn't compete clean. This idea often came from DSs and doctors. They could point to the clean French teams and how they struggled. But if the no. 1 team (by a mile) is also zero tolerance, and believably so (to cyclists, not the public), then that sends out a stronger message than any number of people saying the doped in 1998, 2003 whenever because it was the only option
RichN, 17 yrs

It seems that historically, whenever anyone within cycling has talked about a New Direction and changing the old culture of doping, they have ended up either lying (Armstrong and Bruyneel during the "3rd Coming" - '08-'11) or getting a bit tangled up in emerging revelations from within (Garmin)... we can carry on bickering about the chronology and about who did what because they had their arm twisted or were pushed into a corner, but sooner or later someone had to take a deep breath, draw a line in the sand, cross their arms, look resolute, draw another line in the sand because the tide came in... and say "right then, yer fUkcers: can we be any clearer?".

Chances are, most people over 21 will realise that there is an element of PR bullsh!t and rhubarb (as well as some unfortunate collateral damage), but we've been going around in these circles for ages now. Same with the UCI.
It's taken someone from outside the traditions of continental cycling to make a stand which seems to confound so many of the traditionalists of continental cycling - both the doping apologists and, as Rich said, those "who claim to be anti-doping".
And that's not to say it won't necessarily all go tits up - it might well do.

But Brailsford's stance is only granted any gravitas now because he's the boss of the World's No.1 team.
It's not like when Sky was the arrogant new kid on the block, making preposterous declarations of intent and getting laughed at - other teams are obliged to take Sky's stance seriously because they know that it's going to have a knock-on effect. Perhaps not straightaway at Katusha, Movistar or Astana... but I'll bet that there'll be boardroom meetings at Europcar, FDJ, Orica GreenEdge... maybe even Saxo? (I know, I know...). Plus, in the US, we've not even begun to see the full extent of the fall-out from the Armstrong drama.

There are still big companies involved - and if these big sponsors start getting wind that Sky and Garmin are winning clean AND being leagues ahead of the others in their anti-doping stance, I think we'll start to see a few more lines in the sand. They may just be meaningless marks on the beach, but are we not beginning to see the green shoots of whatever the opposite of Omertà is (step back the Spanish: step forward Kittel, etc)? - Code of Shouting?

grizedaleforest

OCDuPalais wrote:

Whilst browsing through reams of jaded old twaddle earlier, I read something that struck a chord, even if it was by some numpty abroad

what we have learned from dopers is that they started because it was the culture and everyone else was doing it and they were told they couldn't compete clean. This idea often came from DSs and doctors. They could point to the clean French teams and how they struggled. But if the no. 1 team (by a mile) is also zero tolerance, and believably so (to cyclists, not the public), then that sends out a stronger message than any number of people saying the doped in 1998, 2003 whenever because it was the only option
RichN, 17 yrs

It seems that historically, whenever anyone within cycling has talked about a New Direction and changing the old culture of doping, they have ended up either lying (Armstrong and Bruyneel during the "3rd Coming" - '08-'11) or getting a bit tangled up in emerging revelations from within (Garmin)... we can carry on bickering about the chronology and about who did what because they had their arm twisted or were pushed into a corner, but sooner or later someone had to take a deep breath, draw a line in the sand, cross their arms, look resolute, draw another line in the sand because the tide came in... and say "right then, yer fUkcers: can we be any clearer?".

Chances are, most people over 21 will realise that there is an element of PR bullsh!t and rhubarb (as well as some unfortunate collateral damage), but we've been going around in these circles for ages now. Same with the UCI.
It's taken someone from outside the traditions of continental cycling to make a stand which seems to confound so many of the traditionalists of continental cycling - both the doping apologists and, as Rich said, those "who claim to be anti-doping".
And that's not to say it won't necessarily all go tits up - it might well do.

But Brailsford's stance is only granted any gravitas now because he's the boss of the World's No.1 team.
It's not like when Sky was the arrogant new kid on the block, making preposterous declarations of intent and getting laughed at - other teams are obliged to take Sky's stance seriously because they know that it's going to have a knock-on effect. Perhaps not straightaway at Katusha, Movistar or Astana... but I'll bet that there'll be boardroom meetings at Europcar, FDJ, Orica GreenEdge... maybe even Saxo? (I know, I know...). Plus, in the US, we've not even begun to see the full extent of the fall-out from the Armstrong drama.

There are still big companies involved - and if these big sponsors start getting wind that Sky and Garmin are winning clean AND being leagues ahead of the others in their anti-doping stance, I think we'll start to see a few more lines in the sand. They may just be meaningless marks on the beach, but are we not beginning to see the green shoots of whatever the opposite of Omertà is (step back the Spanish: step forward Kittel, etc)? - Code of Shouting?

+1 good one.

DeadCalm

Richmond Racer wrote:

nweststeyn wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

AndyRAC wrote:

Aren't Sky damned if they do, damed if they don't? They can't win.
So, all other ex dopers on all the other teams are going to 'fess up'....?? Yeah, sure.....and I'm winning the Lottery on Saturday....

Maybe that's a big part of my frustration. 90% of the other ProTour teams will do sweet FA

So we'll have Sky and 0.8 of a team...?

The teams that have the most suspicion around them appear to be:
- Katusha
- Astana
- Movistar
- The Carrots
- Lampre
- Saxo

No bloody change will be effected at any of those teams

I'd have to add OPQS to that list in view of their association with Jose Ibarguren.

ManOfKent

I liked Julich's statement but hope his use of the word "insure" instead of "ensure" was a typo not a Freudian slip.

Richmond Racer

last night's 5Live prog with DB - 23.33 in..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... _25_10_12/

above_the_cows

OCDuPalais wrote:

It seems that historically, whenever anyone within cycling has talked about a New Direction and changing the old culture of doping, they have ended up either lying (Armstrong and Bruyneel during the "3rd Coming" - '08-'11) or getting a bit tangled up in emerging revelations from within (Garmin)... we can carry on bickering about the chronology and about who did what because they had their arm twisted or were pushed into a corner, but sooner or later someone had to take a deep breath, draw a line in the sand, cross their arms, look resolute, draw another line in the sand because the tide came in... and say "right then, yer fUkcers: can we be any clearer?".

Chances are, most people over 21 will realise that there is an element of PR bullsh!t and rhubarb (as well as some unfortunate collateral damage), but we've been going around in these circles for ages now. Same with the UCI.
It's taken someone from outside the traditions of continental cycling to make a stand which seems to confound so many of the traditionalists of continental cycling - both the doping apologists and, as Rich said, those "who claim to be anti-doping".
And that's not to say it won't necessarily all go tits up - it might well do.

But Brailsford's stance is only granted any gravitas now because he's the boss of the World's No.1 team.
It's not like when Sky was the arrogant new kid on the block, making preposterous declarations of intent and getting laughed at - other teams are obliged to take Sky's stance seriously because they know that it's going to have a knock-on effect. Perhaps not straightaway at Katusha, Movistar or Astana... but I'll bet that there'll be boardroom meetings at Europcar, FDJ, Orica GreenEdge... maybe even Saxo? (I know, I know...). Plus, in the US, we've not even begun to see the full extent of the fall-out from the Armstrong drama.

There are still big companies involved - and if these big sponsors start getting wind that Sky and Garmin are winning clean AND being leagues ahead of the others in their anti-doping stance, I think we'll start to see a few more lines in the sand. They may just be meaningless marks on the beach, but are we not beginning to see the green shoots of whatever the opposite of Omertà is (step back the Spanish: step forward Kittel, etc)? - Code of Shouting?

Great post! I have come around to this position. I was very critical of the Sky policy but maybe it needs someone to push a cultural change through example and maybe I need to for once tell my inner-cycnical-chimp to shut up.

oneof1982

Won't quote whole of above again but I agree with OcDuPalais...

World's no.1 team draws line in sand and says enough is enough. What is not to like?

blazing_saddles

RichN95 wrote:

Turfle wrote:

I shouldn't have done it, but I went over to the other place.

Sky are just weeding out riders and staff who can't be trusted to keep the omerta. I can't believe it didn't occur to me.

I think my favourite quote from there today was, in response to asking why other teams weren't getting flack for dodgy staff: "Sky are getting **** because Andersen, Ibarguren and Ekimov's teams never claimed to be a clean revolution."
So there you go. If you make no attempt to try and be clean, you get a free pass to do what the hell you like.

Many of those on the internet who claim to be anti-doping are nothing of the sort. They want the gossip, they crave the gossip. Cycling without dope is an abhorrance to them.

Particularly unpleasant conspiracy theory, sorry, "debate" over there, this morning.
Vuelta 2010, etc, etc.

Trev The Rev

oneof1982 wrote:

Won't quote whole of above again but I agree with OcDuPalais...

World's no.1 team draws line in sand and says enough is enough. What is not to like?

Although I think Brailsford should have done what he is doing now in the first place he must be commended.
In the past we have heard a lot about things being in the past and moving on only for the same people to carry on and continue to soil cycling. I remember the Tour of Redemption, how long ago was that.

Pross

Forward loop wrote:

I agree. It riles me that Brailsford came up with this zero tolerance document to sign or be damned - after a "single evening of thought". Also his seeming astonishment at the scale of the problem over the last couple of weeks. I mean iirc he was one of the first to whom David Millar spilled the beans wasn't he ? - hes has had plenty of time to consider,formulate and communicate a proper approach to the issue.

Do you really think this was Braillsford's policy? It has obviously come from the sponsor who doesn't want all the positive PR they have had from sponsoring the pro team and British Cycling to be undone by some hack exposing the skeletons that everyone knew were in the closet.

Richmond Racer

Pross wrote:

Forward loop wrote:

I agree. It riles me that Brailsford came up with this zero tolerance document to sign or be damned - after a "single evening of thought". Also his seeming astonishment at the scale of the problem over the last couple of weeks. I mean iirc he was one of the first to whom David Millar spilled the beans wasn't he ? - hes has had plenty of time to consider,formulate and communicate a proper approach to the issue.

Do you really think this was Braillsford's policy? It has obviously come from the sponsor who doesn't want all the positive PR they have had from sponsoring the pro team and British Cycling to be undone by some hack exposing the skeletons that everyone knew were in the closet.

Agree Pross. The radio interview with DB (link posted in earlier post) is quite telling..DB: 'How many times can a sponsor take being hit with a story...? I think the innuendo and whispers that flew around with Sky and Wiggo being so dominant this year, have also been a factor in this hardline zero-tolerance policy. I'll add something else. As I was listening something came to mind. Remember how Sky levered Ben Swift out of Katusha in 09? I'm bloody glad they did. The young sprinter Galimzyanov, popped this year? Ekimov the new manager? Thank god Swifty's out of of there, and at Sky.

powerbookboy

oneof1982 wrote:

Won't quote whole of above again but I agree with OcDuPalais...

World's no.1 team draws line in sand and says enough is enough. What is not to like?

I personally think the admirable part of it is that they haven't just screwed Julich over, which was what I assumed they were going to do. They've given people the opportunity to 'fess up now and get a bit of a financial parachute to help them whilst thet try to get re-employed, or keep quiet and get absolutely hammered if they are later proven to have been involved. This behaviour reassures me in a number of ways.

1). They really do seem to be trying to stick by their stated aims of zero tolerance and clean cycling. Admirable, probably unrealistic, definitely a more difficult road to walk.

2). They aren't financially hammering people for confessing and tossing them aside a la OPQS. The latter policy seems guaranteed to stop people talking, this is a bit more human.

3). They are going to penalise you if you keep your mouth shout. This stick may force more people to 'fess up, which is good.

Basically, I don't think Sky could have done a better job with the cards they currently have. Just enough carrot and stick.

Having said that, I still think they've either been remarkably dimwitted, or happy to turn a blind eye in their previous recruitment policy, which left them with this particular hand.

But all in all, well done DB.

iainf72

I know not everyone likes Walsh , but he asked today if the person who hired Geert Leidners is going to be sacked.

Which is a pretty fine point