Team Sky- position on doping

r0bh

The criticism of Sky on here is priceless it really is.Whatever they do it won't satisfy the forum big hitters.

And look this thread is already longer than the OPQS/Leipheimer thread, what a surprise.

LeicesterLad

r0bh wrote:

The criticism of Sky on here is priceless it really is.Whatever they do it won't satisfy the forum big hitters.

And look this thread is already longer than the OPQS/Leipheimer thread, what a surprise.

Constructive post. :roll: Think you will find the majority on here are big sky fanboi's, not the other way round.

Nick Fitt

r0bh wrote:

The criticism of Sky on here is priceless it really is.Whatever they do it won't satisfy the forum big hitters.

And look this thread is already longer than the OPQS/Leipheimer thread, what a surprise.

Should anyone choose not to sign up to our clear policy they will have to leave the team, as will anyone who does sign but is subsequently found to be in breach.

In the current climate, do you really think this comment is not worthy of some comment? Lots of teams over the years have done this kind of PR stunt and then just sacked the riders when caught. It amounts to more hot air than this forums!v Personally, they expect British support and belief but treat us like fucking idiots. Plus, forums are for this sort of chat ;-)

The Mechanic

I think the Sky team are in for a shock. Either most of the team will fess up and leave, or they are all fibbers. I can't see the team being left with much in the way of Pro Tour contenders. Could end up as a team for young hopefulls.

disgruntledgoat

I think this is a case of competing pressures within Sky. Brailsford isn't dumb, he must know the history of the guys he's got working for him. However, his sponsors have given him an unrealistic expectation to fulfil and he has to square that circle whilst still winning bike races and developing his youngsters.

This is a classic management fudge to avoid making an uncomfortable decision.

Jez mon

dougzz wrote:

Garmin and Sky both suck. Sky talk the talk until they need to employ someone and the best fit has previous, they then seem to bury head in sand. Garmin have been pathetic in this, yeah we're clean, yeah we do the right thing, well once we're bang to rights and have no other options we do. I'm pretty sure the Great and Good Vaughters used the phrase 'Truth and Reconciliation' in a tweet recently, Maybe he doesn't understand that's where you just tell the truth, not wait years and years, and then tell the truth (or a version of it) only when you'd have greater legal problems by continuing the lie. Lance was a sh*t of the highest order, but most of these others should not be getting a nice easy press the way they are.

As far as I can see, at least with Garmin followed a policy which would allow them to keep a team together, with a mix of experienced and young riders and also tell the truth. Everyone was able to read between the lines of what Vaughters was saying in the years up to this.

r0bh

Nick Fitt wrote:

r0bh wrote:

The criticism of Sky on here is priceless it really is.Whatever they do it won't satisfy the forum big hitters.

And look this thread is already longer than the OPQS/Leipheimer thread, what a surprise.

Should anyone choose not to sign up to our clear policy they will have to leave the team, as will anyone who does sign but is subsequently found to be in breach.

In the current climate, do you really think this comment is not worthy of some comment? Lots of teams over the years have done this kind of PR stunt and then just sacked the riders when caught. It amounts to more hot air than this forums!v Personally, they expect British support and belief but treat us like ******* idiots. Plus, forums are for this sort of chat ;-)

What I don't understand is that everyone on here (I assume) wants drug free cycling. In the absence of a governing body who is going to do anything about it then it's up to individual teams to take a stance. Surely the strongest stance you can take is to not employ riders and staff who have (a) been sanctioned for a doping offence, or (b) were involved with doping but haven't been sanctioned. For the latter all you can really do is consider all evidence that is in the public domain and seek assurances that there are no skeletons.

Now I agree that Sky's PR is clumsy but that is hardly a reason to criticize their policy, nor is that "the other teams will be p!ssing themselves". If evidence came out about one of their riders/staff doping and then they didn't carry through with their policy then I would join in with the criticism, but that hasn't happened yet. And I mean evidence, not gossip (although sure when initially employing people they should probably take a little more notice of gossip to avoid another Leinders situation)

If anyone can come up with a better way for a team to take an overtly anti-doping stance then please let me know.

r0bh

The Mechanic wrote:

I think the Sky team are in for a shock. Either most of the team will fess up and leave, or they are all fibbers. I can't see the team being left with much in the way of Pro Tour contenders. Could end up as a team for young hopefulls.

Unless you know more than me Yates, Julich and Rogers are the only people "at risk"

r0bh

Jez mon wrote:

As far as I can see, at least with Garmin followed a policy which would allow them to keep a team together, with a mix of experienced and young riders and also tell the truth. Everyone was able to read between the lines of what Vaughters was saying in the years up to this.

Not much to read between the lines of this interview with Vaughters from 2005:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/no- ... -at-postal

Garmin have done as much (if not more) to preserve the omerta as any other team

disgruntledgoat

r0bh wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

As far as I can see, at least with Garmin followed a policy which would allow them to keep a team together, with a mix of experienced and young riders and also tell the truth. Everyone was able to read between the lines of what Vaughters was saying in the years up to this.

Not much to read between the lines of this interview with Vaughters from 2005:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/no- ... -at-postal

Garmin have done as much (if not more) to preserve the omerta as any other team

By having their principal and several riders testify under oath about their own and other peoples doping?

Is that as much as, for example, USPS/Disco, Astana, Cofidis, Festina, Phonak, T-Mobile etc etc etc

What would you have liked Garmin to do? It seems that people only want clean teams that lose and sink without trace.

graeme_s-2

r0bh wrote:

What I don't understand is that everyone on here (I assume) wants drug free cycling. In the absence of a governing body who is going to do anything about it then it's up to individual teams to take a stance. Surely the strongest stance you can take is to not employ riders and staff who have (a) been sanctioned for a doping offence, or (b) were involved with doping but haven't been sanctioned. For the latter all you can really do is consider all evidence that is in the public domain and seek assurances that there are no skeletons.

Now I agree that Sky's PR is clumsy but that is hardly a reason to criticize their policy, nor is that "the other teams will be p!ssing themselves". If evidence came out about one of their riders/staff doping and then they didn't carry through with their policy then I would join in with the criticism, but that hasn't happened yet. And I mean evidence, not gossip (although sure when initially employing people they should probably take a little more notice of gossip to avoid another Leinders situation)

If anyone can come up with a better way for a team to take an overtly anti-doping stance then please let me know.

The problem with the Sky policy is you can have doped all you liked in the past, so long as you haven't been caught and continue to lie about it. Garmin have had a number of riders contribute to the USADA investigation, and they'll keep their jobs at Garmin because they've convinced Vaughters that they're riding clean now, which is all he cares about. Mick Rogers couldn't contribute towards the USADA investigation without losing his job at Sky. How's that good for cycling? It just promotes the omerta (although I know that's not Sky's intention).

RichN95.

r0bh wrote:

The criticism of Sky on here is priceless it really is.Whatever they do it won't satisfy the forum big hitters.

And look this thread is already longer than the OPQS/Leipheimer thread, what a surprise.

I'm a Sky fan and I'm criticising it. And here's why. It makes them a target for the sections of the media (official and unofficial) that are more interested in doping gossip than cycling. Every team has people who have doped on their books, Sky probably less than most, but now the crosshairs are focussed on them and anyone's past is up for grabs. And it won't cease. If Yates goes then questions will be asked of DeJongh and Knaven and their times with Lefevre, yet questions won't be asked of Lefevre.
By contrast, Liquigas, Astana, Katusha and even Radioshack - who have more to answer in the USADA report will be left alone.

This has happened before. Back in 1993 John Major announced a campaign called 'Back to Basics' - a return to good old fashioed family values. It backfired spectacularly. The media saw this as permission to investigate every little piece of every Tory MP's private lives. And one by one the scandals kept coming and eventually it finished the Major government (which would have happened anyway) and the Tories became synonymous with 'sleaze' for a generation.

symo

disgruntledgoat wrote:

I think this is a case of competing pressures within Sky. Brailsford isn't dumb, he must know the history of the guys he's got working for him. However, his sponsors have given him an unrealistic expectation to fulfil and he has to square that circle whilst still winning bike races and developing his youngsters.

This is a classic management fudge to avoid making an uncomfortable decision.

+1

DB has to develop the clean riders as well as maintain the few clean riders available; tough juggling act.
I think the sport is improving; Slipstream/Garmin/Sharp showing the way and SKY then putting a definite line on the road. I think this is the way forward.

However what about all those Pro-Conti teams?

Richmond Racer

r0bh wrote:

The criticism of Sky on here is priceless it really is.Whatever they do it won't satisfy the forum big hitters.

And look this thread is already longer than the OPQS/Leipheimer thread, what a surprise.

In a way you are right. Sky are damned if they do, damned if they dont.

My personal frustration with this is borne out of having supported them from the start of the team. This just smacks of total PR and bugger all to do with a progressive approach to anti-doping. An approach of fess up and lose your job for something that you did years before joining this team, just isnt condusive to the truth. And its just deferring the evil moment when a lie by a rider or support staff, made to keep their job, gets exposed at a later point when the fall-out will be even bigger.

And in supporting them, to be honest it also frustrates me that they'll probably end up firing the only decent DS they have in Yatesy. God help them trying to win GTs with the remaining DSs they have - and good luck with this policy in trying to find a new, experienced DS at that level, who doesnt have a past.

And Rich, just seen your post, and you're spot on.

Trev The Rev

I thought Sky was already a clean team. What was Brailsford on with handing out huge contracts to people without making them sign an anti drug declaration?

Dorset_Boy

Lie and keep your job, fess up and lose it, is simply a stupid policy. If all you know is riding and being a DS, have no hope of media work, what are you going to do?

The only sensible workable policy for Sky would have been to have one on one interviews, demand all staff to come completely clean on the basis that their future employment will depend on what is disclosed, and when all interviews are completed, fire anyone who has been associated with doping since say 2006. Key is not to disclose the last part of this policy until after all the interviews.

Also, all disclosures must be made public, and reported to WADA.

They could then draw a line in the sand and move on with a clean team.

The current policy is an unworkable fudge that is guaranteed to backfire on them. It is simply stupid, and the sort of thing drawn up in a vacuum, or in a classroom.

Tom Butcher

Brailsford has previously said that as far as backroom staff go the requirement to have had no association with doping was unrealistic - I'm not sure how that fits in with the latest policy - seems to be backtracking on his backtracking.

As far as Yates goes I think unless he has been sanctioned for doping in the past - apparently not officially - or some new evidence comes out about him - doesn't seem to have yet - then he's going to stay where he is. It may be that Sky drop him for PR reasons at some point in the future but they'll have to pay him off because I don't see him walking and the evidence against him is circumstantial - however strong it was all known by Sky at the time they hired him.


Well, I think 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 the team would benefit from, and there was no risk of him having an adverse impact on the team, that's a decision which is a bit more difficult to decide. It's on the margins.http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/bike-blog/2011/feb/15/dave-brailsford-full-transcript

Richmond Racer

Tom Butcher wrote:

Brailsford has previously said that as far as backroom staff go the requirement to have had no association with doping was unrealistic - I'm not sure how that fits in with the latest policy - seems to be backtracking on his backtracking.

As far as Yates goes I think unless he has been sanctioned for doping in the past - apparently not officially - or some new evidence comes out about him - doesn't seem to have yet - then he's going to stay where he is. It may be that Sky drop him for PR reasons at some point in the future but they'll have to pay him off because I don't see him walking and the evidence against him is circumstantial - however strong it was all known by Sky at the time they hired him.


Well, I think 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 the team would benefit from, and there was no risk of him having an adverse impact on the team, that's a decision which is a bit more difficult to decide. It's on the margins.http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/bike-blog/2011/feb/15/dave-brailsford-full-transcript

Ha...I hadnt read that transcript before....

Trev The Rev

Brailsford says things that sound good at the time, it is all PR. I don't trust a word he says.

To quote Brailsford.

""Anyone who does not sign the declaration will leave the team, as will anyone who does sign but is subsequently found to be in breach of the policy. The team will also terminate contracts if individuals admit to any doping in their pasts.""

Isn't this the sort of thing a clean team would have done from day one? Why didn't he make all riders, coaches, doctors and staff sign such a declaration before signing them in the first place?

Gazzaputt

I applaud Team Sky for at least taking a stance.

Pretty black and white if you doped don't sign an there's the door. Sign and it comes up you doped there's the door.

Problem is?

Gazzaputt

iainf72 wrote:

They've achieved a great double.

They're dumb in the class room. And dumb on the bus.

Sorry for being dumb but I miss the point of this post.

So dumb that the team are top Protour team and have a TDF winner?

mrushton

At least Brailsford is saying something compared to Katusha/Astana who just hold 2 fingers up to everyone.

r0bh

Dorset Boy wrote:

Lie and keep your job, fess up and lose it, is simply a stupid policy. If all you know is riding and being a DS, have no hope of media work, what are you going to do?

Go to another team?

mike6

Not the responses I was expecting to read on this thread.

If we want a clean, believable sport, we have to draw a line in the sand and that is what Sky are doing, as far as I can see.
Some one even posted along the lines of "what if someone doped in the past, never tested positive and no one knows about it?" What the.....are Sky supposed to be psychic now?

It seems crystal clear to me. You sign the declaration stating no doping, past or present. If not, you are out. If you sign it and are later proven to be lying, you are out. Simple. How much clearer could it be.

Brailsford always seems to get a hard time from some people, but that is the way,I suppose. If someone or something is successful, or is trying to change things for the better, then they must be knocked down because how can anyone, especially someone fairly new to the sport, like Brailsford, be so arrogant as to think they could make a difference.

I for one think its the way to go and If the UCI had any b***s they would make all the teams have the same policy.

Richmond Racer

mrushton wrote:

At least Brailsford is saying something compared to Katusha/Astana who just hold 2 fingers up to everyone.

True that. Those Kazakh and Russian owners will do absolutely nothing. Same goes for almost all of the other Pro Tour teams. Lefevre only fired Leipheimer to get a 38 year old off his roster and free up cash for Cav.

ddraver

Trev The Rev wrote:

Brailsford says things that sound good at the time, it is all PR. I don't trust a word he says.

To quote Brailsford.

""Anyone who does not sign the declaration will leave the team, as will anyone who does sign but is subsequently found to be in breach of the policy. The team will also terminate contracts if individuals admit to any doping in their pasts.""

Isn't this the sort of thing a clean team would have done from day one? Why didn't he make all riders, coaches, doctors and staff sign such a declaration before signing them in the first place?

I would agree with this but I'm holding off judgement until we see what happens with these "interviews" If they are not clear about how the Yates' and Jullich's justify them selves then they are setting themselves up for an awful lot of flaming. I suspect there may be a position as a Sky DS opening soon...

Just like OPQS with Levi it's the actions that speak louder than the words and recently Sky have been long on words and short on action.

However, people are right to point out the farcical nature of the Twitter Taliban haranguing Sky for every small mistake but totally ignoring every other team.

oneof1982

As above, bit obsessive some of this stuff around Sky, but I guess that is to be expected given their long time, and current position on doping. Despite many protestations I think this comes from the fact that for most on the forum they are the "local team". They also have put themeselves on a pedestal and deserve to be scrutinised. Having said all that, in terms of drugs in the sport, I don't think Sky are the problem. At worst they will have a pr problem when someone's drug taking from 5-10 years ago is exposed. The next big drug scandal/ban re a contemporary case will come from one of the other teams who are sayin nothing at the moment are shown to be still at it.

prawny

Richmond Racer wrote:

mrushton wrote:

At least Brailsford is saying something compared to Katusha/Astana who just hold 2 fingers up to everyone.

True that. Those Kazakh and Russian owners will do absolutely nothing. Same goes for almost all of the other Pro Tour teams. Lefevre only fired Leipheimer to get a 38 year old off his roster and free up cash for Cav.

I wouldn't say that, this isn't a million miles away from Katusha's Pay 50 billion times your salary if you test positive stunt.

I'm a fan of Sky, but I think if thee people have already been lying for 20 years they'll carry on lying for another 20.

There needs to be mass public admission of past dopers and some grassing up of those that aren't willing to come clean. It's too late in the season to be shifting teams for the riders, why would the cop to it now when all they're guaranteed is the sack.

Stupid plan IMHO, but that's that's what the board have handed down in my understanding, Dave B was the first one to be interviewed and signed it wasn't he?

Turfle

LeicesterLad wrote:

Anybody who thinks Yates, who was with Armstrong, US Postal, Discovery etc through that era, didn't 'see or hear' anything as he proclaims is a complete idiot. He shouldn't be at Sky, why does he have so many bleedin apologists on here? The blokes dirty as feck. Even Rich, who is usually pretty staunch anti-doping (when it suits him) is playing the 'can't hold a few little pills against him' card. I mean for f*cks sake, look at the man, he got busted for pills, he hung out with the biggest bunch of dirty cheats in cycling - doesn't really matter if it was 'just pills', some would argue 'it was just coritcoids for sadle sores'. People need to get real. I don't think Brailsford can keep up the whole no dirt rider no dirty staff sharade, but I also don't think it wouldnt be right to keep people like Yates and Rogers on the books when there is so much doubt about them and they continue to pretend they know nothing. Dave B can't really win can he?

I have yet to see a single person or post suggest Yates' record is clean.

The question is, in the context of this policy is there enough evidence to fire a man? Using your list, we have a failed test (which isn't even a failed test), and the fact that he was on a dirty team (even though nobody named him as dirty). That is it! Unless he admits it I can't see they have any grounds at all to fire him.

epc06

Be interesting to see if Mr Kimmage is appeased by this, given his recent comments regarding Sky..

Still at least the forum is busy, normally this time of year its the odd post per day regards a Christmas drink