Team Sky- position on doping

oneof1982

SKY ARE NOT THE PROBLEM

Trev The Rev

Turfle wrote:

Oh, Trev.

What did they call Le Tour in 1999? Don't think it will stop with Armstrong, there will be more big names to come.

I put forward the 'legalise everything' argument out of frustration at listening to some 40 years of the 'it's cleaner today and getting cleaner' line. That does not mean I condone cheating or mean I don't want want clean sport - just that I don't think we will ever see it.

LeicesterLad

Turfle wrote:

LeicesterLad wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

LL, I know that you dont trust Brailsford. Fair enough, that's your view.

But like others have said, I think this is the Sky board's policy, their conditions for sponsoring and continuing to sponsor. I recently asked Richard Moore whether back in 2010 when Landis accused Barry and Brailsford acknowledged the realisation of how many over 30s were tainted, the Sky board would have let Brailsford implement a changed policy. Moore's answer was simply 'No'.

Brailsford has to front the zero tolerance stand of Sky and implement it. Doesnt mean to say that I agree the way they're handling this process now - I've made that very clear with other posts.

Tbh if these are Sky's conditions, on balance I'd still rather have Sky in the game (yes, even with the Murdochs along for the ride) than give the entire shooting match over to more Tinkoffs and Markovs.

It's not even so much that I don't trust Brailsford - to be fair on him he can't really win either way. But the man of course should come under fire, as it was he who laid out these best placed plans for an anti-doping team so when it gets tricky he has to answer questions. But Sky either need to take a very hard line or just give up the ghost, Brailsford tried asking people 'have you doped?' before, they lied, said 'no' and that was enough to enforce his 'anti-doping' policy - the new sky statement basically says the same, 'lie to me and you can stay' message. If he wants a team without tainted men then it should be a simple case of just dropping Yates, Jilich etc - but on the flipside people are saying on here 'can't really get rid of yates' without proof, but proof isn't needed, he IS tainted and has been for as long as everybody knew US Postal were scum.

There's also arguments on here like 'it was only a few pills' or 'he ain't the wealthiest guy, he needs the job' - I mean FFS, the bloke cheated and now lies through his teeth, we should be saying 'pay the price' not 'poor Sean, let him off' and thats the policy Brailsford should be enforcing, otherwise he shouldn't be enforcing one at all because it just makes the man look a fool.

And again, in the real world you can't fire someone and say "proof isn't needed, he IS tainted". Capital is doesn't cut it.

I can see that, but the fact is, if Sky were serious about running things in the way they decalre to the media, then they wouldn't have employed Yates or Leinders in the first place, far to risky. If Brailsford ask yates the question, Yates says 'no, not me Gov' and Sky just carry on as normal it will make them look farcical at best and they won't be getting any support from me in the future and I imagine a lot of others who actually care about having a clean sport.

Originally, I was a Sky fan, I even have a jersey! But they need a clear out now if they are to save face or the whole policy needs looking at again. In fact, if Yates had anything about him he'd just save everyone the hassle and walk.

LangerDan

oneof1982 wrote:

SKY ARE NOT THE PROBLEM

The "Caps Lock" button on your keyboard might be, though.

Richmond Racer

LL, just curious: who are you left with now in terms of Pro teams, who you'd support? Just Garmin?

tommasi

Sign here to get fired.

Or we'll fire you when it all comes out, which we would have done anyway.

Brilliant.

disgruntledgoat

LL

If Brailsford ask yates the question, Yates says 'no, not me Gov' and Sky just carry on as normal

Which team in the pro peloton do you think operates differently to this?

oneof1982

LeicesterLad wrote:

Originally, I was a Sky fan, I even have a jersey! But they need a clear out now if they are to save face or the whole policy needs looking at again. In fact, if Yates had anything about him he'd just save everyone the hassle and walk.

If attitude and policy to doping are such an issue in who you will support, who is offering a better deal?

LeicesterLad

Richmond Racer wrote:

LL, just curious: who are you left with now in terms of Pro teams, who you'd support? Just Garmin?

I don't support a team as such, this ain't football - I support riders. This all comes back to people getting over patriotic about Sky, just because they have a British base doesn't mean I have to be a 'fan' of the team and staff.

I know there are much much much dirtier teams out there doing very little in the way of anti-doping, but then they havn't set out from the start to ride clean, be transparent and be overwhelmingly anti-doping. This is about a team saying all the right things and then not going through with what they said they would. Forget all the Armstrong stuff, yates, Barry etc and go back to Leinders - that was a good bit of research Sky did well wasn't it? Brailsford handled it very well with his best effort to ignore it and hope it would go away - are we really expected to believe Brailsford or anybody else at Sky knew nothing about Leinders? pull the other one.

oneof1982

LangerDan wrote:

oneof1982 wrote:

SKY ARE NOT THE PROBLEM

The "Caps Lock" button on your keyboard might be, though.

I'd rather have sworn but apparently it's frowned upon. :roll:

Trev The Rev

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

I was asked that when I said Armstrong was a cheat back in 1999.

SO your genuine belief is that Sky are exactly as bad as USPS? If so, why bother watching pro cycling and who do you think is worthy of trust?

What I believe, what I know and what I can prove are very different things. Whenever I have believed people were clean in the past I soon knew they were not clean but it took time before I could prove what I knew.

Now I go no further than saying I want to believe people are clean.

disgruntledgoat

LeicesterLad wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

LL, just curious: who are you left with now in terms of Pro teams, who you'd support? Just Garmin?

I don't support a team as such, this ain't football - I support riders. This all comes back to people getting over patriotic about Sky, just because they have a British base doesn't mean I have to be a 'fan' of the team and staff.

I know there are much much much dirtier teams out there doing very little in the way of anti-doping, but then they havn't set out from the start to ride clean, be transparent and be overwhelmingly anti-doping. This is about a team saying all the right things and then not going through with what they said they would. Forget all the Armstrong stuff, yates, Barry etc and go back to Leinders - that was a good bit of research Sky did well wasn't it? Brailsford handled it very well with his best effort to ignore it and hope it would go away - are we really expected to believe Brailsford or anybody else at Sky knew nothing about Leinders? pull the other one.

SO if you set out with lofty ambitions that prove to be unworkable in the real world, what should you do? Pack up and go home?

LeicesterLad

disgruntledgoat wrote:

LeicesterLad wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

LL, just curious: who are you left with now in terms of Pro teams, who you'd support? Just Garmin?

I don't support a team as such, this ain't football - I support riders. This all comes back to people getting over patriotic about Sky, just because they have a British base doesn't mean I have to be a 'fan' of the team and staff.

I know there are much much much dirtier teams out there doing very little in the way of anti-doping, but then they havn't set out from the start to ride clean, be transparent and be overwhelmingly anti-doping. This is about a team saying all the right things and then not going through with what they said they would. Forget all the Armstrong stuff, yates, Barry etc and go back to Leinders - that was a good bit of research Sky did well wasn't it? Brailsford handled it very well with his best effort to ignore it and hope it would go away - are we really expected to believe Brailsford or anybody else at Sky knew nothing about Leinders? pull the other one.

SO if you set out with lofty ambitions that prove to be unworkable in the real world, what should you do? Pack up and go home?

No. it has proven unworkable - doesn't mean it can't now be fixed, properly, without the 'ill ask and if he says its fine then great' policy.

Sky had 2 options.

Stand by the policy and offload the liars or re-evaluate the police, say sorry guys we got it wrong, it can't be done. Not simply reissue a statement they made 3 years ago.

oneof1982

LeicesterLad wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

LL, just curious: who are you left with now in terms of Pro teams, who you'd support? Just Garmin?

I don't support a team as such, this ain't football - I support riders. This all comes back to people getting over patriotic about Sky, just because they have a British base doesn't mean I have to be a 'fan' of the team and staff.

I know there are much much much dirtier teams out there doing very little in the way of anti-doping, but then they havn't set out from the start to ride clean, be transparent and be overwhelmingly anti-doping. This is about a team saying all the right things and then not going through with what they said they would. Forget all the Armstrong stuff, yates, Barry etc and go back to Leinders - that was a good bit of research Sky did well wasn't it? Brailsford handled it very well with his best effort to ignore it and hope it would go away - are we really expected to believe Brailsford or anybody else at Sky knew nothing about Leinders? pull the other one.

So you start out being a fan (your words), but have a moment of clarity?

If it is doping you are concerned about, then Sky are still the best bet.

KieranHardman

A hypothetical point: Isnt it beneficial for a team to hire a repentant ex-doper? They know the myriad ways to cheat and can recognise the warning signs in younger riders who might be getting a little tempted? Sort of like ex-burglars becoming security consultants and casinos hiring ex-cheats to watch the games. Or is that just the films...

Having someone who knows a thing or two about doping keeping an eye on the team would be beneficial for a new team with no real experience of dealing with active dopers.

Richmond Racer

LeicesterLad wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

LL, just curious: who are you left with now in terms of Pro teams, who you'd support? Just Garmin?

I don't support a team as such, this ain't football - I support riders. This all comes back to people getting over patriotic about Sky, just because they have a British base doesn't mean I have to be a 'fan' of the team and staff.

I know there are much much much dirtier teams out there doing very little in the way of anti-doping, but then they havn't set out from the start to ride clean, be transparent and be overwhelmingly anti-doping. This is about a team saying all the right things and then not going through with what they said they would. Forget all the Armstrong stuff, yates, Barry etc and go back to Leinders - that was a good bit of research Sky did well wasn't it? Brailsford handled it very well with his best effort to ignore it and hope it would go away.

I phrased the question badly by saying 'support'. I interpreted you saying you were originally a fan, as 'support'. What I was really trying to ask is which team is an example to you of how things should be done.

So basically from your answer, there is no decent team that's doing it right. And for you its not that Sky have tried, its that you feel they've been hypocritical or whatever? so if they had just launched like every other blessed team with not saying a dicky bird about an anti-doping policy, you wouldnt have an issue?

You'll have IAM to get your teeth into next. They're following exactly the same path as Sky.

LeicesterLad

oneof1982 wrote:

LeicesterLad wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

LL, just curious: who are you left with now in terms of Pro teams, who you'd support? Just Garmin?

I don't support a team as such, this ain't football - I support riders. This all comes back to people getting over patriotic about Sky, just because they have a British base doesn't mean I have to be a 'fan' of the team and staff.

I know there are much much much dirtier teams out there doing very little in the way of anti-doping, but then they havn't set out from the start to ride clean, be transparent and be overwhelmingly anti-doping. This is about a team saying all the right things and then not going through with what they said they would. Forget all the Armstrong stuff, yates, Barry etc and go back to Leinders - that was a good bit of research Sky did well wasn't it? Brailsford handled it very well with his best effort to ignore it and hope it would go away - are we really expected to believe Brailsford or anybody else at Sky knew nothing about Leinders? pull the other one.

So you start out being a fan (your words), but have a moment of clarity?

If it is doping you are concerned about, then Sky are still the best bet.

It's less about the doping, more about the principle of laying down ground rules and sticking to them. I've not 'gone off' Sky because of this, its for a number of reasons and its not a recent thing.

Pross

Trev The Rev wrote:

I was asked that when I said Armstrong was a cheat back in 1999.

Coincidently I was thinking a hour or two back that the biggest problem with LA finally being caught out would be exactly this sort of comment i.e. "Wiggins is a doper" "why? what evidence is there to suggest that he is doping?" "oh, that's what people said in '99 when I told them LA was doping"

People will now throw around accusations against any rider who wins a few races and when people argue there's no evidence we'll get "they said that for years about Armstrong". It's depressing!

LeicesterLad

Richmond Racer wrote:

LeicesterLad wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

LL, just curious: who are you left with now in terms of Pro teams, who you'd support? Just Garmin?

I don't support a team as such, this ain't football - I support riders. This all comes back to people getting over patriotic about Sky, just because they have a British base doesn't mean I have to be a 'fan' of the team and staff.

I know there are much much much dirtier teams out there doing very little in the way of anti-doping, but then they havn't set out from the start to ride clean, be transparent and be overwhelmingly anti-doping. This is about a team saying all the right things and then not going through with what they said they would. Forget all the Armstrong stuff, yates, Barry etc and go back to Leinders - that was a good bit of research Sky did well wasn't it? Brailsford handled it very well with his best effort to ignore it and hope it would go away.

I phrased the question badly by saying 'support'. What I was really trying to ask is which team is an example to you of how things should be done.

So basically from your answer, there is no decent team that's doing it right. And for you its not that Sky have tried, its that you feel they've been hypocritical or whatever? so if they had just launched like every other blessed team with not saying a dicky bird about an anti-doping policy, you wouldnt have an issue?

You'll have IAM to get your teeth into next. They're following exactly the same path as Sky.

Sky were doing it right before they started bending the rules and not following their own policy. That's my answer. if the policy is unworkable, change it to a garmin type policy, don't stick with the old policy knowing full well you cannot back it up.

oneof1982

LeicesterLad wrote:

oneof1982 wrote:

LeicesterLad wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

LL, just curious: who are you left with now in terms of Pro teams, who you'd support? Just Garmin?

I don't support a team as such, this ain't football - I support riders. This all comes back to people getting over patriotic about Sky, just because they have a British base doesn't mean I have to be a 'fan' of the team and staff.

I know there are much much much dirtier teams out there doing very little in the way of anti-doping, but then they havn't set out from the start to ride clean, be transparent and be overwhelmingly anti-doping. This is about a team saying all the right things and then not going through with what they said they would. Forget all the Armstrong stuff, yates, Barry etc and go back to Leinders - that was a good bit of research Sky did well wasn't it? Brailsford handled it very well with his best effort to ignore it and hope it would go away - are we really expected to believe Brailsford or anybody else at Sky knew nothing about Leinders? pull the other one.

So you start out being a fan (your words), but have a moment of clarity?

If it is doping you are concerned about, then Sky are still the best bet.

It's less about the doping, more about the principle of laying down ground rules and sticking to them. I've not 'gone off' Sky because of this, its for a number of reasons and its not a recent thing.

Yes I remember it was to do with winning the TdF and making your beloved cycling popular with the masses!

LeicesterLad

oneof1982 wrote:

LeicesterLad wrote:

oneof1982 wrote:

LeicesterLad wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

LL, just curious: who are you left with now in terms of Pro teams, who you'd support? Just Garmin?

I don't support a team as such, this ain't football - I support riders. This all comes back to people getting over patriotic about Sky, just because they have a British base doesn't mean I have to be a 'fan' of the team and staff.

I know there are much much much dirtier teams out there doing very little in the way of anti-doping, but then they havn't set out from the start to ride clean, be transparent and be overwhelmingly anti-doping. This is about a team saying all the right things and then not going through with what they said they would. Forget all the Armstrong stuff, yates, Barry etc and go back to Leinders - that was a good bit of research Sky did well wasn't it? Brailsford handled it very well with his best effort to ignore it and hope it would go away - are we really expected to believe Brailsford or anybody else at Sky knew nothing about Leinders? pull the other one.

So you start out being a fan (your words), but have a moment of clarity?

If it is doping you are concerned about, then Sky are still the best bet.

It's less about the doping, more about the principle of laying down ground rules and sticking to them. I've not 'gone off' Sky because of this, its for a number of reasons and its not a recent thing.

Yes I remember it was to do with winning the TdF and making your beloved cycling popular with the masses!

No it was before that.

nathancom

Garmin acts like a rehab for ex dopers. How is that the correct way to run a team? A zero tolerance policy is probably the best way to run a team in a very bad environment where your every success is questioned.

Completely workable right now? No, but you instil the culture from the beginning, you don't work towards it.

rick_chasey

Given what Brailsford knew before he started sky, and we can more or less assume he knew more than we did given what we can see in the Millar book, I'm surprised he made what seems a bit of a rookie mistake.

smithy21

LeicesterLad wrote:

Turfle wrote:

LeicesterLad wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

LL, I know that you dont trust Brailsford. Fair enough, that's your view.

But like others have said, I think this is the Sky board's policy, their conditions for sponsoring and continuing to sponsor. I recently asked Richard Moore whether back in 2010 when Landis accused Barry and Brailsford acknowledged the realisation of how many over 30s were tainted, the Sky board would have let Brailsford implement a changed policy. Moore's answer was simply 'No'.

Brailsford has to front the zero tolerance stand of Sky and implement it. Doesnt mean to say that I agree the way they're handling this process now - I've made that very clear with other posts.

Tbh if these are Sky's conditions, on balance I'd still rather have Sky in the game (yes, even with the Murdochs along for the ride) than give the entire shooting match over to more Tinkoffs and Markovs.

It's not even so much that I don't trust Brailsford - to be fair on him he can't really win either way. But the man of course should come under fire, as it was he who laid out these best placed plans for an anti-doping team so when it gets tricky he has to answer questions. But Sky either need to take a very hard line or just give up the ghost, Brailsford tried asking people 'have you doped?' before, they lied, said 'no' and that was enough to enforce his 'anti-doping' policy - the new sky statement basically says the same, 'lie to me and you can stay' message. If he wants a team without tainted men then it should be a simple case of just dropping Yates, Jilich etc - but on the flipside people are saying on here 'can't really get rid of yates' without proof, but proof isn't needed, he IS tainted and has been for as long as everybody knew US Postal were scum.

There's also arguments on here like 'it was only a few pills' or 'he ain't the wealthiest guy, he needs the job' - I mean FFS, the bloke cheated and now lies through his teeth, we should be saying 'pay the price' not 'poor Sean, let him off' and thats the policy Brailsford should be enforcing, otherwise he shouldn't be enforcing one at all because it just makes the man look a fool.

And again, in the real world you can't fire someone and say "proof isn't needed, he IS tainted". Capital is doesn't cut it.

I can see that, but the fact is, if Sky were serious about running things in the way they decalre to the media, then they wouldn't have employed Yates or Leinders in the first place, far to risky. If Brailsford ask yates the question, Yates says 'no, not me Gov' and Sky just carry on as normal it will make them look farcical at best and they won't be getting any support from me in the future and I imagine a lot of others who actually care about having a clean sport.

Originally, I was a Sky fan, I even have a jersey! But they need a clear out now if they are to save face or the whole policy needs looking at again. In fact, if Yates had anything about him he'd just save everyone the hassle and walk.

Bloody hell LL. And you say Sky's position is difficult to substantiate.

mroli

LeicesterLad wrote:

Forget all the Armstrong stuff, yates, Barry etc and go back to Leinders - that was a good bit of research Sky did well wasn't it? Brailsford handled it very well with his best effort to ignore it and hope it would go away - are we really expected to believe Brailsford or anybody else at Sky knew nothing about Leinders? pull the other one.

Leinders was let go by Brailsford. Why did he hire him in the first place? Remember - a load of sky riders got sick in the vuelta and (unconnected) Gonzales died. They wanted someone with cycling knowledge brought in. I believe THAT story much more than Brailsford deliberately went out of his way to hire a Dr with a doping history that breached his policies on hiring staff for an unknown end.

Sky aren't great at a lot of stuff - they have come in making bold statements waiving their cash around, but there is a part of me that thinks they get slagged when they lose (rubbish tactics, crap riders), slagged when they win (bought success, no real rivals), slagged for their doping policy (unrealistic, naive) and slagged for trying to back it up. Get a grip people - do we really think Sky and Yates having a job with them is the problem?

I've heard a rumour that it is likely to be 2xbackroom staff and 1xrider out.

dougzz

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Except it is the gold standard, because as a team, in 4 years, they've gone for maximum transparency, run an internal testing programme open to scrutiny, been the first team to implement "no needles", fired a guy over a mix up with his whereabouts forms and won the Giro off the back of it all.
Who is the gold standard?

There isn't one in cycling. There are liars, liars by omission, and people that lied previously and are trying to do a better job. On balance I like Vaughters, I really do, but I don't like to see him painted as this guy that's all things to all people. He cheated, kept quiet about it, decided it was wrong, and I believe has tried to do better. But, with his past, and his hiring of other previous dopers he has to accept they'll be criticism. I glad the Armstrong myth is destroyed, and hopefully cycling will improve and move on from it. My problem is with pretending that somehow all these others are OK, that it was OK for them to hide their previous involvement, and only admit it when it was beneficial to do so. They lied, they hid the lies, and then when they had virtually no other choice they came clean. That's not to be praised, it was self-interest, the same thing that led to the doping in the first place. This self-interest will also lead to autobiographies to lay the truth out for all (well make some more cash anyway).
I believe we discuss Sky and Garmin because they are worthy of discussion, because they have at least on some level confronted the past. While Bruyneel was around, and Riis and many other still are, cycling will always be held to ridicule for it's anti-doping claims. Let's see how many GTs are won over the next few years by people known to be less than ideal from an anti-doping stance.

Richmond Racer

Rick Chasey wrote:

Given what Brailsford knew before he started sky, and we can more or less assume he knew more than we did given what we can see in the Millar book, I'm surprised he made what seems a bit of a rookie mistake.

We keep on coming back to the question of Brailsford vs Sky board when it comes down to things policy-wise...

Turfle

nathancom wrote:

Garmin acts like a rehab for ex dopers. How is that the correct way to run a team? A zero tolerance policy is probably the best way to run a team in a very bad environment where your every success is questioned.

Completely workable right now? No, but you instil the culture from the beginning, you don't work towards it.

I do agree with that. Do you dump your principles because something becomes too hard? As time goes by, and a hopefully cleaner generation of riders start to get DS jobs, a zero tolerance policy becomes more and more feasible.

My problem with the Garmin policy, and I do believe they are overwhelmingly for the good of cycling, is hiring known ex-dopers who have yet to serve a ban.

Sky vs Garmin: Confess and you don't get a job vs don't confess and you get a job.

LeicesterLad

This sums my views up really: http://inrng.com/2012/10/the-madness-of-zero-tolerance/#more-11416

It's not that i'm saying Sky are the Satan's of cycling, clearly they are trying to make progress where the majority of teams couldn't give a sh*t. But Sky have ignored their own policy, and rather than tackle its unworkable nature, have simply re-issued the statement knowing full well it doesn't and will not work unless they tackle it with some balls and a few P45's.

Turfle - the Sky V Garmin 'confess and you don't get a job V confess and you do', in that Moral compass i'd go for Sky. If you cheated or lied, expect to be punished, it's just that getting somebody to 'confess' is difficult and therefor means the policy is likely to fail and look stupid.

Richmond Racer

LeicesterLad wrote:

This sums my views up really: http://inrng.com/2012/10/the-madness-of-zero-tolerance/#more-11416

It's not that i'm saying Sky are the Satan's of cycling, clearly they are trying to make progress where the majority of teams couldn't give a sh*t. But Sky have ignored their own policy, and rather than tackle its unworkable nature, have simply re-issued the statement knowing full well it doesn't and will not work unless they tackle it with some balls and a few P45's.

Dont worry, LL, I'm sure there will be some P45s coming along