Team Sky- position on doping

nathancom

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.

What policy do you have other than zero tolerance?

Sure, given cycling's ongoing state, you may have to bend at times but you can't really break from zero tolerance. If Garmin are still accepting ex dopers in 10 years time then are they still to be praised or just showing that even if you dope and get caught you can still have a very well paid career?

disgruntledgoat

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.

BUt you've just admitted that your own preference is unworkable. So what would you do?

Remember these teams still have to perform and hire riders who are attractive to sponsors or they go bust then their good intentions are lost to the sport and the approach is viewed as being unworkable so we end up with nothing ever changing.

LeicesterLad

nathancom wrote:

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.

What policy do you have other than zero tolerance?

Sure, given cycling's ongoing state, you may have to bend at times but you can't really break from zero tolerance. If Garmin are still accepting ex dopers in 10 years time then are they still to be praised or just showing that even if you dope and get caught you can still have a very well paid career?

I agree with you, it should be Zero tolerance but if Sky stick with that and then continue to have 'questionable' riders and staff on board then it just makes a mockery of it.

Trev The Rev

Pross wrote:

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!

Yes it is very depressing and I want to believe in Wiggins.

nathancom

disgruntledgoat wrote:

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.

BUt you've just admitted that your own preference is unworkable. So what would you do?

Remember these teams still have to perform and hire riders who are attractive to sponsors or they go bust then their good intentions are lost to the sport and the approach is viewed as being unworkable so we end up with nothing ever changing.

I think you have to have your policy which sets the culture for the team and stick with it as much as you can without damaging the processes on which your team is run. If that means you keep Yates on until a less conflicted, equally talented individual is available then you have little choice.

Changing the culture of the team by moving from a lax position to a strict position later is much harder, and outside perceptions are harder to change. For all the hassle the team gets now, it is in a better position to be believed should cycling clean up compared to say Astana etc.

oneof1982

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.

Question: Do you mean the anti doping policy when you talk about "rookie mistake"?

If so, then he answer is surely it was a deal breaker established by the sponsors Sky, and Dave is under pressure to restate this, and sort out the excused breaches. I think he will be under the cosh at the moment, given he sold the dream first to BC and then to Sky. But I don't think he would have got as far as he has without the policy being in place in the first instance.

Richmond Racer

mroli wrote:

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.

No doubt The Betty Ford Clinic aka Garmin and Saint Vaughters will hire them, noisily and to much acclaim and general worshipping.

EDIT: tho I'm not sure the Yanks will be able to understand Yatesy

LeicesterLad

Here is my Brief analysis:

Original Sky Mission Statement Good, Offload 4 possible 'wronguns' after all it only needs to be a 'tainting' and they are not exactly make or break faces for Team Sky, the original mission statement can stay and Sky can carry on as they please.

oneof1982

LeicesterLad wrote:

Here is my Brief analysis:

Original Sky Mission Statement Good, Offload 4 possible 'wronguns' after all it only needs to be a 'tainting' and they are not exactly make or break faces for Team Sky, the original mission statement can stay and Sky can carry on as they please.

And your Sky jersey?

LeicesterLad

oneof1982 wrote:

LeicesterLad wrote:

Here is my Brief analysis:

Original Sky Mission Statement Good, Offload 4 possible 'wronguns' after all it only needs to be a 'tainting' and they are not exactly make or break faces for Team Sky, the original mission statement can stay and Sky can carry on as they please.

And your Sky jersey?

I might consider digging it out again, especially after 1st of Jan, when it will then be considered a 'classic'.

symo

disgruntledgoat wrote:

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?

Bing!

I think at this point that yes there ex-dopers in the peloton, but the message from the sponsors is now louder than the UCI sanctioned Omerta. Teams need the sponsors revenue, the sponsors (apart from a few in the East who don't give a fudge) are demanding no dopers.

Out of all the teams, SKY do have the best policy which is proving difficult to enforce; but it is at least better than the best of the rest.

As for Yates, he can say he didn't dope, and the inquiry said he was OK then what can DB do?

rick_chasey

oneof1982 wrote:

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.

Question: Do you mean the anti doping policy when you talk about "rookie mistake"?

If so, then he answer is surely it was a deal breaker established by the sponsors Sky, and Dave is under pressure to restate this, and sort out the excused breaches. I think he will be under the cosh at the moment, given he sold the dream first to BC and then to Sky. But I don't think he would have got as far as he has without the policy being in place in the first instance.

But the last two generations of cyclists have been totally dope orientated. It's pretty much impossible to have a current cycling team that has no connections with doping, past or present.

Anonymous

coriordan wrote:

Garmin and Sky are essentially 2 ways of bridging the gap to a cleaner sport.

As people said, you cant have experience without a slightly dodgy past
Garmin - ok, but we'll keep you if you are an anti-doping advocate
Sky - 100% clean or else or we don't get the sponsors.

Why are people blaming DB for this? Surely SKY choose where they place their money are perhaps a bit naive, whereas Garmin-Sharp know whats been going on so have adjusted their team policy accordingly.

One day, Garmin/Sky riders will be the future DS's etc of the sport, and that's what we are paving the way for, surely?

Thats what I said!

DeadCalm

Rick Chasey wrote:

oneof1982 wrote:

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.

Question: Do you mean the anti doping policy when you talk about "rookie mistake"?

If so, then he answer is surely it was a deal breaker established by the sponsors Sky, and Dave is under pressure to restate this, and sort out the excused breaches. I think he will be under the cosh at the moment, given he sold the dream first to BC and then to Sky. But I don't think he would have got as far as he has without the policy being in place in the first instance.

But the last two generations of cyclists have been totally dope orientated. It's pretty much impossible to have a current cycling team that has no connections with doping, past or present.

If Sky were to get rid of Jullich, Yates and Rogers they'd be pretty close wouldn't they? At least in terms of known connections.

Turfle

Where I'm at: I have confidence that riders are free from doping pressure on both Sky and Garmin. Neither approach is perfect, but in the end that surely is the important bit.

dish_dash

Turfle wrote:

Where I'm at: I have confidence that riders are free from doping pressure on both Sky and Garmin. Neither approach is perfect, but in the end that surely is the important bit.

no no... we want scalps and we want them now...

Pross

Turfle wrote:

Where I'm at: I have confidence that riders are free from doping pressure on both Sky and Garmin. Neither approach is perfect, but in the end that surely is the important bit.

FFS that's the last time I'm bringing you to a lynching party, you always go and spoil it.

graeme_s-2

oops - wrong thread

smithy21

Turfle wrote:

Where I'm at: I have confidence that riders are free from doping pressure on both Sky and Garmin. Neither approach is perfect, but in the end that surely is the important bit.

I agree. Sky can only sign riders from Garmin and vice versa or Brailsford is satan....that is what you mean isn't it?

rick_chasey

DeadCalm wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

oneof1982 wrote:

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.

Question: Do you mean the anti doping policy when you talk about "rookie mistake"?

If so, then he answer is surely it was a deal breaker established by the sponsors Sky, and Dave is under pressure to restate this, and sort out the excused breaches. I think he will be under the cosh at the moment, given he sold the dream first to BC and then to Sky. But I don't think he would have got as far as he has without the policy being in place in the first instance.

But the last two generations of cyclists have been totally dope orientated. It's pretty much impossible to have a current cycling team that has no connections with doping, past or present.

If Sky were to get rid of Jullich, Yates and Rogers they'd be pretty close wouldn't they? At least in terms of known connections.

Steven de Jongh? Servais Knaven?

Never suspected them before but I'm sceptical of everyone who's ridden profesionally in the last 20 years unless I have evidence to say otherwise.

Richmond Racer

Tell you what, just to be on the safe side, why dont Sky just replace the entire current squad of riders with the 16-18 year olds from the Olympic Development Team, and the current DSs with riders from the Olympic Academy Programme (paying for them to take their driving tests, if necessary)?

That might make everyone happy

:roll:

rick_chasey

Richmond Racer wrote:

Tell you what, just to be on the safe side, why dont Sky just replace the entire current squad of riders with the 16-18 year olds from the Olympic Development Team, and the current DSs with riders from the Olympic Academy Programme (paying for them to take their driving tests, if necessary)?

That might make everyone happy

:roll:

*shrugs*

Just be more honest and more practical about it.

Garmin are that. If a little preachy, but then they're 'reformed' / born again, so you can't really hold it against them.

Pross

Richmond Racer wrote:

Tell you what, just to be on the safe side, why dont Sky just replace the entire current squad of riders with the 16-18 year olds from the Olympic Development Team, and the current DSs with riders from the Olympic Academy Programme (paying for them to take their driving tests, if necessary)?

That might make everyone happy

:roll:

Surely that would be worse? Those kids have been brought through since they were about 12 by the great satan and his cronies in the BC setup so they'll have been doping all their years. The only safe thing to do is get riders in from teams without a contraversial doping policy such as Saxo or Astana.

Richmond Racer

Fark! You're right! Alternatively do a reverse-drag job on Pooley, Cooke et al and have them ride

iainf72

DeadCalm wrote:

If Sky were to get rid of Jullich, Yates and Rogers they'd be pretty close wouldn't they? At least in terms of known connections.

Known at the moment, or linked via USADA

The problem is when something else comes out and links someone else they look very very stupid.

How many people would they have to lose in a cull to raise people's eyebrows?

smithy21

I don't think they will look stupid. We asked them all about their history. They said they didn't dope. Since emerged that someone did dope and they have now left the team.

Failing to see how this is worse than Garmin taking on ex-dopers and keeping a number of them under wraps until the shit hit the fan.

And both these are better than some of the alternatives.

mike6

Rick Chasey wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

oneof1982 wrote:

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.

Question: Do you mean the anti doping policy when you talk about "rookie mistake"?

If so, then he answer is surely it was a deal breaker established by the sponsors Sky, and Dave is under pressure to restate this, and sort out the excused breaches. I think he will be under the cosh at the moment, given he sold the dream first to BC and then to Sky. But I don't think he would have got as far as he has without the policy being in place in the first instance.

But the last two generations of cyclists have been totally dope orientated. It's pretty much impossible to have a current cycling team that has no connections with doping, past or present.

If Sky were to get rid of Jullich, Yates and Rogers they'd be pretty close wouldn't they? At least in terms of known connections.

Steven de Jongh? Servais Knaven?

Never suspected them before but I'm sceptical of everyone who's ridden profesionally in the last 20 years unless I have evidence to say otherwise.

I'm a bit confused with that one. What "evidence" could they come up with to "prove" they have not doped? Poor results perhaps??
Surely the burden of proof, in an case, is always with the accuser?

ddraver

Seen this crap yet?

http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/10/ground ... t=40364938

I'm trying to resist them, I'm trying!

RichN95.

ddraver wrote:

Seen this crap yet?

http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/10/ground ... t=40364938

I'm trying to resist them, I'm trying!

The same person said earlier in the year that Sky had made donations to the UCI and then later admitting to making up just to stir up trouble. He's a spoof twitter character who got delusions of grandeur.
As a rule of thumb, allegations from people who won't put their actual name to it are worthless. He even pulls the "sources from within the organisation" trick which is what journalists say when they haven't actually got any sources.

ddraver

I failed to resist...

Sorry Rich