Team Sky- position on doping

Turfle

I've done a bit of a 90 degree turn toward the zero tolerance policy in the last day or so.

I have long thought the Garmin way was best. I believe in second chances, I believe ex-dopers can be positives for the sport, and I believe they as a team are a force for good.

But I've become a bit uneasy about VDV, Zabriskie, Danielson (and who knows who else) being allowed to ride sanction free for what, 5 years, whilst Vaughters knew they had doped. That isn't openness, that is omerta.

And while I know deterrents rarely work, and while I do believe in second chances, I do wonder if riders are going to take more risks when they know a job waits for them at Garmin even if they're caught. We always say the goal of an anti-doping policy is to make the risk not worthwhile.

Is the Garmin policy zero tolerance from 2010? 2011? Would they happily take on whoever the next rider to get busted is?

I don't know.

Turfle

In Zabriskie's affidavit for example, he states that after Landis made his public statements, Zabriskie contacted Bruyneel and Amstrong to see what he should do. Not Vaughters, not the authorities, but Bruyneel and Armstrong. And that was over 2 years in to his time at Garmin.

I'd like to again affirm my love for Vaughters, but the above isn't good.

dougzz

There's only a problem working for Sky if you doped in the past. If they choose to run a team based on not hiring ex-dopers isn't that OK?
Barry chose to lie to keep a job he obtained by lying in the first place. Are we seriously expected to feel sorry for Barry because he doped, and then the poor little dear was forced to continue to lie to keep his job which he got on the basis of a lie. You may not like Brailsford, you may Sky, you may not like the policy, you may think the policy is unworkable, but please don't excuse Barry. He kept a clean rider out of a job when he lied to get a job he had no right to.

nic_77

Turfle wrote:

But I've become a bit uneasy about VDV, Zabriskie, Danielson (and who knows who else) being allowed to ride sanction free for what, 5 years, whilst Vaughters knew they had doped. That isn't openness, that is omerta.

This ^
The Garmin approach of hiring ex-dopers is only defendable if the new recruits come clean on day one and serve any necessary time before starting their employment.

tommasi

oh dear

iainf72

tommasi wrote:

oh dear

Yep, they should lose about 10% of their staff

I think where this could get really messy is if someone lawyers up, and says to Sky "As with Barry, you knew last year, so why is it suddenly an issue"

Funny how as soon as someone says "I've passed x tests" you think doper.

The Fail also having a go at Wiggins for tax efficiency

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... oache.html

MrTapir

tommasi wrote:

oh dear

It sounds a little bit like the story of witch accusations in Edinburgh i heard while on a ghost tour a couple of years ago. Like people would accuse someone they didnt like of being a witch.

Iain I thought exactly that when I read the 'Ive never failed a test' line, sounds well dodgy now.

And from the Guardian, Ashenden amkes some comments about Sky's policy. Interestingly he does admit it seems to be cleaner from 2008, which is a bit more measured than on the podcast i thought.

He also brings up the Sean Yates thing, which seems to be the biggest of DB's nuanced problems

iainf72

Sounds like a current rider, doesn't it?

And over 100 tests would be a lot...

Who's been in a position where they'd be tested a lot and has ridden for known dodgy teams....

MrTapir

iainf72 wrote:

Sounds like a current rider, doesn't it?

And over 100 tests would be a lot...

Who's been in a position where they'd be tested a lot and has ridden for known dodgy teams....

Er......is there perhaps an association with the Freiburg clinic involved?

MrTapir

Also if they do come from three independent sources as stated, then thats fairly corroborating isnt it? Is DB going round and asking for dirt on the other riders do you think, what gain would there be from dobbing others in voluntarily?

rick_chasey

Would be pretty harsh on Rogers if he gets tinned and guys like VdV and Zabriskie get away with SFA.

iainf72

Rick Chasey wrote:

Would be pretty harsh on Rogers if he gets tinned and guys like VdV and Zabriskie get away with SFA.

Que? If he gets sacked, he's still going to keep all his victories and get no sanction.

MrTapir

iainf72 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Would be pretty harsh on Rogers if he gets tinned and guys like VdV and Zabriskie get away with SFA.

Que? If he gets sacked, he's still going to keep all his victories and get no sanction.

Be funny if he was brought in by Garmin.

iainf72

Oo-er ,Wiggins has deactivated his twitter account.

Tax thing I'd guess

rick_chasey

iainf72 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Would be pretty harsh on Rogers if he gets tinned and guys like VdV and Zabriskie get away with SFA.

Que? If he gets sacked, he's still going to keep all his victories and get no sanction.

Victories on paper don't mean sh!t.

The cash and the glory at the time does.

They get everything. Dope for the victories, the glory, the cash, and then they get off with a confession because their boss is someone who had the same.

Rogers winds up at a team, probably riding as clean as the guys above, but because they've been a bit naive he gets f*cked by losing his job. I doubt another team can pay him as much.

iainf72

Pass me the violin

nathancom

Rick Chasey wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Would be pretty harsh on Rogers if he gets tinned and guys like VdV and Zabriskie get away with SFA.

Que? If he gets sacked, he's still going to keep all his victories and get no sanction.

Victories on paper don't mean sh!t.

The cash and the glory at the time does.

They everything. Dope for the victories, the glory, the cash, and then they get off with a confession because their boss is someone who had the same.

Rogers winds up at a team, probably riding as clean as the guys above, but because they've been a bit naive he gets f*cked by losing his job. I doubt another team can pay him as much.

He doped so why should he get special treatment. Not much sympathy from me if he loses his job.

rick_chasey

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.

nathancom

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.

For sure, but JV has helped his old doping pals out hasn't he. And then gets treated like some anti doping saint...

iainf72

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.

If Rogers, or anyone on that team loses their jobs, what are the chances they'd face anti-doping charges? Vaughters has created an environment that encourages people to tell the truth, Sky are creating an environment that encourages lying.

RichN95.

Isn't Rogers out of contract at the end of the year anyway?

rick_chasey

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.

If Rogers, or anyone on that team loses their jobs, what are the chances they'd face anti-doping charges? Vaughters has created an environment that encourages people to tell the truth, Sky are creating an environment that encourages lying.

For sure.

Jez mon

I think whenever you get a case like this, that relies so heavily on testimony from former dopers, riders getting away with a lot.

If Garmin had a similar doping policy to Sky, would the truth about Armstrong have come out?

dougzz

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.
If Rogers, or anyone on that team loses their jobs, what are the chances they'd face anti-doping charges? Vaughters has created an environment that encourages people to tell the truth, Sky are creating an environment that encourages lying.

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.
I think Sky's position is more honourable, Vaughter's may be more practical. But for the most part the general view on these forums has been strongly anti-doping, and in that context the continued criticism of Sky seems very harsh to me.
As for Vdv getting away with 'nothing' as I understand doped for 8 years, from 1999 to 2006, has received a job with St. Vaughters, and a 6 month month off-season ban. Can you explain to me how that isn't getting away with it?

dougzz

Jez mon wrote:

I think whenever you get a case like this, that relies so heavily on testimony from former dopers, riders getting away with a lot.
If Garmin had a similar doping policy to Sky, would the truth about Armstrong have come out?

I don't know, who can really guess. Don't you think it's interesting how inevitably all the focus is on Armstrong, which is the past, but in terms of good for cycling the real victory should be the removal of Bruyneel and the moody doctors.

rick_chasey

dougzz wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

I think whenever you get a case like this, that relies so heavily on testimony from former dopers, riders getting away with a lot.
If Garmin had a similar doping policy to Sky, would the truth about Armstrong have come out?

I don't know, who can really guess. Don't you think it's interesting how inevitably all the focus is on Armstrong, which is the past, but in terms of good for cycling the real victory should be the removal of Bruyneel and the moody doctors.

Ferrari was banned from dealing with cyclists a year or two ago and it didn't stop anything.

If you're doping athletes I doubt either the athletes or the doctors are fussed about a ban.

What they're doing is against the rules anyway.

dougzz

Rick Chasey wrote:

dougzz wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

I think whenever you get a case like this, that relies so heavily on testimony from former dopers, riders getting away with a lot.
If Garmin had a similar doping policy to Sky, would the truth about Armstrong have come out?

I don't know, who can really guess. Don't you think it's interesting how inevitably all the focus is on Armstrong, which is the past, but in terms of good for cycling the real victory should be the removal of Bruyneel and the moody doctors.

Ferrari was banned from dealing with cyclists a year or two ago and it didn't stop anything.
If you're doping athletes I doubt either the athletes or the doctors are fussed about a ban.
What they're doing is against the rules anyway.

But were these not 'team' doctor/trainer rather than the training type like Ferrari and Fuentes.
- EDIT: Meaning a ban is more effective.

iainf72

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.
I think Sky's position is more honourable, Vaughter's may be more practical. But for the most part the general view on these forums has been strongly anti-doping, and in that context the continued criticism of Sky seems very harsh to me.
As for Vdv getting away with 'nothing' as I understand doped for 8 years, from 1999 to 2006, has received a job with St. Vaughters, and a 6 month month off-season ban. Can you explain to me how that isn't getting away with it?

Vaughters knew about CVV's past, DZ's past and encouraged them to speak to the authorities when they came calling. So he acknowledges their past, and as long as they do the right thing, then he supports them.

Contrast this with Sky - They either a) don't want to know their riders past, or b) wilfully ignore it. Then when the heat starts, suddenly they find their morals down the back of the sofa and want to sack 10% of the team?

Turfle

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.

blazing_saddles

Sky have backed folks into a corner, too, but one with differing options.
I don't see that any Sky personnel with doping skeletons in their closet has any choice, other than to maintain the lie.
Resign of their own accord, perhaps, but that's about it.
I think Brailsford's agenda is clear.
The signing of this piece of paper covers Sky from any can of worms that gets opened by either of the current investigations, in the future.