Sean Yates Quits

245

Comments

  • Dave_1 wrote:
    Dave_1 wrote:
    Dave1, maybe organise a blind date for just Wiggins and Kimmage and then run like hell?

    With their personalities, plus the mass of detracting stuff that Kimmage has put out about Wiggins and Sky over the last 2.5 years...cant see it happening.

    Fact is that a huge mistake was made by Sky back in 2010 with that Tour invite and Kimmage. They should have known that he would never ever let it go, and has been a thorn in their side ever since.


    To me Kimmage's cred is so enhanced now..it's in the riders best interest to maintain good relationships with him otherwise I will wonder if they are of the omerta.


    I've just added to my post above - I kind of agree with you

    Yes, would really be ideal if kimmage had an official position within the sport now. That would be great to see.



    He's a journalist and a writer (and from the reviews of his Matt Hampson book, a fine one). But let's not make the mistake of suddenly elevating him to the Head of Moral Guardianship for the sport.
  • nweststeyn
    nweststeyn Posts: 1,574
    If a journalist writes an article for the papers saying 'Politicians are liars', and we all know that it's true, it doesn't mean we should hail the journalist as a hero.

    Paul Kimmage spoke the truth for a long, long time and was almost universally ignored. If you think about it that way, he must hold a LOT of resentment towards the sport. And wouldn't it be funny if everyone hailed him the new 'Lance-like' hero and it turned out in 5 years that he doped too ;) Ho ho ho
  • nweststeyn wrote:
    If a journalist writes an article for the papers saying 'Politicians are liars', and we all know that it's true, it doesn't mean we should hail the journalist as a hero.

    Paul Kimmage spoke the truth for a long, long time and was almost universally ignored. If you think about it that way, he must hold a LOT of resentment towards the sport. And wouldn't it be funny if everyone hailed him the new 'Lance-like' hero and it turned out in 5 years that he doped too ;) Ho ho ho


    He did dope. Took amphetamines at some post Tour crits.
  • thomthom
    thomthom Posts: 3,574
    AndyRAC wrote:
    So Sky are the only team with skeletons in the closet? Hmm.....

    While I applaud them, and for drawing a line in the sand - a pity none of the others are doing the same. And we know who they are. More double standards.

    The reason why no other teams follow Sky's example is that it's not the right way of doing this. They might have released the obvious staff members we all knew had a past - but there are riders on that team that will never speak out now. It's doing the omerta favour.
  • nweststeyn wrote:
    If a journalist writes an article for the papers saying 'Politicians are liars', and we all know that it's true, it doesn't mean we should hail the journalist as a hero.

    Paul Kimmage spoke the truth for a long, long time and was almost universally ignored. If you think about it that way, he must hold a LOT of resentment towards the sport. And wouldn't it be funny if everyone hailed him the new 'Lance-like' hero and it turned out in 5 years that he doped too ;) Ho ho ho


    He did dope. Took amphetamines at some post Tour crits.

    ^ that's probably why Sky don't want him on their bus
  • nweststeyn
    nweststeyn Posts: 1,574
    nweststeyn wrote:
    If a journalist writes an article for the papers saying 'Politicians are liars', and we all know that it's true, it doesn't mean we should hail the journalist as a hero.

    Paul Kimmage spoke the truth for a long, long time and was almost universally ignored. If you think about it that way, he must hold a LOT of resentment towards the sport. And wouldn't it be funny if everyone hailed him the new 'Lance-like' hero and it turned out in 5 years that he doped too ;) Ho ho ho


    He did dope. Took amphetamines at some post Tour crits.

    This, I did not know... pardon my ignorance!
  • skylla
    skylla Posts: 758
    That leaves Knaven*.

    (*former TVM, Domo-Farm Frites, QuickStep, T-Mobile rider and 16 time finisher of Le Tour).

    Winner Paris Roubaix 2001! Who cares about tdf!
  • ThomThom wrote:
    AndyRAC wrote:
    So Sky are the only team with skeletons in the closet? Hmm.....

    While I applaud them, and for drawing a line in the sand - a pity none of the others are doing the same. And we know who they are. More double standards.

    The reason why no other teams follow Sky's example is that it's not the right way of doing this. They might have released the obvious staff members we all knew had a past - but there are riders on that team that will never speak out now. It's doing the omerta favour.


    Sorry, other teams are doing nothing. Nothing at all. I'm not saying that they have to replicate Sky's approach, but they are doing sweet FA. Look at the number of teams with riders and managers named/names redacted in the USADA report and witness statements. Matt White has confessed, and he's been fired - but OGE go and promote Neil Stephens, a member of the team thrown off the Tour, to lead the team. And they still have Allan Davis and one of the DS's named/redacted in the report, and have taken no action - and have been challenged in the Oz media for this.

    Everyone cried out that Sky's approach would ensure that NO ONE on the team confessed. Well, thats been proven wrong because 3 have, now. So now the cry switches to a claim that any riders wont confess? Sorry, this is just blatant moving of goalposts. I have reservations myself about Sky's approach, but let's not hold them up as the barrier to the removal of omerta - that's just laughable.
  • nweststeyn wrote:
    nweststeyn wrote:
    If a journalist writes an article for the papers saying 'Politicians are liars', and we all know that it's true, it doesn't mean we should hail the journalist as a hero.

    Paul Kimmage spoke the truth for a long, long time and was almost universally ignored. If you think about it that way, he must hold a LOT of resentment towards the sport. And wouldn't it be funny if everyone hailed him the new 'Lance-like' hero and it turned out in 5 years that he doped too ;) Ho ho ho


    He did dope. Took amphetamines at some post Tour crits.

    This, I did not know... pardon my ignorance!


    Its bleeding hard to keep up - I'm struggling meself :wink:
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 13,200
    Dave_1, can I ask you a question?

    A couple of years ago you were adamant that the Armstrong case could only damage pro cycling - possibly even kill it. You seemed to me to be fairly clear that though you were sure Lance doped you'd prefer it if it was left in the past, rather than raked over in public. Most of us strongly disagreed, but you were equally robust in sticking to your guns. Roughly speaking, the debate was between those of us that thought pro-cycling needed a serious purgative medicine, and those such as yourself that thought such a cure would kill the patient.

    Now you seem to be advocating something close to 100% zero tolerance, a la Sky. You want McQuaid out, public apologies to Kimmage, reform of the UCI etc. You support Sky's dismissal of staff for long past indiscretions. It's a fairly radical sea-change, to say the least.

    I hope I haven't misrepresented your opinion, I'm trying to summarise, not force you to hold a strawman.

    I'm interested in whether your opinion has changed in the last few months, or whether your new stance is a pragmatic response to the current situation (i.e. "now it's all out there we have to deal with it as best possible")? If the former, then what changed your mind? Do you still think it would have been better if all this had never happened (the public laundering, not the actual doping which we're all agreed was shitty)? And what's your current prognosis for the patient?



    I'm genuinely interested, not trying to kick off any "we were right, you were wrong" nonsense.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • inkyfingers
    inkyfingers Posts: 4,400
    I can't help but think that whilst Sky's position may be well intentioned it's probably a bit of a sideshow, unless all the teams take such a serious line then it's not really helping the sport overall and simply making scapegoats out of a few people whilst the majority will go on as normal.

    Sadly I think all Sky are going to achieve is make it harder for them to attract the best staff. How many experienced DS's and coaches are there with absolutely no links to doping?

    All the time that the likes of Riis (who not only doped himself but also seems happy to tolerate doping still) are still involved in the sport it will remain a joke.
    "I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)
  • Yellow Peril
    Yellow Peril Posts: 4,466
    ThomThom wrote:
    AndyRAC wrote:
    So Sky are the only team with skeletons in the closet? Hmm.....

    While I applaud them, and for drawing a line in the sand - a pity none of the others are doing the same. And we know who they are. More double standards.

    The reason why no other teams follow Sky's example is that it's not the right way of doing this. They might have released the obvious staff members we all knew had a past - but there are riders on that team that will never speak out now. It's doing the omerta favour.


    Sorry, other teams are doing nothing. Nothing at all. I'm not saying that they have to replicate Sky's approach, but they are doing sweet FA. Look at the number of teams with riders and managers named/names redacted in the USADA report and witness statements. Matt White has confessed, and he's been fired - but OGE go and promote Neil Stephens, a member of the team thrown off the Tour, to lead the team. And they still have Allan Davis and one of the DS's named/redacted in the report, and have taken no action - and have been challenged in the Oz media for this.

    Everyone cried out that Sky's approach would ensure that NO ONE on the team confessed. Well, thats been proven wrong because 3 have, now. So now the cry switches to a claim that any riders wont confess? Sorry, this is just blatant moving of goalposts. I have reservations myself about Sky's approach, but let's not hold them up as the barrier to the removal of omerta - that's just laughable.

    I think this is fair comment. Others are still hiding in other teams and even if you agree with the Garmin approach all that does is allow future riders to build a reputation, gain grand tour experience (whilst assisted) that can then give them a good CV for a support staff role as long as they confess to their misdeeds of the past.

    It's a bit like your employer sanctioning lying on your CV isn't it?
    @JaunePeril

    Winner of the Bike Radar Pro Race Wiggins Hour Prediction Competition
  • So, let's get this right...

    These ex-Sky DSs have just shepherded this relatively inexperienced establishment to a historic 'clean' TdF win, and have now been humiliated into resigning for their past discretions. Fine :roll:

    Frankly if they are that good at their job, and if I was managing one of the other 'discreditable' teams, them I would be looking to sign them up this morning. Get to learn the Sky method. :twisted:
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 13,200
    So far only three teams have taken any sort of stance on the USADA report. Four if you count Rabo.

    SKY: zero tolerance
    Garmin: active rehabilitation
    OGE: errrr.... damn, who can we scapegoat?

    This is in contrast to a para in the Telegraph report that seriously wound me up:
    Brailsford took the brave, but controversial, decision to insist that no member of staff can remain at Sky if they have any sort of doping history, no matter how long ago. This contrasts with the majority of the major cycling teams, who accommodate such individuals as long as they have openly admitted their past deeds.

    Most teams just don't seem to give a shit. Ask no questions and you'll be told no lies. They're still following the age old three-monkeys policy of seeing, speaking and hearing no evil.

    And yes, I recognise that English speaking teams are going to be those with most exposure to the USADA case, but still.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • I can't help but think that whilst Sky's position may be well intentioned it's probably a bit of a sideshow, unless all the teams take such a serious line then it's not really helping the sport overall and simply making scapegoats out of a few people whilst the majority will go on as normal.

    Sadly I think all Sky are going to achieve is make it harder for them to attract the best staff. How many experienced DS's and coaches are there with absolutely no links to doping?

    All the time that the likes of Riis (who not only doped himself but also seems happy to tolerate doping still) are still involved in the sport it will remain a joke.


    From what DB said in that interview, the approach they're taking is one they're taking for the team, no more than that. They are only focused on their own team. They're not going about this policy in order to try to reform the entire sport of procycling. And one could argue that its not their role. This is the price of keeping Sky as sponsor, and them not doing a Rabo.

    Vaughters seems far more interested in influencing change beyond his own team, and David Millar unfortunately (cos I do like him) increasingly runs the risk of being motivated by wanting a seat on the top table.
  • So far only three teams have taken any sort of stance on the USADA report. Four if you count Rabo.

    SKY: zero tolerance
    Garmin: active rehabilitation
    OGE: errrr.... damn, who can we scapegoat?

    This is in contrast to a para in the Telegraph report that seriously wound me up:
    Brailsford took the brave, but controversial, decision to insist that no member of staff can remain at Sky if they have any sort of doping history, no matter how long ago. This contrasts with the majority of the major cycling teams, who accommodate such individuals as long as they have openly admitted their past deeds.

    Most teams just don't seem to give a shoot. Ask no questions and you'll be told no lies. They're still following the age old three-monkeys policy of seeing, speaking and hearing no evil.

    And yes, I recognise that English speaking teams are going to be those with most exposure to the USADA case, but still.


    Brendan Gallagher talking his usual c$%p. I gave up following him on twitter and reading his stuff ages ago. A 1yr old knows more about cycling than he does.
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 13,200
    I can't help but think that whilst Sky's position may be well intentioned it's probably a bit of a sideshow, unless all the teams take such a serious line then it's not really helping the sport overall and simply making scapegoats out of a few people whilst the majority will go on as normal.

    Sadly I think all Sky are going to achieve is make it harder for them to attract the best staff. How many experienced DS's and coaches are there with absolutely no links to doping?

    All the time that the likes of Riis (who not only doped himself but also seems happy to tolerate doping still) are still involved in the sport it will remain a joke.

    Sky's approach is explicitly aimed at new, British, cycling fans.

    You're a new fan. Your first exposure to cycling is seeing Wiggins win the tour. You have been led to believe that pro-cycling is all about who has the best drugs. You have a champion you hope is clean, but just a couple of weeks later a huge shitstorm explodes and it turns out that maybe cycling is still full of drugs and corruption after all. Sky need to convince YOU, the new fan, that despite all the crap flying about, Wiggins won it clean and is a worthy champion. But it turns out that despite what they told you about zero tolerance, some of their staff aren't as clean as you'd thought.

    That's seriously toxic for Sky. They're dealing with it the only way they can. In general terms it may not be the best way, but for their target audience, yes, its the only way possible.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 13,200

    Brendan Gallagher talking his usual c$%p. I gave up following him on twitter and reading his stuff ages ago. A 1yr old knows more about cycling than he does.

    Yes, he's pretty clueless. But apparently decently connected, seeing as he seems to have broken the Yates story.

    He's clearly trying to make the point that at least Sky are doing something. He just fails miserably.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    Dave_1, can I ask you a question?

    A couple of years ago you were adamant that the Armstrong case could only damage pro cycling - possibly even kill it. You seemed to me to be fairly clear that though you were sure Lance doped you'd prefer it if it was left in the past, rather than raked over in public. Most of us strongly disagreed, but you were equally robust in sticking to your guns. Roughly speaking, the debate was between those of us that thought pro-cycling needed a serious purgative medicine, and those such as yourself that thought such a cure would kill the patient.

    Now you seem to be advocating something close to 100% zero tolerance, a la Sky. You want McQuaid out, public apologies to Kimmage, reform of the UCI etc. You support Sky's dismissal of staff for long past indiscretions. It's a fairly radical sea-change, to say the least.

    I hope I haven't misrepresented your opinion, I'm trying to summarise, not force you to hold a strawman.

    I'm interested in whether your opinion has changed in the last few months, or whether your new stance is a pragmatic response to the current situation (i.e. "now it's all out there we have to deal with it as best possible")? If the former, then what changed your mind? Do you still think it would have been better if all this had never happened (the public laundering, not the actual doping which we're all agreed was sh!tty)? And what's your current prognosis for the patient?



    I'm genuinely interested, not trying to kick off any "we were right, you were wrong" nonsense.

    I just wondered if this outing of Armstrong changes anything much and I do think some behind the scenes pressure could have been applied first to make Armstrong and Bruyneel leave the sport rather than publicise it to the world the way it has been.

    Outing Armstrong doesn't remove many dopers from the sport-maybe 5..but 100s remain in the sport as ex pros or current riders even , and it doesn't change the odds of being caught (EPO glow time 19hrs or less, Testosterone 6 hrs or less). So I wonder, when Rabobank pulled out, Bauer's team collapsed, Chipotle pull out, what good really comes of taking Armstrong down? The risk of getting caught is as small as ever and ex dopers still dominate the sport as managers, coaches, or as current riders. What does it change but wreck it for a new generation? If I was wrong, then well , it was a good debate.

    Keep in mind, I didn't realise that Armstrong and Bruyneel coerced people into doping and posted 2 1/2 years ago only thinking it was he and others of their own free will doping...now I see how crinminal he is..it's beyond what I imagined.
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    edited October 2012
    No TA Doctor, Nail. Head. Add to this the other cycling initiatives that Sky sponsor in the UK - all the partnership stuff with BC, the GB trackies, the Development squad, the grass roots stuff e.g. Sky Rides etc. All of this could be tainted by association. All adds up to why this approach is being taken. Perhaps if Rabo had taken this approach years ago, things could have been very different for them.
  • ....
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    Sky's approach is explicitly aimed at new, British, cycling fans.

    You're a new fan. Your first exposure to cycling is seeing Wiggins win the tour. You have been led to believe that pro-cycling is all about who has the best drugs. You have a champion you hope is clean, but just a couple of weeks later a huge shitstorm explodes and it turns out that maybe cycling is still full of drugs and corruption after all. Sky need to convince YOU, the new fan, that despite all the crap flying about, Wiggins won it clean and is a worthy champion. But it turns out that despite what they told you about zero tolerance, some of their staff aren't as clean as you'd thought.

    That's seriously toxic for Sky. They're dealing with it the only way they can. In general terms it may not be the best way, but for their target audience, yes, its the only way possible.
    [/quote]

    I agree with their approach. I can't stomach the thought of Mick Rogers riding for them next season though. He has dodged some bullets eh...Sinkewitz's story of their trip along the Rhine and then training with schumi.
  • ---
  • Dave_1: for the record that's No tA Doctor's post you're quoting - a fair and I believe accurate summary of what Sky and Brailsford are dealing with.

    For my part, my screwing up of forum posts this am is unrelated to doping but is down to lack of sleep :)
  • Darryl Websters outed Sutton in the Clinic over on CN forum
  • thomthom
    thomthom Posts: 3,574
    ThomThom wrote:
    AndyRAC wrote:
    So Sky are the only team with skeletons in the closet? Hmm.....

    While I applaud them, and for drawing a line in the sand - a pity none of the others are doing the same. And we know who they are. More double standards.

    The reason why no other teams follow Sky's example is that it's not the right way of doing this. They might have released the obvious staff members we all knew had a past - but there are riders on that team that will never speak out now. It's doing the omerta favour.


    1Sorry, other teams are doing nothing. Nothing at all. I'm not saying that they have to replicate Sky's approach, but they are doing sweet FA. Look at the number of teams with riders and managers named/names redacted in the USADA report and witness statements. Matt White has confessed, and he's been fired - but OGE go and promote Neil Stephens, a member of the team thrown off the Tour, to lead the team. And they still have Allan Davis and one of the DS's named/redacted in the report, and have taken no action - and have been challenged in the Oz media for this.

    2Everyone cried out that Sky's approach would ensure that NO ONE on the team confessed. Well, thats been proven wrong because 3 have, now. So now the cry switches to a claim that any riders wont confess? Sorry, this is just blatant moving of goalposts. I have reservations myself about Sky's approach, but let's not hold them up as the barrier to the removal of omerta - that's just laughable.

    1)I didn't say otherwise. All I said was no one was doing it the way that Sky does. It doesn't take an expert to see that the rest of the teams are doing too little as well. But give it time. Give the riders time. This whole circus has just begun.

    2)No it's not. 3 obvious staff members failing to sign a contract, because signing it would lead to major outcry, is not a prove of succes of this policy implementation. But you know what? I'll leave it down to Rogers decision to determind if this is just a questionable policy or a policy that actually feeds the omerta.
  • Richard Griffiths to play Capper.

    Phil Griffths.........
  • Richard Griffiths to play Capper.

    Phil Griffths.........


    Ha!
  • Gazzetta67
    Gazzetta67 Posts: 1,890
    So far only three teams have taken any sort of stance on the USADA report. Four if you count Rabo.

    SKY: zero tolerance
    Garmin: active rehabilitation
    OGE: errrr.... damn, who can we scapegoat?

    This is in contrast to a para in the Telegraph report that seriously wound me up:
    Brailsford took the brave, but controversial, decision to insist that no member of staff can remain at Sky if they have any sort of doping history, no matter how long ago. This contrasts with the majority of the major cycling teams, who accommodate such individuals as long as they have openly admitted their past deeds.

    Most teams just don't seem to give a shoot. Ask no questions and you'll be told no lies. They're still following the age old three-monkeys policy of seeing, speaking and hearing no evil.

    And yes, I recognise that English speaking teams are going to be those with most exposure to the USADA case, but still.


    Brendan Gallagher talking his usual c$%p. I gave up following him on twitter and reading his stuff ages ago. A 1yr old knows more about cycling than he does.


    + 1 Had a laugh when i saw the front page "Cycling STAR" ??????? oh you mean like 20 odd years ago. Anyone else noticed Gallaghers profile picture with his 1980's mullet contrast now to him looking like a pie munching down and out.
  • Dave_1 wrote:
    Dave_1 wrote:
    Dave1, maybe organise a blind date for just Wiggins and Kimmage and then run like hell?

    With their personalities, plus the mass of detracting stuff that Kimmage has put out about Wiggins and Sky over the last 2.5 years...cant see it happening.

    Fact is that a huge mistake was made by Sky back in 2010 with that Tour invite and Kimmage. They should have known that he would never ever let it go, and has been a thorn in their side ever since.


    To me Kimmage's cred is so enhanced now..it's in the riders best interest to maintain good relationships with him otherwise I will wonder if they are of the omerta.


    I've just added to my post above - I kind of agree with you

    Yes, would really be ideal if kimmage had an official position within the sport now. That would be great to see.

    To paraphrase Kimmage, he doesn't have a patent on clean cycling. To go from a situation where you have omerta to one where if you don't have him hanging around the whole time, probably being a bit of a pain, then you're dirty - that doesn't look like progress.