Who agrees with Brailsfords recent comments?
Trev The Rev
Posts: 1,040
He said: "You've got to think about what's the outcome. Everybody telling the truth doesn't make things better - acting upon what you find and doing something tangible with that information so it doesn't happen in the future will only make it better. Everybody telling the truth which then sits in a pot isn't going to change anything.
"My personal opinion is if you get 25 guys to tell you how to rob a bank, and then 100 guys tell you how to rob a bank, the majority of what you learned on how to rob a bank would have come from the first 25. It's the law of diminishing returns.
"If you're trying to establish all the individuals involved, who then come clean and are forgiven, what have we learned? You talk about culture. How come so many people fell into his mindset? If you get an expert to look into this and why so many people fell into this culture and you make something tangible out of it to ensure it wouldn't happen again, for sure is worth it.
He added: "Truth on its own is only half the equation. You've got to decide what your outcome goal is. If it is to minimise the risk of doping in this sport then you know what information you may need. I'm not sure anybody's got the outcome worked out yet."
If you want to ban me be so be it, but banning me for questioning Brailsford's words here would expose the fact you just can't cope with sacred cows being questioned.
Brailsford's comments are in all the cycling press they should be discussed openly.
"My personal opinion is if you get 25 guys to tell you how to rob a bank, and then 100 guys tell you how to rob a bank, the majority of what you learned on how to rob a bank would have come from the first 25. It's the law of diminishing returns.
"If you're trying to establish all the individuals involved, who then come clean and are forgiven, what have we learned? You talk about culture. How come so many people fell into his mindset? If you get an expert to look into this and why so many people fell into this culture and you make something tangible out of it to ensure it wouldn't happen again, for sure is worth it.
He added: "Truth on its own is only half the equation. You've got to decide what your outcome goal is. If it is to minimise the risk of doping in this sport then you know what information you may need. I'm not sure anybody's got the outcome worked out yet."
If you want to ban me be so be it, but banning me for questioning Brailsford's words here would expose the fact you just can't cope with sacred cows being questioned.
Brailsford's comments are in all the cycling press they should be discussed openly.
0
Comments
-
What is there to question? Saying there is no point in getting to the truth unless you know what you are going to do with it and that you neeed to use it positively doesn't seem to be that out of the ordinary to me.0
-
You'll note that in the quote DB gives a very clear analogy of the point he is making.Trev The Rev wrote:"My personal opinion is if you get 25 guys to tell you how to rob a bank, and then 100 guys tell you how to rob a bank, the majority of what you learned on how to rob a bank would have come from the first 25. It's the law of diminishing returns."
Hearing the same thing over and over again from different dopers achieves nothing if you do not act upon it appropriately....
Are you not able to grasp this simple concept?0 -
He's right. Having truth is not enough, it doesn't stop people doing it again.0
-
QED.RichN95 wrote:"My personal opinion is if you post on one thread about Brailsford, and then post on four more threads about Brailsford, the majority of what you learned about Brailsford would have come from the first post. It's the law of diminishing returns."
0 -
Seems completely obvious to me. If all you have is the truth, without a clear idea what you're going to do with it, you can do no more than wring your hands and moan about how awful it all is.Is the gorilla tired yet?0
-
RichN95 wrote:"My personal opinion is if you post on one thread about Brailsford, and then post on four more threads about Brailsford, the majority of what you learned about Brailsford would have come from the first post. It's the law of diminishing returns."
If the original Brailsford thread had not been removed for no good reason I would not have needed to post more than once.
Brailsfords law of diminishing returns - only speak to 25% of the witnesses. No wonder he employed Leinders.0 -
Trev the Rev's law of interpreting a quote - only comprehend 25% of the point being made. No wonder he is peeing everyone off.Trev The Rev wrote:RichN95 wrote:"My personal opinion is if you post on one thread about Brailsford, and then post on four more threads about Brailsford, the majority of what you learned about Brailsford would have come from the first post. It's the law of diminishing returns."
If the original Brailsford thread had not been removed for no good reason I would not have needed to post more than once.
Braolsfords law of diminishing returns - only speak to 25% of the witnesses. No wonder he employed Leinders.0 -
Mods.
Might be an idea to have one definitive 'Sky Are Big Cheaters' thread and merge all this stuff together.
Maybe don't call it that though....
Trev
What's your point here?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Meanwhile in Bizarro world.
Trev, this is why more people don't make comments regarding doping; people like you snarkily and deliberately misrepresenting a position is not very helpful. Stop trying to couch your point in passive-aggressive nonsense and be brave enough to say what you really think.0 -
Turfle wrote:Meanwhile in Bizarro world.
Trev, this is why more people don't make comments regarding doping; people like you snarkily and deliberately misrepresenting a position is not very helpful. Stop trying to couch your point in passive-aggressive nonsense and be brave enough to say what you really think.
Brailsford should welcome the whole truth coming out, he should welcome an amnesty. By questioning it he leaves himself open to the interpretation that he does not want the whole truth to come out.
Brailsford claiming that he did not know about Leinders past does not wash.0 -
Trev The Rev wrote:Turfle wrote:Meanwhile in Bizarro world.
Trev, this is why more people don't make comments regarding doping; people like you snarkily and deliberately misrepresenting a position is not very helpful. Stop trying to couch your point in passive-aggressive nonsense and be brave enough to say what you really think.
Brailsford should welcome the whole truth coming out, he should welcome an amnesty. By questioning it he leaves himself open to the interpretation that he does not want the whole truth to come out.
Brailsford claiming that he did not know about Leinders past does not wash.
You can only reach that interpretation if you stop reading mid-quote. He is clearly saying it's pointless unless they do the right thing with it.
"Everybody telling the truth doesn't make things better - acting upon what you find and doing something tangible with that information so it doesn't happen in the future will only make it better."0 -
I want the truth to come out. I don't think an amnesty will help, aside from providing good gossip and letting us sit around saying "I knew it"
Ultimately, will knowing some bit player took EPO decade ago like everyone else help move things forward? No, not really.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
How can he be held responsible for your ridiculous misinterpretation of his meaning?Trev The Rev wrote:Turfle wrote:Meanwhile in Bizarro world.
Trev, this is why more people don't make comments regarding doping; people like you snarkily and deliberately misrepresenting a position is not very helpful. Stop trying to couch your point in passive-aggressive nonsense and be brave enough to say what you really think.
Brailsford should welcome the whole truth coming out, he should welcome an amnesty. By questioning it he leaves himself open to the interpretation that he does not want the whole truth to come out.
Brailsford claiming that he did not know about Leinders past does not wash.0 -
Slim Boy Fat wrote:
How can he be held responsible for your ridiculous misinterpretation of his meaning?Trev The Rev wrote:Turfle wrote:Meanwhile in Bizarro world.
Trev, this is why more people don't make comments regarding doping; people like you snarkily and deliberately misrepresenting a position is not very helpful. Stop trying to couch your point in passive-aggressive nonsense and be brave enough to say what you really think.
Brailsford should welcome the whole truth coming out, he should welcome an amnesty. By questioning it he leaves himself open to the interpretation that he does not want the whole truth to come out.
Brailsford claiming that he did not know about Leinders past does not wash.
"This is the last-chance saloon for the credibility of cycling." said the man who employed Leinders.0 -
'The Clinic' is that way Trev. I think you'll be a big hit over there. Cheerio!Trev The Rev wrote:Slim Boy Fat wrote:
How can he be held responsible for your ridiculous misinterpretation of his meaning?Trev The Rev wrote:Turfle wrote:Meanwhile in Bizarro world.
Trev, this is why more people don't make comments regarding doping; people like you snarkily and deliberately misrepresenting a position is not very helpful. Stop trying to couch your point in passive-aggressive nonsense and be brave enough to say what you really think.
Brailsford should welcome the whole truth coming out, he should welcome an amnesty. By questioning it he leaves himself open to the interpretation that he does not want the whole truth to come out.
Brailsford claiming that he did not know about Leinders past does not wash.
"This is the last-chance saloon for the credibility of cycling." said the man who employed Leinders.0 -
Slim Boy Fat wrote:
'The Clinic' is that way Trev. I think you'll be a big hit over there. Cheerio!Trev The Rev wrote:Slim Boy Fat wrote:
How can he be held responsible for your ridiculous misinterpretation of his meaning?Trev The Rev wrote:Turfle wrote:Meanwhile in Bizarro world.
Trev, this is why more people don't make comments regarding doping; people like you snarkily and deliberately misrepresenting a position is not very helpful. Stop trying to couch your point in passive-aggressive nonsense and be brave enough to say what you really think.
Brailsford should welcome the whole truth coming out, he should welcome an amnesty. By questioning it he leaves himself open to the interpretation that he does not want the whole truth to come out.
Brailsford claiming that he did not know about Leinders past does not wash.
"This is the last-chance saloon for the credibility of cycling." said the man who employed Leinders.
"This is the last-chance saloon for the credibility of cycling." said the man who employed Leinders, Steven de Jongh, Bobby Julich & Michael Barry.0 -
So why didn't you just start a thread saying I think Brailsford is a dirty cheat whose at it, rather than hiding behind this joke of a thread?Trev The Rev wrote:Slim Boy Fat wrote:
'The Clinic' is that way Trev. I think you'll be a big hit over there. Cheerio!Trev The Rev wrote:Slim Boy Fat wrote:
How can he be held responsible for your ridiculous misinterpretation of his meaning?Trev The Rev wrote:Turfle wrote:Meanwhile in Bizarro world.
Trev, this is why more people don't make comments regarding doping; people like you snarkily and deliberately misrepresenting a position is not very helpful. Stop trying to couch your point in passive-aggressive nonsense and be brave enough to say what you really think.
Brailsford should welcome the whole truth coming out, he should welcome an amnesty. By questioning it he leaves himself open to the interpretation that he does not want the whole truth to come out.
Brailsford claiming that he did not know about Leinders past does not wash.
"This is the last-chance saloon for the credibility of cycling." said the man who employed Leinders.
"This is the last-chance saloon for the credibility of cycling." said the man who employed Leinders, Steven de Jongh, Bobby Julich & Michael Barry.0 -
Trev. Any chance you can conclude your trilogy (of at least 4 parts) with some concrete evidence that all this Brailsford-controlled skullduggery has enabled anomalous performances on the road? Feel free to select any race from last 3 seasons, and whatever serious performance metrics you like: ridiculous power data, VAM, super-human attack...
Otherwise your punchline appears to be that Brailsford is guilty of some naivety at best, and unforgivable hubris (what's he won to be so arrogant about?) at worst. I think that most here would agree with this sentiment and are anxious to hear of more substantive matters.
Edit: ^^^^What they said too...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
I think the issue is presented for debate [especially here] as solidly counterposed option. As if some sort of TR commission thing if selected was an only option scenario if you choose it.
This is a narrow view of the entire issue...some sort of amnesty for disclosure be partial of full in historical terms is in of it self not without merit especially if combined with other measures.
Pointing out the weaknesses in a certain approach thus condemning its use as an unusable option is an exercise in false dichotomy construction...no?
there are overlapping domains of measures that can be of use depending on the situation... ruling stuff out is a sh1t weak position IMO."If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
Macaloon wrote:
Otherwise your punchline appears to be that Brailsford is guilty of some naivety at best, and unforgivable hubris (what's he won to be so arrogant about?) at worst. I think that most here would agree with this sentiment and are anxious to hear of more substantive matters.
What, apart from a TdF, a sh1tload of Olympic golds, and some World Championships? Bugger all, I s'pose.I have a policy of only posting comment on the internet under my real name. This is to moderate my natural instinct to flame your fatuous, ill-informed, irrational, credulous, bigoted, semi-literate opinions to carbon, you knuckle-dragging f***wits.0 -
mididoctors wrote:I think the issue is presented for debate [especially here] as some sort of counterposed option. As if some sort of TR commission thing if selected was a only option scenario if you choose it.
This is a narrow view of the entire issue...some sort of amnesty for disclosure be partial of full in historical terms is in of it self not without merit especially if combined with other measures.
pointing out the weaknesses in a certain approach thus condemning its use as an unusable option is an exercise in false dichotomy construction...no?
there are overlapping domains of measures that can be of use depending on the situation... ruling stuff out is a sh1t weak position IMO.
At least you have the chance here to post your opinion, if it were left to many on here, including the mod who removed the original thread, open discussion would be banned.
The irony here is Brailsford set up Team Sky as the clean team, now he questions if we should have the whole truth come out, all the names and an amnesty. When you have the whole truth, all the names, who did what, then you can decide the best course of action.0 -
Trev The Rev wrote:
The irony here is Brailsford set up Team Sky as the clean team, now he questions if we should have the whole truth come out, all the names and an amnesty. When you have the whole truth, all the names, who did what, then you can decide the best course of action.
What he said was; "Truth on its own is only half the equation."
To claim this is 'questioning if we should have the whole truth come out' is wilful misrepresentation.I have a policy of only posting comment on the internet under my real name. This is to moderate my natural instinct to flame your fatuous, ill-informed, irrational, credulous, bigoted, semi-literate opinions to carbon, you knuckle-dragging f***wits.0 -
Trev The Rev wrote:The irony here is Brailsford set up Team Sky as the clean team, now he questions if we should have the whole truth come out, all the names and an amnesty. When you have the whole truth, all the names, who did what, then you can decide the best course of action.
I can see your point. I get the feeling though that in your eyes DB is dodgy and has something to hide - I don't think that's the case; DB is pragmatic enough to change his approach when he thinks it's the right thing to do, and I think his pragmatism is what is informing these comments. He simply doesn't think having everyone named-and-shamed will serve any useful purpose, and I think that he's right.It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
rob churchill wrote:Trev The Rev wrote:
The irony here is Brailsford set up Team Sky as the clean team, now he questions if we should have the whole truth come out, all the names and an amnesty. When you have the whole truth, all the names, who did what, then you can decide the best course of action.
What he said was; "Truth on its own is only half the equation."
To claim this is 'questioning if we should have the whole truth come out' is wilful misrepresentation.
Indeed
Overall, I think brailsford has a valid point. To expand it somewhat, what good does going over (what is in cycling terms) ancient history do? There's only so much money which can be spent on anti doping, and as far as I'm concerned as much of it should go on blood passport tests as is possible, with other sizeable chunks going to research into new tests and possibly investigations into current riders. Using it to carry out very extensive investigations into past crimes seems somewhat wasteful.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Trev lip-reads the NFL so we don't have to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... e-QT7MGSE#!...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0
-
Jez mon wrote:rob churchill wrote:Trev The Rev wrote:
The irony here is Brailsford set up Team Sky as the clean team, now he questions if we should have the whole truth come out, all the names and an amnesty. When you have the whole truth, all the names, who did what, then you can decide the best course of action.
What he said was; "Truth on its own is only half the equation."
To claim this is 'questioning if we should have the whole truth come out' is wilful misrepresentation.
Indeed
Overall, I think brailsford has a valid point. To expand it somewhat, what good does going over (what is in cycling terms) ancient history do? There's only so much money which can be spent on anti doping, and as far as I'm concerned as much of it should go on blood passport tests as is possible, with other sizeable chunks going to research into new tests and possibly investigations into current riders. Using it to carry out very extensive investigations into past crimes seems somewhat wasteful.
Isn't that one of the arguments Armstrong's lawyers used to stifle investigations?0 -
It's just not plausible for Sky to have all past misdemeanors in the open.
Just as it's not plausible that Wiggins, and let's not forget, from nowhere in terms of grand tour riding, was the only non-doper in the 2009 TdF top 6.
1 Alberto Contador (ESP)
2 Andy Schleck (LUX)
DSQ Lance Armstrong (USA)
3 Bradley Wiggins (GBR)
4 Fränk Schleck (LUX)
5 Andreas Klöden (GER)0 -
I think sir David is just suggestion of truth and reconciliation is just nosiness so far."Unfortunately these days a lot of people don’t understand the real quality of a bike" Ernesto Colnago0
-
Ummm, I don't think anyone has a problem with you posting your opinion... the trouble is you haven't stated what your opinion is in relation to this quote. Instead you keep presenting someone else's opinion in the misguided belief that this somehow supports your veiled agenda.Trev The Rev wrote:At least you have the chance here to post your opinion, if it were left to many on here, including the mod who removed the original thread, open discussion would be banned.
Come back when you've learnt the art of constructive debate.0
This discussion has been closed.
