Criticism of the Sky train (may contain spoilers)

above_the_cows

Richmond Racer wrote:

coriordan wrote:

Still all things worth noting - particularly check ins from various doctors...

Quite right. I do hope that David Walsh sneaks away the hotel register whilst he's there this week.

This is surely a case for Agent Dale Cooper.

ocdupalais

Richmond Racer wrote:

coriordan wrote:

Still all things worth noting - particularly check ins from various doctors...

Quite right. I do hope that David Walsh sneaks away the hotel register whilst he's there this week.

With a couple of sneaky-spy glances from side to side, he whips out his Lance Armstrong Camera Pen (the one where the yellow jersey fall off the figurine when you turn it upside down) snaps some micro-film... Then realises Snappy Snaps don't do it anymore and Jessops is shut...

chrisday

I assume everyone's seen SurDave* responding to 'generic criticism' on CN?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brailsf ... f-team-sky

* Attribution to RR (IIRC) for use of this - shamelessly stolen cos it makes me laugh for some reason

iainf72

Brailsford suggested that Hayman will talk about his time at Rabobank to Sunday Times journalist David Walsh, who is currently embedded with Team Sky at Teide. He insisted that Team Sky has done its due diligence and investigated riders' pasts. However he was vague when asked if there was a chance some riders may have held back from telling the whole truth to keep their place on the team.

"They all know that when they signed the declaration they said they had no active involvement in doping, knowing full well that if any evidence came out that incriminated them, we'd be back at the table saying "Hang on a minute, lets double check this.' I think that it's only right that we sit down and ask the riders about specific information."

Is the due diligence he's referring to what happened last year?

blazing_saddles

Read Leonardo Bertagnolli's affidavit.
In late (Nov or Dec) 2010 Doc Ferrari refused, point blank, to go to Tenerife when asked
because it was under constant police observation.
On his personal blacklist: never going back.

In Feb 2011 Brad and the boys turn up.

What do you make of that, junglist_matty?

afx237vi

chrisday wrote:

I assume everyone's seen SurDave* responding to 'generic criticism' on CN?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brailsf ... f-team-sky

* Attribution to RR (IIRC) for use of this - shamelessly stolen cos it makes me laugh for some reason

Is it outrageous innuendo and unfair criticism to suggest that the Cyclingnews proof-reader was asleep when they filed that article?

Richmond Racer

afx237vi wrote:

chrisday wrote:

I assume everyone's seen SurDave* responding to 'generic criticism' on CN?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brailsf ... f-team-sky

* Attribution to RR (IIRC) for use of this - shamelessly stolen cos it makes me laugh for some reason

Is it outrageous innuendo and unfair criticism to suggest that the Cyclingnews proof-reader was asleep when they filed that article?

They have no proof-readers at this august publication. 70% of their stories come from other sources (stat courtesy of Ed Pickering IIRC), they run them through Googlies Translate if a non-English source, and throw them up on their website.

disgruntledgoat

junglist_matty wrote:

You do know why they train in Tenerife right?

Their choice of hotel is on top of a hill with a one road access that you can see 5 miles down (from the hotel)... Easy to spot people anti-doping and the team doctor rounds up all the riders ready to stuff them full of saline to thin their blood and hide traces of doping.

You only have to take a look at the hotel check-in records to find a string of top doping doctors attending whilst team sky were based there; especially a certain mr Aicar!

That said, make of it you will.....

If you know this is true and that documentary evidence exists, you should definitely contact UK and Spanish Anti-Doping.

But you won't be doing that will you?

wombly_knees

Problem with the Tenerife equates to doping logic is-
I lived in Mumbai till last year. It's home to the biggest slum in Asia, and also has a pretty big red light district.... I'd be a poor gigolo. But that's not true, at worst, I'm a middle class gigolo.

I'd not be surprised if some individuals in Sky were doping, but would be surprised if it was team wide.

nic_77

As I see it, this is pretty much the issue...

TailWindHome wrote:

Is Sky's greatest asset in GTs, namely a team full of 'nearly' top riders, their weakness in the Classics?

...or at least it has been previously. I would expect (based on managerial style) that Sky have re-thought their plan for this season.

The train tactic works perfectly for a stage race where it's all about cumulative time - a train can control the racing and limit time losses to different individuals on different days whilst keeping your own average consistently high. One day racing is obviously a completely different story.

Sky might be missing a marauding lone attacker (maybe Stannard?), or a single powerful small group finisher (EBH perhaps?). They'd need to get lucky... Personally I think they need to try and get themselves into a finishing scenario with two riders in a small group (one of whom is G), so they can try the old one two in the last few kms. My (completely speculative) guess is that they'll hunt in pairs rather than riding a train as such.

danlikesbikes

nic_77 wrote:

As I see it, this is pretty much the issue...

TailWindHome wrote:

Is Sky's greatest asset in GTs, namely a team full of 'nearly' top riders, their weakness in the Classics?

...or at least it has been previously. I would expect (based on managerial style) that Sky have re-thought their plan for this season.

The train tactic works perfectly for a stage race where it's all about cumulative time - a train can control the racing and limit time losses to different individuals on different days whilst keeping your own average consistently high. One day racing is obviously a completely different story.

Sky might be missing a marauding lone attacker (maybe Stannard?), or a single powerful small group finisher (EBH perhaps?). They'd need to get lucky... Personally I think they need to try and get themselves into a finishing scenario with two riders in a small group (one of whom is G), so they can try the old one two in the last few kms. My (completely speculative) guess is that they'll hunt in pairs rather than riding a train as such.

Would be nice if they would let Stannard go for a win but think they will be using him in most of the early races as support for the likes of EBH & later in GT support role.

Richmond Racer

TWEET OF THE MONTH:


@Michael_Creed
OPEN TWEET To Dave Brailsford. Learn how to drive the team car with your middle finger in the air. You're kicking ass. Don't stop.


For those who dont follow Creed, he's well worth it. Part of the Adam Myerson/Ted King/Timmy Duggan etc group of riders who are held in high regard on the US scene.

Completely off the wall some times, usually when baiting American businesses on Twitter, but very funny.

danlikesbikes

RR like this

disgruntledgoat

Richmond Racer wrote:

TWEET OF THE MONTH:


@Michael_Creed
OPEN TWEET To Dave Brailsford. Learn how to drive the team car with your middle finger in the air. You're kicking ass. Don't stop.


For those who dont follow Creed, he's well worth it. Part of the Adam Myerson/Ted King/Timmy Duggan etc group of riders who are held in high regard on the US scene.

Completely off the wall some times, usually when baiting American businesses on Twitter, but very funny.

Creed was quite funny on Behind The Barriers this year too. Telling a story about him and Danny Pate playing Mario Kart against an 8 year old kid. Then Pate turning the console off when it became apparant he was going to lose.

Also he is unbeaten at Cyclocross, having won his state championships at junior level, then retired.

smithy21

I'm intrigued at the way these things work. :?

Why is Matthew Hayman being ex of Rabo suddenly news? He has been ex Rabo for over 3 years as far as I am aware.

Jez mon

TailWindHome wrote:

Is Sky's greatest asset in GTs, namely a team full of 'nearly' top riders, their weakness in the Classics?

To be fair to Sky though, they never said their ambition was to get a Norwegian onto the top step of a podium in the classics.

I think Sky's real problem has been that they simply don't care about the classics as much as some fans might want them to, everything has been geared to delivering a British tour winner. This might change now though.

bockers

I see festinagirl and bikejourno are spouting more claptrap on twitter. Froome lost TA because David Walsh turned up!

So let’s get this clear. If they win they doped, if they did not win they were doping but had to stop for some reason.

Now please tell me they have more to go on than this? Otherwise is it not just slander?

Of course they will say they know more, but have to keep it secret (which in their eyes is not the same as omerta). Honestly you could not make this tuff up, but they just do, and so far get away with

iainf72

smithy21 wrote:

I'm intrigued at the way these things work. :?

Why is Matthew Hayman being ex of Rabo suddenly news? He has been ex Rabo for over 3 years as far as I am aware.

Because of the Rasmussen court case

disgruntledgoat

bockers wrote:

I see festinagirl and bikejourno are spouting more claptrap on twitter. Froome lost TA because David Walsh turned up!

So let’s get this clear. If they win they doped, if they did not win they were doping but had to stop for some reason.

Now please tell me they have more to go on than this? Otherwise is it not just slander?

Of course they will say they know more, but have to keep it secret (which in their eyes is not the same as omerta). Honestly you could not make this tuff up, but they just do, and so far get away with

It sounds like straight libel to me

Richmond Racer

disgruntledgoat wrote:

bockers wrote:

I see festinagirl and bikejourno are spouting more claptrap on twitter. Froome lost TA because David Walsh turned up!

So let’s get this clear. If they win they doped, if they did not win they were doping but had to stop for some reason.

Now please tell me they have more to go on than this? Otherwise is it not just slander?

Of course they will say they know more, but have to keep it secret (which in their eyes is not the same as omerta). Honestly you could not make this tuff up, but they just do, and so far get away with

It sounds like straight libel to me

I wouldnt be at all surprised if legal action has been/is being considered. Problem they'd have is that 1) it gives these people some level of legitimacy, and 2) it could lead to a 'they set lawyers on people who speak out just like Lance did' claim, and 3) might cause a massive issue right in the middle of the Walsh thing

(just my view - who knows what the thinking is)

smithy21

iainf72 wrote:

smithy21 wrote:

I'm intrigued at the way these things work. :?

Why is Matthew Hayman being ex of Rabo suddenly news? He has been ex Rabo for over 3 years as far as I am aware.

Because of the Rasmussen court case

Ok, but what I then dont get is that everyone knew Rasmussen doped, everyone went nuts about Leinders and someone has been sitting at Sky for 3 years being ex Rabo and no-one has really mentioned it until now.

bockers

Agree RR, legal action is not the best recourse. Trouble is what else can they do, nothing is the answer. Th twaliban are just a bunch of simple conspracy theorists who will never believe anyone. David Walsh is not to be trusted as he writes for a Murdoch paper.

So I shall just try not to get wound up by them and ignore the rubbish.

Looking forward to Paris Roubaix now, bring on the mud and rain to make it a real lottery.

iainf72

smithy21 wrote:

Ok, but what I then dont get is that everyone knew Rasmussen doped, everyone went nuts about Leinders and someone has been sitting at Sky for 3 years being ex Rabo and no-one has really mentioned it until now.

I guess it's coz he explicitly mentioned a team Hayman was part of with Geert there.

above_the_cows

Oh what the hell I'll post it here too.



The truth being that no one actually has any proof.

No matter how much you want something to be true wishing it was true doesn't make it so. Reading things that aren't there is not going to make them appear and be real even if we do live in a constructed world. When I was younger I really liked this boy. I was convinced he really liked me too but was you know holding out, refusing to admit to the truth of his feelings for me. I interpreted every word he said to me, every look he gave me whether they were kind or cruel as evidence of his undoubted, undying love for me. You could say I was obsessed.

Then I grew up. The difference however is that I only convinced myself that this boy was in love with me and it wasn't libelous or the type of rumour likely to ruin his reputation, others were not prepared to believe of his love for me without any proof. The accusations against Sky on the other hand are verging on libelous and are capable of making other people believe them.

smithy21

iainf72 wrote:

smithy21 wrote:

Ok, but what I then dont get is that everyone knew Rasmussen doped, everyone went nuts about Leinders and someone has been sitting at Sky for 3 years being ex Rabo and no-one has really mentioned it until now.

I guess it's coz he explicitly mentioned a team Hayman was part of with Geert there.

Ok, fair enough- throw him under the bus/jag then!

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

smithy21 wrote:

Ok, but what I then dont get is that everyone knew Rasmussen doped, everyone went nuts about Leinders and someone has been sitting at Sky for 3 years being ex Rabo and no-one has really mentioned it until now.

I guess it's coz he explicitly mentioned a team Hayman was part of with Geert there.

He also explicitly mentioned that Menchov was a big doper, but no-one seems to have bothered asking him anything and he's been racing this week.

Macaloon

The smear-mongers are a cyclical :shock: phenomen. As more people (especially actual, you know, journalists) take issue with their groundless accusations, they will be marginalised, or forced to seek sanctuary in less toxic material, muting the megaphone. Think this is where Cyclismas is at the moment: floundering while snark is cheap, journalism is hard.

No need to create more legal martyrs a la Kimmage.

Gazzetta67

Macaloon wrote:

The smear-mongers are a cyclical :shock: phenomen. As more people (especially actual, you know, journalists) take issue with their groundless accusations, they will be marginalised, or forced to seek sanctuary in less toxic material, muting the megaphone. Think this is where Cyclismas is at the moment: floundering while snark is cheap, journalism is hard.

No need to create more legal martyrs a la Kimmage.

Yeah cos the guy was right all along eh :roll:

Macaloon

Gazzetta67 wrote:

Macaloon wrote:

No need to create more legal martyrs a la Kimmage.

Yeah cos the guy was right all along eh :roll:

You appear to be saying that because Kimmage was early with the Armstrong news (and in fairness to him took plenty of incoming fire as a result), he has earned respect for whatever baseless smears he chooses to throw at current riders. I disagree. He has trashed whatever credibility he had by trading in innuendo and gossip.

Sorry if I misrepresented your argument.

Quick Ninja edit to say I don't believe the rumours of Fest1nagirls defection to UKIP either.

ddraver

bockers wrote:

Agree RR, legal action is not the best recourse. Trouble is what else can they do, nothing is the answer. Th twaliban are just a bunch of simple conspracy theorists who will never believe anyone. David Walsh is not to be trusted as he writes for a Murdoch paper.

So I shall just try not to get wound up by them and ignore the rubbish.

Looking forward to Paris Roubaix now, bring on the mud and rain to make it a real lottery.

Hmm, to use a Richard Dawkins/Dali Lama/Einstein Quote (I forget)

That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine...