Brailsford interview

NervexProf

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... House.html

mike6

Enjoyed that.

He is right though. If you love and are obsessed with something it is "not really work"

Richmond Racer

liked the bit about streaming feeds from 'pirate websites'

LeicesterLad

Richmond Racer wrote:

liked the bit about streaming feeds from 'pirate websites'

http://www.piratesinfo.com/ :?:

Rodrego Hernandez

Next he'll be bringing out a book called 'We might as well win.'

inkyfingers

When a bloke employed (albeit indirectly) by one of the worlds leading TV and media companies has to watch races on a pirated feed you know the system is screwed.

Richmond Racer

LeicesterLad wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

liked the bit about streaming feeds from 'pirate websites'

http://www.piratesinfo.com/ :?:

shiver me timbers

iainf72

Richmond Racer wrote:

liked the bit about streaming feeds from 'pirate websites'

Yes, if I was cheeky I'd say


"If I'm a liar and a cheat and if my ethics and morals are all about cheating, if that's what we're doing here, lying to the world and cheating, then surely I'll be doing it in other places in my life. Not just parts."

:P

Richmond Racer

iainf72 wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

liked the bit about streaming feeds from 'pirate websites'

Yes, if I was cheeky I'd say


"If I'm a liar and a cheat and if my ethics and morals are all about cheating, if that's what we're doing here, lying to the world and cheating, then surely I'll be doing it in other places in my life. Not just parts."

:P

But Iain, you're not cheeky, so you wouldnt

Rob Noall

Rodrego Hernandez wrote:

Next he'll be bringing out a book called 'We might as well win.'

Now look what you have brought out from under the bridge

RichN95.

With Sky, their critics shout that the other teams should do the same (meaning doping).

Yet, Sky's model is clearly based on coaching

and Bobby Julich is still unemployed

And Nibali coaches himself and Schleck is coached by his dad.

Marginal gains is not a solution, but it's a philosophy. Making everything the best you can. But it's the big things, like coaching that make the big gains.

dave_1

reckon he is a legit guy who runs an honest
operation but am not certain he has control over
everything given how dispersed over a continent
all his employees are. My cynicism is such I don't believe many
of them now on any team..winning is all that counts, second is first loser being
the sort of rubbish many adhere to. Also think it takes a very strong person to refuse
to go down the dope route when you have proven doping
liars like Valverde and Alberto taking stuff. I am reconsidering plea bargain
or two year bans more and more as the sport is rotten
at the top...the Berts and Valverdes destroy any confidence other
competitors would have had to not dope..

mm1

The cynics (especially the Americans and Australians posting on that other forum) don't understand how much BC have resting on the Sky sponsorship. If they saw the 40 or so children (the majority of whom are girls, which is heartening given growing health concerns over many young women's aversion to exercise) who turn up to my club's GoRide sessions, they would understand that systematic cheating is too big a risk for BC to be taking.

To read some paranoid ramblings Brailsford is a cross between the Hog and Eric Honeker, Wiggins (or whichever Sky rider is going well at the moment) is the new Pharmstrong and the team is "UK Postal". It would be a disaster if any of this were true, but my gut and everything I've seen of the BC coaching system says that it is not.

That stuff about pirate feeds is just Brailsford pretending to be street...typical UK media, attempting to add colour as a sort of shorthand that hints at social class (showing how the subject is, or isn't, like the majority of the paper's readers). This being the Torygraph there will be another wistful article soon about Emma Watson or Sophie Dhal (with just about acceptable photographs), to allow its readers to forget about curious bicycling proles.

emadden

Richmond Racer wrote:

liked the bit about streaming feeds from 'pirate websites'

I liked the bit that he was at the Adidas new cycling kit launch

iainf72

emadden wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

liked the bit about streaming feeds from 'pirate websites'

I liked the bit that he was at the Adidas new cycling kit launch

They sponsor British Cycling. Why would him being there be a surprise?

Rodrego Hernandez

iainf72 wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

liked the bit about streaming feeds from 'pirate websites'

Yes, if I was cheeky I'd say


"If I'm a liar and a cheat and if my ethics and morals are all about cheating, if that's what we're doing here, lying to the world and cheating, then surely I'll be doing it in other places in my life. Not just parts."

:P

Funny!

mike6

I hesitate to read posts, now, regarding Sky or Brailsford, because no matter what the original content may be it always seems to turn into a competition about who can come up with the most snide comment or innuendo.

rick_chasey

mike6 wrote:

I hesitate to read posts, now, regarding Sky or Brailsford, because no matter what the original content may be it always seems to turn into a competition about who can come up with the most snide comment or innuendo.

So Iain is in the lead then??
;-)

No_Ta_Doctor

Rick Chasey wrote:

mike6 wrote:

I hesitate to read posts, now, regarding Sky or Brailsford, because no matter what the original content may be it always seems to turn into a competition about who can come up with the most snide comment or innuendo.

So Iain is in the lead then??
;-)

To be fair, Iain led a solo breakaway in snide comments about Sky, all the way from the startline, with considerable panache. The Twaliban had to put some big engines on the front to pull him back.

emadden

iainf72 wrote:

They sponsor British Cycling. Why would him being there be a surprise?

Fair point, well made, Iaino-lad

Rundfahrt

mm1 wrote:

The cynics (especially the Americans and Australians posting on that other forum) don't understand how much BC have resting on the Sky sponsorship. If they saw the 40 or so children (the majority of whom are girls, which is heartening given growing health concerns over many young women's aversion to exercise) who turn up to my club's GoRide sessions, they would understand that systematic cheating is too big a risk for BC to be taking.

Actually systematic cheating would be precisely the risk worth taking. Winning is what brings in the numbers, wen a rider or team from a country starts winning pro races or gold medals people take notice. Thinking it is not worth the risk to an organization is simply naive.

I'll also mention that this was one of the excuses given by USPS/LA fans.

To read some paranoid ramblings Brailsford is a cross between the Hog and Eric Honeker, Wiggins (or whichever Sky rider is going well at the moment) is the new Pharmstrong and the team is "UK Postal". It would be a disaster if any of this were true, but my gut and everything I've seen of the BC coaching system says that it is not.

Disparage those that question and claim your gut and what you have seen shows they are clean. Wait, that's exactly what USPS/LA fans were doing during his Tour reign. One of the reasons people do question Sky so much is how many similarities there seem to be, Wiggins getting pissed at doping talk and people on twitter/forums, Sky talking about better training/"marginal gains", the forum defenders using the exact same excuses, attacking anyone who questions (enlisting mods to help there cause), etc. So many similarities that make people without bias willing to, at least, think about the possibilities.

That stuff about pirate feeds is just Brailsford pretending to be street...typical UK media, attempting to add colour as a sort of shorthand that hints at social class (showing how the subject is, or isn't, like the majority of the paper's readers). This being the Torygraph there will be another wistful article soon about Emma Watson or Sophie Dhal (with just about acceptable photographs), to allow its readers to forget about curious bicycling proles.

Amateur psychologist telling us what people mean when they say something hat, conveniently, dismisses a quote from the person earlier that would add the possibility of thinking something untoward is going on.

RichN95.

Rundfahrt wrote:

Disparage those that question and claim your gut and what you have seen shows they are clean. Wait, that's exactly what USPS/LA fans were doing during his Tour reign. One of the reasons people do question Sky so much is how many similarities there seem to be, Wiggins getting pissed at doping talk and people on twitter/forums, Sky talking about better training/"marginal gains", the forum defenders using the exact same excuses, attacking anyone who questions (enlisting mods to help there cause), etc. So many similarities that make people without bias willing to, at least, think about the possibilities.

Two points to note:

1. If people falsely accuse you of something serious, you have every right to get pissed off. Especially when it's done anonymously. Not getting pissed off is stranger.

2. Better training and coaching will indeed get better results.

frenchfighter

Enjoyed reading that as I didn't know about his background. Have more respect for him now.

Rundfahrt

RichN95 wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

Disparage those that question and claim your gut and what you have seen shows they are clean. Wait, that's exactly what USPS/LA fans were doing during his Tour reign. One of the reasons people do question Sky so much is how many similarities there seem to be, Wiggins getting pissed at doping talk and people on twitter/forums, Sky talking about better training/"marginal gains", the forum defenders using the exact same excuses, attacking anyone who questions (enlisting mods to help there cause), etc. So many similarities that make people without bias willing to, at least, think about the possibilities.

Two points to note:

1. If people falsely accuse you of something serious, you have every right to get pissed off. Especially when it's done anonymously. Not getting pissed off is stranger.

2. Better training and coaching will indeed get better results.

1) Yet Armstrong did the same thing (without the foul language) and it was said, at the time, that only a doper would get that mad.

2) I remember all the talk of Armstrong training harder and smarter and having better coaching.

Thanks for helping make my point about how Sky and certain Sky riders are doing and saying the same things as USPS/LA did, yet people on some sites give them a free pass and get terribly upset at even the idea that someone may have doubts.

RichN95.

Rundfahrt wrote:

1) Yet Armstrong did the same thing (without the foul language) and it was said, at the time, that only a doper would get that mad.

2) I remember all the talk of Armstrong training harder and smarter and having better coaching.

Thanks for helping make my point about how Sky and certain Sky riders are doing and saying the same things as USPS/LA did, yet people on some sites give them a free pass and get terribly upset at even the idea that someone may have doubts.

You see this is the BS that the likes of you come out with. Armstrong said he was clean, so everyone who says they are clean is a doper. Armstrong went training, so everyone who trains is a doper. Armstrong kept his weight down, so everyone who is thin is a doper.

Sky don't get a free pass, but if your evidence for their doping is comparisons to Armstrong (a liar trying to pass himself off as clean) then you're probably just deceiving yourself.

If you want to build a case against Sky, then do it on the merits of their own facts, not some weak comparisons.

Rundfahrt

RichN95 wrote:

You see this is the BS that the likes of you come out with.

Why do the Sky/Wiggins defenders always start off with insults and attacks when someone mentions anything about doping and your beloved team? You guys come off like little kids when you do that...just like USPS/LA fans did back in the day.

Armstrong said he was clean, so everyone who says they are clean is a doper.Armstrong went training, so everyone who trains is a doper. Armstrong kept his weight down, so everyone who is thin is a doper.

I never said anything of the sort. I would appreciate it if you would stick to the actual discussion instead of making up things in order to defend your beloved team against anything remotely perceived as a slight.

Sky don't get a free pass, but if your evidence for their doping is comparisons to Armstrong (a liar trying to pass himself off as clean) then you're probably just deceiving yourself.

1) Sky do get a free pass here, just look at the responses to anyone who posts anything negative about them. Hell, I posted how Sky and it's fans responses are just like USPS back in the day and "So many similarities that make people without bias willing to, at least, think about the possibilities." and you have turned claimed that I am saying I am claiming "evidence of doping." It doesn't get much easier to prove my point then that.

2) If you really want to have a discussion, I suggest you stop making things up and stick to what is actually posted.

iainf72

Rundfahrt wrote:

1) Sky do get a free pass here, just look at the responses to anyone who posts anything negative about them. Hell, I posted how Sky and it's fans responses are just like USPS back in the day and "So many similarities that make people without bias willing to, at least, think about the possibilities." and you have turned claimed that I am saying I am claiming "evidence of doping." It doesn't get much easier to prove my point then that.

I don't think they get a free pass here, nor have they ever. And I say that as one of the old skool antagonists.

Sky are so hopeless at PR that's like shooting fish in a barrel taking pops at them.

Rundfahrt

iainf72 wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

1) Sky do get a free pass here, just look at the responses to anyone who posts anything negative about them. Hell, I posted how Sky and it's fans responses are just like USPS back in the day and "So many similarities that make people without bias willing to, at least, think about the possibilities." and you have turned claimed that I am saying I am claiming "evidence of doping." It doesn't get much easier to prove my point then that.

I don't think they get a free pass here, nor have they ever. And I say that as one of the old skool antagonists.

Sky are so hopeless at PR that's like shooting fish in a barrel taking pops at them.

Then how do you explain the blatant lies told by Rich in order to defend Sky or ddraver who makes his lies personal or the moderator who banned me for the exact remaining time of the Tour, whilst I was being attacked and insulted in far worse fashion then anything I ever did...all because I did not blindly love Sky?

RichN95.

Rundfahrt wrote:

Then how do you explain the blatant lies told by Rich in order to defend Sky or ddraver who makes his lies personal or the moderator who banned me for the exact remaining time of the Tour, whilst I was being attacked and insulted in far worse fashion then anything I ever did...all because I did not blindly love Sky?

Specifically what lies have I told?

I have said that your comparisons to Armstrong are feeble, because Armstrong was mimicing what a clean rider would do.

Beyond that, what?

If you want to make a case for anyone (Sky or not) doping then don't make comparisons to Armstrong. It's the Godwin's Law of cycling and a clear indication that you have nothing meaningful to say.

Rundfahrt

RichN95 wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

Then how do you explain the blatant lies told by Rich in order to defend Sky or ddraver who makes his lies personal or the moderator who banned me for the exact remaining time of the Tour, whilst I was being attacked and insulted in far worse fashion then anything I ever did...all because I did not blindly love Sky?

Specifically what lies have I told?

I already pointed those out to you.

I have said that your comparisons to Armstrong are feeble, because Armstrong was mimicing what a clean rider would do.

No, you claimed I said specific things I did not say

Beyond that, what?

Already told you...did you ignore them or are you having comprehension issues...as usual?

If you want to make a case for anyone (Sky or not) doping then don't make comparisons to Armstrong. It's the Godwin's Law of cycling and a clear indication that you have nothing meaningful to say.

I am not making a case against anyone I have simply pointed out that the similarities in behavior and quotes makes it hard not to think about the possibilities.

Once again, ignoring what is actually said or comprehension issues.

Keep it up, you are doing a great job making my point crystal clear to everyone without blind love for Sky.

Later

mike6

Rundfahrt wrote:

mm1 wrote:

The cynics (especially the Americans and Australians posting on that other forum) don't understand how much BC have resting on the Sky sponsorship. If they saw the 40 or so children (the majority of whom are girls, which is heartening given growing health concerns over many young women's aversion to exercise) who turn up to my club's GoRide sessions, they would understand that systematic cheating is too big a risk for BC to be taking.

Actually systematic cheating would be precisely the risk worth taking. Winning is what brings in the numbers, wen a rider or team from a country starts winning pro races or gold medals people take notice. Thinking it is not worth the risk to an organization is simply naive.

I'll also mention that this was one of the excuses given by USPS/LA fans.

To read some paranoid ramblings Brailsford is a cross between the Hog and Eric Honeker, Wiggins (or whichever Sky rider is going well at the moment) is the new Pharmstrong and the team is "UK Postal". It would be a disaster if any of this were true, but my gut and everything I've seen of the BC coaching system says that it is not.

Disparage those that question and claim your gut and what you have seen shows they are clean. Wait, that's exactly what USPS/LA fans were doing during his Tour reign. One of the reasons people do question Sky so much is how many similarities there seem to be, Wiggins getting pissed at doping talk and people on twitter/forums, Sky talking about better training/"marginal gains", the forum defenders using the exact same excuses, attacking anyone who questions (enlisting mods to help there cause), etc. So many similarities that make people without bias willing to, at least, think about the possibilities.

That stuff about pirate feeds is just Brailsford pretending to be street...typical UK media, attempting to add colour as a sort of shorthand that hints at social class (showing how the subject is, or isn't, like the majority of the paper's readers). This being the Torygraph there will be another wistful article soon about Emma Watson or Sophie Dhal (with just about acceptable photographs), to allow its readers to forget about curious bicycling proles.

Amateur psychologist telling us what people mean when they say something hat, conveniently, dismisses a quote from the person earlier that would add the possibility of thinking something untoward is going on.

Dont waste your time guys. If a team is winning, ergo they are dopers. I have no idea why some people even bother to follow pro cycling with an attitude like that.
Why not follow crown green bowling instead??? But I must warn you, the abuse of Werthers Originals is endemic.