Brailsford to be asked to resign!!
Comments
-
hanshotfirst wrote:VinnyMarsden wrote:we love the queen,
We do not all love the Queen, pal.
True that.
With regard to SDB and Sky, it appears (with a good dose of conviction) that there has been an injected Kenacort thing going on for many years (SDB has refuted this on a couple of occasions in interviews). Why else would there be 60/70 vials ordered (I gather 2 year use-by date)? Testosterone patches are illegal all of the time. A mistaken delivery simply isn't believable.
Coticos can be used OOC but not injected. The latter can't be used any time.
That's over the line.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Is a sad day for the sport generally if this is how he has to go.
Has changed cycling more than perhaps anyone one else in his generation.
--
Though what is odd is that I feel the need to caveat this for the more irrational posters who will inevitably tar me with some kind of sky fanboy label, despite evidence to the contrary.
I guess that's where the world is going and cycling is no different.
He transformed UK cycling and in the face of immense doubt from the majority of the cycling world he explained it all away with the aggregation of marginal gains. Oh how we laughed when he told the French that our wheels were rounder.
So in his magical production line from Hoy to Kenny (x2) through Wiggins what % of doubt do we each personally apply to each performance/competitor.
For myself I believed in Wiggins/Froome because I believed in Brailsford and if he was in on it then the whole thing was a sham. Post the TUE revelations this story has snowballed and so has my belief in the honesty of the achievements of all at British Cycling.
Blaming the Daily Mail is just shooting the messenger.0 -
If Team Sky were Team Guardian, or Team Tesco, does anyone think the pack dogs at the Mail would have moved on by now?
Surely there's an element here of the Mail using Team Sky as a pawn in the war they have with the Murdoch empire.
I'm fed up these 'sources' never being identified and the constant issuing of speculation and innuendo from them. Sure Sky have had their shovels out and handled this terribly but it is so typical of the gutter press in Britain to jump on the successful coat tails, drag everything to a halt and then do everything they can to destroy the success in their pursuit of a tasty one liner.
Certainly Sky appear to have operated in the grey area, and broken some people's moral codes, but will they actually be charged with any actual rule breaking?0 -
Dorset Boy wrote:If Team Sky were Team Guardian, or Team Tesco, does anyone think the pack dogs at the Mail would have moved on by now?
Surely there's an element here of the Mail using Team Sky as a pawn in the war they have with the Murdoch empire.
It's almost certainly not to do with this.0 -
Rick, I've not seen the Mail push on the open door that Manchester City and Bournemouth have left.
The Mail generally are hardly bastions of honesty and pursuers of truth are they?0 -
Dorset Boy wrote:If Team Sky were Team Guardian, or Team Tesco, does anyone think the pack dogs at the Mail would have moved on by now?
Surely there's an element here of the Mail using Team Sky as a pawn in the war they have with the Murdoch empire.
I'm fed up these 'sources' never being identified and the constant issuing of speculation and innuendo from them. Sure Sky have had their shovels out and handled this terribly but it is so typical of the gutter press in Britain to jump on the successful coat tails, drag everything to a halt and then do everything they can to destroy the success in their pursuit of a tasty one liner.
Certainly Sky appear to have operated in the grey area, and broken some people's moral codes, but will they actually be charged with any actual rule breaking?
They won't be charged as there is no direct evidence that riders have been injected as yet, nor that the patches have been used.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Is a sad day for the sport generally if this is how he has to go.
Has changed cycling more than perhaps anyone one else in his generation.
--
Though what is odd is that I feel the need to caveat this for the more irrational posters who will inevitably tar me with some kind of sky fanboy label, despite evidence to the contrary.
I guess that's where the world is going and cycling is no different.
He transformed UK cycling and in the face of immense doubt from the majority of the cycling world he explained it all away with the aggregation of marginal gains. Oh how we laughed when he told the French that our wheels were rounder.
So in his magical production line from Hoy to Kenny (x2) through Wiggins what % of doubt do we each personally apply to each performance/competitor.
For myself I believed in Wiggins/Froome because I believed in Brailsford and if he was in on it then the whole thing was a sham. Post the TUE revelations this story has snowballed and so has my belief in the honesty of the achievements of all at British Cycling.
Blaming the Daily Mail is just shooting the messenger.
I'll assume the mail comment isn't aimed at me.
Regardless of whether the performances were to do with doping or not, cycling IS different, and a lot of it originated from the Sky and BC way of doing things.
Take sky away tomorrow and cycling doesn't immediately go back to 2010, does it?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Is a sad day for the sport generally if this is how he has to go.
Has changed cycling more than perhaps anyone one else in his generation.
--
Though what is odd is that I feel the need to caveat this for the more irrational posters who will inevitably tar me with some kind of sky fanboy label, despite evidence to the contrary.
I guess that's where the world is going and cycling is no different.
He transformed UK cycling and in the face of immense doubt from the majority of the cycling world he explained it all away with the aggregation of marginal gains. Oh how we laughed when he told the French that our wheels were rounder.
So in his magical production line from Hoy to Kenny (x2) through Wiggins what % of doubt do we each personally apply to each performance/competitor.
For myself I believed in Wiggins/Froome because I believed in Brailsford and if he was in on it then the whole thing was a sham. Post the TUE revelations this story has snowballed and so has my belief in the honesty of the achievements of all at British Cycling.
Blaming the Daily Mail is just shooting the messenger.
I'll assume the mail comment isn't aimed at me.
Regardless of whether the performances were to do with doping or not, cycling IS different, and a lot of it originated from the Sky and BC way of doing things.
Take sky away tomorrow and cycling doesn't immediately go back to 2010, does it?
Rollo's training was stuck in 1975!!!
It appears to have gone back to 1935 since he joined Cannondale though.0 -
-
The reporting on this has thus far been long on sensationalism and opinion and fairly short on actual fact, with no sources willing to go on record. We have got to the point that someone not tweeting is a story. At the moment it is just journalists, largely not familiar with cycling, behaving like jackals wanting a carcass.
Clarity can only come from the UKAD report. It won't satisfy all, or indeed many. But hopefully it will be soberly presented and properly investigated. There are questions to be answered, but the media are not currently providing a suitable platform, hopefully UKAD will (although I have my doubts).Twitter: @RichN950 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Dorset Boy wrote:If Team Sky were Team Guardian, or Team Tesco, does anyone think the pack dogs at the Mail would have moved on by now?
Surely there's an element here of the Mail using Team Sky as a pawn in the war they have with the Murdoch empire.
It's almost certainly not to do with this.
I love the thought of The Times being at war with the Murdoch empire. Maybe they are trying to get out of their contract early and get some bonuses paid back.0 -
RichN95 wrote:The reporting on this has thus far been long on sensationalism and opinion and fairly short on actual fact, with no sources willing to go on record. We have got to the point that someone not tweeting is a story. At the moment it is just journalists, largely not familiar with cycling, behaving like jackals wanting a carcass.
Clarity can only come from the UKAD report. It won't satisfy all, or indeed many. But hopefully it will be soberly presented and properly investigated. There are questions to be answered, but the media are not currently providing a suitable platform, hopefully UKAD will (although I have my doubts).
With respect Rich, will the UKAD report cover testosterone patches turning up in a delivery? No.0 -
CarbonClem wrote:bompington wrote:sighs.
Do you know what gets me about all this?
It's not whether or not a sports team has been pushing the boundaries of the rules, or even actively cheating. If they have been - I'll be saddened but in the end it's the same old story, and it's only sport.
It's the fact that grown men (presumably) are practically wetting their pants in delighted anticipation of their pet hate being brought down.
I don't detect any sign of the motive being respect for the purity of the sport, so what is it?
I have thought this, without being a blind patriotic flag waving SkyBot, theorically if things pan out badly, Sky pull sponsorship and the team fails. In the wake no blue chip companies want to touch pro cycling with a bargepole the UK loses its home based WT team. UK riders back to the nineties in routes to 'make it'.
Does everyone sit back, rub hands and say 'job well done'. Meanwhile, Russian, Arab State and old school Euro teams continue unaffected.
So what you're saying is that you're happy for a team that may or may not be doping to continue as its British?
Because that's how that reads.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Is a sad day for the sport generally if this is how he has to go.
Has changed cycling more than perhaps anyone one else in his generation.
--
Though what is odd is that I feel the need to caveat this for the more irrational posters who will inevitably tar me with some kind of sky fanboy label, despite evidence to the contrary.
I guess that's where the world is going and cycling is no different.
He transformed UK cycling and in the face of immense doubt from the majority of the cycling world he explained it all away with the aggregation of marginal gains. Oh how we laughed when he told the French that our wheels were rounder.
So in his magical production line from Hoy to Kenny (x2) through Wiggins what % of doubt do we each personally apply to each performance/competitor.
For myself I believed in Wiggins/Froome because I believed in Brailsford and if he was in on it then the whole thing was a sham. Post the TUE revelations this story has snowballed and so has my belief in the honesty of the achievements of all at British Cycling.
Blaming the Daily Mail is just shooting the messenger.
I'll assume the mail comment isn't aimed at me.
Regardless of whether the performances were to do with doping or not, cycling IS different, and a lot of it originated from the Sky and BC way of doing things.
Take sky away tomorrow and cycling doesn't immediately go back to 2010, does it?
Nope Mail comment not aimed at you.
You are right he made cycling a far more professional sport.0 -
Joelsim wrote:Dorset Boy wrote:If Team Sky were Team Guardian, or Team Tesco, does anyone think the pack dogs at the Mail would have moved on by now?
Surely there's an element here of the Mail using Team Sky as a pawn in the war they have with the Murdoch empire.
I'm fed up these 'sources' never being identified and the constant issuing of speculation and innuendo from them. Sure Sky have had their shovels out and handled this terribly but it is so typical of the gutter press in Britain to jump on the successful coat tails, drag everything to a halt and then do everything they can to destroy the success in their pursuit of a tasty one liner.
Certainly Sky appear to have operated in the grey area, and broken some people's moral codes, but will they actually be charged with any actual rule breaking?
They won't be charged as there is no direct evidence that riders have been injected as yet, nor that the patches have been used.
How can the patches have been used if they were immediately returned to the supplier?0 -
I expect so. Weren't they the ones who told the Sunday Times about it?Joelsim wrote:RichN95 wrote:The reporting on this has thus far been long on sensationalism and opinion and fairly short on actual fact, with no sources willing to go on record. We have got to the point that someone not tweeting is a story. At the moment it is just journalists, largely not familiar with cycling, behaving like jackals wanting a carcass.
Clarity can only come from the UKAD report. It won't satisfy all, or indeed many. But hopefully it will be soberly presented and properly investigated. There are questions to be answered, but the media are not currently providing a suitable platform, hopefully UKAD will (although I have my doubts).
With respect Rich, will the UKAD report cover testosterone patches turning up in a delivery? No.Twitter: @RichN950 -
pedro118118 wrote:Joelsim wrote:Dorset Boy wrote:If Team Sky were Team Guardian, or Team Tesco, does anyone think the pack dogs at the Mail would have moved on by now?
Surely there's an element here of the Mail using Team Sky as a pawn in the war they have with the Murdoch empire.
I'm fed up these 'sources' never being identified and the constant issuing of speculation and innuendo from them. Sure Sky have had their shovels out and handled this terribly but it is so typical of the gutter press in Britain to jump on the successful coat tails, drag everything to a halt and then do everything they can to destroy the success in their pursuit of a tasty one liner.
Certainly Sky appear to have operated in the grey area, and broken some people's moral codes, but will they actually be charged with any actual rule breaking?
They won't be charged as there is no direct evidence that riders have been injected as yet, nor that the patches have been used.
How can the patches have been used if they were immediately returned to the supplier?
Most bystanders would find it unbelievable that such a dysfunctional organistion whose members cam't remember what they had for breakfast can state with such clarity what happened the "only" time somebody mistakenly sent them the wrong dope.0 -
pedro118118 wrote:Joelsim wrote:Dorset Boy wrote:If Team Sky were Team Guardian, or Team Tesco, does anyone think the pack dogs at the Mail would have moved on by now?
Surely there's an element here of the Mail using Team Sky as a pawn in the war they have with the Murdoch empire.
I'm fed up these 'sources' never being identified and the constant issuing of speculation and innuendo from them. Sure Sky have had their shovels out and handled this terribly but it is so typical of the gutter press in Britain to jump on the successful coat tails, drag everything to a halt and then do everything they can to destroy the success in their pursuit of a tasty one liner.
Certainly Sky appear to have operated in the grey area, and broken some people's moral codes, but will they actually be charged with any actual rule breaking?
They won't be charged as there is no direct evidence that riders have been injected as yet, nor that the patches have been used.
How can the patches have been used if they were immediately returned to the supplier?
The fact that that particular batch of patches was sent back to the supplier doesn't explain what they were doing in the package in the first place.0 -
RichN95 wrote:The reporting on this has thus far been long on sensationalism and opinion and fairly short on actual fact, with no sources willing to go on record. We have got to the point that someone not tweeting is a story. At the moment it is just journalists, largely not familiar with cycling, behaving like jackals wanting a carcass.
Clarity can only come from the UKAD report. It won't satisfy all, or indeed many. But hopefully it will be soberly presented and properly investigated. There are questions to be answered, but the media are not currently providing a suitable platform, hopefully UKAD will (although I have my doubts).
With Sky and BC are being so uncooperative do you believe that UKAD are equipped to conduct this investigation. It took them thousands of hours to not discover what was in the jiffy bag.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:RichN95 wrote:The reporting on this has thus far been long on sensationalism and opinion and fairly short on actual fact, with no sources willing to go on record. We have got to the point that someone not tweeting is a story. At the moment it is just journalists, largely not familiar with cycling, behaving like jackals wanting a carcass.
Clarity can only come from the UKAD report. It won't satisfy all, or indeed many. But hopefully it will be soberly presented and properly investigated. There are questions to be answered, but the media are not currently providing a suitable platform, hopefully UKAD will (although I have my doubts).
With Sky and BC are being so uncooperative do you believe that UKAD are equipped to conduct this investigation. It took them thousands of hours to not discover what was in the jiffy bag.
Well the Mail's 'sources' seem to know exactly what was in the jiffy bag..... maybe they're on record with UKAD.0 -
Did it take that long? Why didn't the Daily Mail and their source co-operate?Surrey Commuter wrote:RichN95 wrote:The reporting on this has thus far been long on sensationalism and opinion and fairly short on actual fact, with no sources willing to go on record. We have got to the point that someone not tweeting is a story. At the moment it is just journalists, largely not familiar with cycling, behaving like jackals wanting a carcass.
Clarity can only come from the UKAD report. It won't satisfy all, or indeed many. But hopefully it will be soberly presented and properly investigated. There are questions to be answered, but the media are not currently providing a suitable platform, hopefully UKAD will (although I have my doubts).
With Sky and BC are being so uncooperative do you believe that UKAD are equipped to conduct this investigation. It took them thousands of hours to not discover what was in the jiffy bag.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Is a sad day for the sport generally if this is how he has to go.
Has changed cycling more than perhaps anyone one else in his generation.
--
Though what is odd is that I feel the need to caveat this for the more irrational posters who will inevitably tar me with some kind of sky fanboy label, despite evidence to the contrary.
I guess that's where the world is going and cycling is no different.
He transformed UK cycling and in the face of immense doubt from the majority of the cycling world he explained it all away with the aggregation of marginal gains. Oh how we laughed when he told the French that our wheels were rounder.
So in his magical production line from Hoy to Kenny (x2) through Wiggins what % of doubt do we each personally apply to each performance/competitor.
For myself I believed in Wiggins/Froome because I believed in Brailsford and if he was in on it then the whole thing was a sham. Post the TUE revelations this story has snowballed and so has my belief in the honesty of the achievements of all at British Cycling.
Blaming the Daily Mail is just shooting the messenger.
I would've agreed with your last comment if the message was robustly informed and based in fact. Thing is, it isn't. I'm not even sure what the Daily Mail's 'message' is -they have simply made a series of hearsay accusations and cherry-picked elements of the case/story to suit their own agenda. Personally, I think Lawton himself is amazed that his tenuous tabloid hatchet job has grown legs to the degree it has. And whilst his 'scoop' maintains his profile, he'll keep on picking at the scab. His latest 'revelation' that the Sky riders were subject to a three-line whip and somehow forced to tweet support to Dave B and were threated with redundancy is lamentable. Even by his standards.
In a nutshell, it would appear that Sky have pushed right up against the rules to a point many feel is unpalatable - an understandable reaction given the cleaner-than-clean rhetotric, upon which Team Sky was formed and BC's success built.
That said, I'm waiting to hear how the case unfolds, once UKAD's remit/investigations have been concluded.
Everything else is just click-bait.0 -
Dorset Boy wrote:If Team Sky were Team Guardian...
I don't think they would have won as much if they were funded by the riders carrying buckets for people to throw coins into.0 -
Brailsford as far back as 2010 has said that they were willing to go up to the line but not over it. The 'cleaner-than-clean' was written for them.pedro118118 wrote:
In a nutshell, it would appear that Sky have pushed right up against the rules to a point many feel is unpalatable - an understandable reaction given the cleaner-than-clean rhetotric, upon which Team Sky was formed and BC's success built.Twitter: @RichN950 -
KingstonGraham wrote:Dorset Boy wrote:If Team Sky were Team Guardian...
I don't think they would have won as much if they were funded by the riders carrying buckets for people to throw coins into. 0 -
RichN95 wrote:
Brailsford as far back as 2010 has said that they were willing to go up to the line but not over it. The 'cleaner-than-clean' was written for them.pedro118118 wrote:
In a nutshell, it would appear that Sky have pushed right up against the rules to a point many feel is unpalatable - an understandable reaction given the cleaner-than-clean rhetotric, upon which Team Sky was formed and BC's success built.
70 doses of corticos? 5 have been accounted for. All vials that need to be injected in a 'no needles' era.
Testosterone patches mistakenly included in a delivery.0 -
Weren't they ordered by British Cycling rather than Sky? And if it has been used in a widespread manner why did Wiggins have a TUE for it and Froome didn't? And why that drug? And why not just use oral cortices.Joelsim wrote:70 doses of corticos? 5 have been accounted for.
If Sky are running a doping programme they're doing every single thing wrong.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
Did it take that long? Why didn't the Daily Mail and their source co-operate?Surrey Commuter wrote:RichN95 wrote:The reporting on this has thus far been long on sensationalism and opinion and fairly short on actual fact, with no sources willing to go on record. We have got to the point that someone not tweeting is a story. At the moment it is just journalists, largely not familiar with cycling, behaving like jackals wanting a carcass.
Clarity can only come from the UKAD report. It won't satisfy all, or indeed many. But hopefully it will be soberly presented and properly investigated. There are questions to be answered, but the media are not currently providing a suitable platform, hopefully UKAD will (although I have my doubts).
With Sky and BC are being so uncooperative do you believe that UKAD are equipped to conduct this investigation. It took them thousands of hours to not discover what was in the jiffy bag.
yes according to Sapstead
http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/other-s ... 80131.html0 -
So it didn't take 'thousands of hours to not discover'Surrey Commuter wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Did it take that long? Why didn't the Daily Mail and their source co-operate?Surrey Commuter wrote:RichN95 wrote:The reporting on this has thus far been long on sensationalism and opinion and fairly short on actual fact, with no sources willing to go on record. We have got to the point that someone not tweeting is a story. At the moment it is just journalists, largely not familiar with cycling, behaving like jackals wanting a carcass.
Clarity can only come from the UKAD report. It won't satisfy all, or indeed many. But hopefully it will be soberly presented and properly investigated. There are questions to be answered, but the media are not currently providing a suitable platform, hopefully UKAD will (although I have my doubts).
With Sky and BC are being so uncooperative do you believe that UKAD are equipped to conduct this investigation. It took them thousands of hours to not discover what was in the jiffy bag.
yes according to Sapstead
http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/other-s ... 80131.html
If you are conducting an investigation you don't start by asking the accused what they can be charged with.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
Weren't they ordered by British Cycling rather than Sky? And if it has been used in a widespread manner why did Wiggins have a TUE for it and Froome didn't? And why that drug? And why not just use oral cortices.Joelsim wrote:70 doses of corticos? 5 have been accounted for.
If Sky are running a doping programme they're doing every single thing wrong.
That's the thing. 70 vials.0
