JiffyGate....No Charges!!
Comments
-
Shipley wrote:
Good post and my thoughts exactly, particularly regarding sponsorship which will damage the sport as a whole.
Froome will be guilty by association (whether he is or not) and the SKY reputation is down the pan.
I’m sure many will wonder how many more SKY riders will be unearthed as asthma sufferers.
If that happens it will be job done, by Lawton and co.................but I seriously doubt it.
As for reputations; the GP already think all cyclists are dirty and have a very short attention span.
The will be a lot of dust for a few days, then it will settle.
So I imagine the usual media suspects will kick it up again, at the obvious times during the season.
I don't see any sponsorship worries just yet."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
-
about 5 minutes0
-
There's no way Sky will get their licence taken off for this. Given some teams have multiple serious doping violations and are allowed to continue running.Vino'sGhost wrote:about 5 minutes
Even if Froome cops a ban they still won't.
Sky may decide not to continue their sponsorship, but that's different.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:How long till sky's licence runs out?
Its all in place until 2020 isn't it? And I thought that it was always assumed to end then. At this point they'd be highly unlikely to withdraw earlier than that.
With all the other changes occurring in the Sky empire I'd be surprised to see it continue as it is, but it will no doubt morph onwards. The chance to reboot and come forward as a new team who are 'just a cycling team' will presumably take a lot of pressure off them? drop the ZTP that they couldn't realistically follow through and crack on.2020/2021/2022 Metric Century Challenge Winner0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:
There's no way Sky will get their licence taken off for this. Given some teams have multiple serious doping violations and are allowed to continue running.Vino'sGhost wrote:about 5 minutes
Even if Froome cops a ban they still won't.
Sky may decide not to continue their sponsorship, but that's different.
Hilarious that people think this has any 'real' legs within the sport, given the names running other WT teams and the history.
It'll feed the tabloids, will give oiks like Piers Morgan some ranting publicity and will no doubt affect the income that Wiggins may be able to earn from endorsements in the short term. Other than that? 'Tis but a flesh wound!2020/2021/2022 Metric Century Challenge Winner0 -
Given the ongoing Sky takeover there's every chance they'd be dropping out at the end of the current deal in any case. What this does do is make it less likely there'll be a queue of sponsors looking to take over (especially any other big British based sponsor). Whether people see that as good or bad on the basis of still unsubstantiated claims of doping will be interesting.0
-
Shipley wrote:redvision wrote:I think Teams Sky's lack of records and the 'loss' of data' is very convenient.
The report doesn't produce anything new and without those records or an actual failed test it is always going to be essentially just an informed opinion.
However, for the wider public i suspect this will be enough to condemn team sky as dopers.
The press won't let this go, and whilst i want a fair outcome, i fear this report could also influence the Froome case.
I also think it's the beginning of the end of skys sponsorship, the publicity is too negative now.
Good post and my thoughts exactly, particularly regarding sponsorship which will damage the sport as a whole.
Froome will be guilty by association (whether he is or not) and the SKY reputation is down the pan.
I’m sure many will wonder how many more SKY riders will be unearthed as asthma sufferers.
You should try to read the report. It covers the relative numbers of asthma sufferers in various sports, about 20% of pro cyclists against 50% of swimmers - it also explains why the levels are higher than the general population and is possibly the most interesting part of the report. Oh, and Wiggins TUE was for allergies and not asthma so the diversion in the report into whether the corticosteroid was a suitable treatment for asthma is a moot point.0 -
It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0
-
Pross wrote:Given the ongoing Sky takeover there's every chance they'd be dropping out at the end of the current deal in any case. What this does do is make it less likely there'll be a queue of sponsors looking to take over (especially any other big British based sponsor). Whether people see that as good or bad on the basis of still unsubstantiated claims of doping will be interesting.
I fully expect the people who endlessly criticize Sky for winning without panache/not winning when they try other tactics/not being transparent enough etc etc to also criticize them when they eventually (inevitably) pull out of the cycling0 -
r0bh wrote:Pross wrote:Given the ongoing Sky takeover there's every chance they'd be dropping out at the end of the current deal in any case. What this does do is make it less likely there'll be a queue of sponsors looking to take over (especially any other big British based sponsor). Whether people see that as good or bad on the basis of still unsubstantiated claims of doping will be interesting.
I fully expect the people who endlessly criticize Sky for winning without panache/not winning when they try other tactics/not being transparent enough etc etc to also criticize them when they eventually (inevitably) pull out of the cycling
The irony being that they will miss Sky far more than the average cycling fan."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Suspect they'll knock it on the head after this year, and carry on next year in the hope of offloading it to another company before it gets disbanded.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Suspect they'll knock it on the head after this year, and carry on next year in the hope of offloading it to another company before it gets disbanded.
Where's the money though? Look how hard it has been for other teams to find a replacement in the last couple of years. Back in 2012 / 2013 I suspect there would have been quite a few big British companies keen to take it on but they won't go near it now. The damage is done irrespective of what the actual truth of the matter is.0 -
Pross wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Suspect they'll knock it on the head after this year, and carry on next year in the hope of offloading it to another company before it gets disbanded.
Where's the money though? Look how hard it has been for other teams to find a replacement in the last couple of years. Back in 2012 / 2013 I suspect there would have been quite a few big British companies keen to take it on but they won't go near it now. The damage is done irrespective of what the actual truth of the matter is.
Sure.
That's not sky's business though.0 -
Yeah. Most of their antipathy towards them is because they miss Armstrong.Blazing Saddles wrote:r0bh wrote:Pross wrote:Given the ongoing Sky takeover there's every chance they'd be dropping out at the end of the current deal in any case. What this does do is make it less likely there'll be a queue of sponsors looking to take over (especially any other big British based sponsor). Whether people see that as good or bad on the basis of still unsubstantiated claims of doping will be interesting.
I fully expect the people who endlessly criticize Sky for winning without panache/not winning when they try other tactics/not being transparent enough etc etc to also criticize them when they eventually (inevitably) pull out of the cycling
The irony being that they will miss Sky far more than the average cycling fan.Twitter: @RichN950 -
What's up with site again with the double posts?0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Pross wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Suspect they'll knock it on the head after this year, and carry on next year in the hope of offloading it to another company before it gets disbanded.
Where's the money though? Look how hard it has been for other teams to find a replacement in the last couple of years. Back in 2012 / 2013 I suspect there would have been quite a few big British companies keen to take it on but they won't go near it now. The damage is done irrespective of what the actual truth of the matter is.
Sure.
That's not sky's business though.
Of course but no doubt there'll be wailing and gnashing of teeth at the loss of another team from the same people who have been so keen to 'see justice done' here.0 -
I always wonder whether the British media, and Lawton and Roan in particular would be so into this if it was Team Heinz, or Team Tetleys instead of the evil Murdoch empire sponsored team.
There is a real danger that the team might fold when the Sky deal ends and that surely would not be good for cycling in general or cycling in this country in particular.0 -
Dorset Boy wrote:There is a real danger that the team might fold when the Sky deal ends and that surely would not be good for cycling in general or cycling in this country in particular.
Meh, I'm quite relaxed about it.
A lot of sky stuff hasn't added a lot of value to the fans.
To the riders, yes, absolutely.0 -
Anything new?
Brexit is taking up too much of my allotted arguing time to be worrying about old news repackaged?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Anything new?
No.0 -
The Tour de France is apparently one of the ClassicsTailWindHome wrote:Anything new?Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
Yeah. Most of their antipathy towards them is because they miss Armstrong.Blazing Saddles wrote:r0bh wrote:Pross wrote:Given the ongoing Sky takeover there's every chance they'd be dropping out at the end of the current deal in any case. What this does do is make it less likely there'll be a queue of sponsors looking to take over (especially any other big British based sponsor). Whether people see that as good or bad on the basis of still unsubstantiated claims of doping will be interesting.
I fully expect the people who endlessly criticize Sky for winning without panache/not winning when they try other tactics/not being transparent enough etc etc to also criticize them when they eventually (inevitably) pull out of the cycling
The irony being that they will miss Sky far more than the average cycling fan.
You think the only reason people dislike Sky is that they miss Armstrong?0 -
No. But the one's that exclusively go on about doping - yes. The attitudes towards Sky changed markedly once Armstrong was finally convicted.TheBigBean wrote:You think the only reason people dislike Sky is that they miss Armstrong?Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
No. But the one's that exclusively go on about doping - yes. The attitudes towards Sky changed markedly once Armstrong was finally convicted.TheBigBean wrote:You think the only reason people dislike Sky is that they miss Armstrong?
Seriously?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 -
Matthewfalle wrote:RichN95 wrote:
No. But the one's that exclusively go on about doping - yes. The attitudes towards Sky changed markedly once Armstrong was finally convicted.TheBigBean wrote:You think the only reason people dislike Sky is that they miss Armstrong?
Seriously?
Go easy on him Matthew, this is a bad day for him0 -
Yes. Once Armstrong was gone they had to find another target for their keyboard crusades. Ask any of them why they think Sky is doping and they will very quickly make spurious comparisons to Armstrong (and only Armstrong)Matthewfalle wrote:RichN95 wrote:
No. But the one's that exclusively go on about doping - yes. The attitudes towards Sky changed markedly once Armstrong was finally convicted.TheBigBean wrote:You think the only reason people dislike Sky is that they miss Armstrong?
Seriously?Twitter: @RichN950 -
Seriously?
Nothing to do with their frankly astronomical rise in fortune, shedding their "no dopers on our team" mantra, Sutton and Braisfords arrogance and their lack of transparency and dodgy dealings over the past couple of years?
All Armstrong based. Yup, that must be it.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 -
SHHHHHHH listen! (cups hand to ear) the shrill sound of apologists
0 -
Matthewfalle wrote:Seriously?
Nothing to do with their frankly astronomical rise in fortune, shedding their "no dopers on our team" mantra, Sutton and Braisfords arrogance and their lack of transparency and dodgy dealings over the past couple of years?
All Armstrong based. Yup, that must be it. 0
