More trouble for Team SKY.

Pross

Lappartient now saying there should be a UCI investigation into Sky. I've got no problem with the UCI investigating the misuse of TUEs but surely it should look at all teams rather than just one as if there has been abuse of the system I'd be surprised if only one team had exploited things. The only reason that Sky are in the spotlight is that the are based in a country where the media and a bunch of politicians made an issue of something that would have been ignored almost anywhere else and certainly forgotten after the national Anti-doping association had found no evidence of cheating.

He also thinks Sky should suspend Froome despite agreeing he is within his rights to keep racing and says it would be bad for the Tour if he's on the start line with the case unresolved. I suspect he means bad for French riders. I didn't hear him mention getting the anti-doping authorities to speed things up.

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Part 2 and 3 of Lionel Birnie's blog is excellent.

I'm sure the fanboi's will manage to rationalise Kimbo's non-reporting around VDV.

Kimmage claims in a tweet that he did write about VDV, but it's behind a paywall so can't really verify.

Note: I'm as much a Kimmage fanboi as iainf72 is a SkyBot.

He wrote about him but he didn't state that he had doped, which was Birnie's point.

What a humongous knobmoomin.

No_Ta_Doctor

Pross wrote:

Lappartient now saying there should be a UCI investigation into Sky. I've got no problem with the UCI investigating the misuse of TUEs but surely it should look at all teams rather than just one as if there has been abuse of the system I'd be surprised if only one team had exploited things. The only reason that Sky are in the spotlight is that the are based in a country where the media and a bunch of politicians made an issue of something that would have been ignored almost anywhere else and certainly forgotten after the national Anti-doping association had found no evidence of cheating.

He also thinks Sky should suspend Froome despite agreeing he is within his rights to keep racing and says it would be bad for the Tour if he's on the start line with the case unresolved. I suspect he means bad for French riders. I didn't hear him mention getting the anti-doping authorities to speed things up.

I think Lappartient knows which side his bread is buttered on. He may be somewhat unsure of who actually makes the bread though.... The possibility of actually breaking the current biggest team in the sport here isn't something to be toyed with for a bit of publicity and a congratulatory tweet from a few of the doperati.

Pross

Shortfall wrote:

chuuurles wrote:

reading the goal post adjustments and wiggling in here is hilarious. History repeats and all that.

wants B rad to Sue Piers Morgan.... straight outta the old playbook

Can you explain this please?

It's just one our regular Clinic visitors with a new login. I'm surprised it has taken them 2 days, maybe they forgot the group login details.

iainf72

RichN95 wrote:

He wrote about him but he didn't state that he had doped, which was Birnie's point.

And it's exactly the kind if thing PK would rant at other people about.

But I guess it just shows what he says about Sky is true of him too, everyone gets found out in the end

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Yes, the tricky bit in suing for slander / libel is that the roles are reversed slightly so the (potentially) injured party may need to prove a certain level of innocence in order to make their case which, even assuming the person is innocent, can be a serious challenge.

WADA, UKAD and the Select Committee have all said there is no evidence of rule breaking. That's pretty good evidence of innocence.

The select comittee also said they believed he and other members of the team had used PED for performance not medical reasons. Will you now accept that as evidence or are you just going to pick and chose?

iainf72

Vino'sGhost wrote:

The select comittee also said they believed he and other members of the team had used PED for performance not medical reasons. Will you now accept that as evidence or are you just going to pick and chose?

Lots of people believe in invisible sky gods. This is not evidence its true though.

They offered an opinion but did not offer evidence

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

The select comittee also said they believed he and other members of the team had used PED for performance not medical reasons. Will you now accept that as evidence or are you just going to pick and chose?

Lots of people believe in invisible sky gods. This is not evidence its true though.

They offered an opinion but did not offer evidence

An opinion brought to you by the same people who are gleefully leading Britain into the international wilderness.

blazing_saddles

No tA Doctor wrote:

Pross wrote:

Lappartient now saying there should be a UCI investigation into Sky. I've got no problem with the UCI investigating the misuse of TUEs but surely it should look at all teams rather than just one as if there has been abuse of the system I'd be surprised if only one team had exploited things. The only reason that Sky are in the spotlight is that the are based in a country where the media and a bunch of politicians made an issue of something that would have been ignored almost anywhere else and certainly forgotten after the national Anti-doping association had found no evidence of cheating.

He also thinks Sky should suspend Froome despite agreeing he is within his rights to keep racing and says it would be bad for the Tour if he's on the start line with the case unresolved. I suspect he means bad for French riders. I didn't hear him mention getting the anti-doping authorities to speed things up.

I think Lappartient knows which side his bread is buttered on. He may be somewhat unsure of who actually makes the bread though.... The possibility of actually breaking the current biggest team in the sport here isn't something to be toyed with for a bit of publicity and a congratulatory tweet from a few of the doperati.

I caught part of the interview with Desperate Dan and thought: wtf? have the UCI robbed a few Swiss banks?
Can't afford to carry out sufficient testing half the time, yet suddenly can afford to fund an expensive investigation into what equates to a storm in a doping teacup. One with very little chance of turning anything up, to boot.
I'd think the man a complete imbecile if it wasn't so obvious he operates in PR overdrive most of the time.

It really is becoming extremely silly in certain circles.

Matthewfalle

Blazing Saddles wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Pross wrote:

Lappartient now saying there should be a UCI investigation into Sky. I've got no problem with the UCI investigating the misuse of TUEs but surely it should look at all teams rather than just one as if there has been abuse of the system I'd be surprised if only one team had exploited things. The only reason that Sky are in the spotlight is that the are based in a country where the media and a bunch of politicians made an issue of something that would have been ignored almost anywhere else and certainly forgotten after the national Anti-doping association had found no evidence of cheating.

He also thinks Sky should suspend Froome despite agreeing he is within his rights to keep racing and says it would be bad for the Tour if he's on the start line with the case unresolved. I suspect he means bad for French riders. I didn't hear him mention getting the anti-doping authorities to speed things up.

I think Lappartient knows which side his bread is buttered on. He may be somewhat unsure of who actually makes the bread though.... The possibility of actually breaking the current biggest team in the sport here isn't something to be toyed with for a bit of publicity and a congratulatory tweet from a few of the doperati.

I caught part of the interview with Desperate Dan and thought: wtf? have the UCI robbed a few Swiss banks?
Can't afford to carry out sufficient testing half the time, yet suddenly can afford to fund an investigation into what equates to a storm in a doping teacup. One with very little chance of turning anything up, to boot.
I'd think the man a complete imbecile if it wasn't so obvious he operates in PR overdrive most of the time.

It really is becoming extremely silly in certain circles.

A doping storm centred around the biggest and most successful team of recent years with the highest profile riders.

Sound familiar, n'est pas?

RichN95.

No tA Doctor wrote:

Pross wrote:

Lappartient now saying there should be a UCI investigation into Sky. I've got no problem with the UCI investigating the misuse of TUEs but surely it should look at all teams rather than just one as if there has been abuse of the system I'd be surprised if only one team had exploited things. The only reason that Sky are in the spotlight is that the are based in a country where the media and a bunch of politicians made an issue of something that would have been ignored almost anywhere else and certainly forgotten after the national Anti-doping association had found no evidence of cheating.

He also thinks Sky should suspend Froome despite agreeing he is within his rights to keep racing and says it would be bad for the Tour if he's on the start line with the case unresolved. I suspect he means bad for French riders. I didn't hear him mention getting the anti-doping authorities to speed things up.

I think Lappartient knows which side his bread is buttered on. He may be somewhat unsure of who actually makes the bread though.... The possibility of actually breaking the current biggest team in the sport here isn't something to be toyed with for a bit of publicity and a congratulatory tweet from a few of the doperati.

Lappartient has his eyes on his next job. He's attempting to raise his profile in France, appeal to the French public while trying not to screw up.

If he wants an investigation into historical TUEs, why not look at all of them, not just Wiggins. He's got access to them all.

blazing_saddles

Matthewfalle wrote:

A doping storm centred around the biggest and most successful team of recent years with the highest profile riders.

Sound familiar, n'est pas?

It's actually an ethical storm being dressed up as a doping storm.

slim_boy_fat

Matthewfalle wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Pross wrote:

Lappartient now saying there should be a UCI investigation into Sky. I've got no problem with the UCI investigating the misuse of TUEs but surely it should look at all teams rather than just one as if there has been abuse of the system I'd be surprised if only one team had exploited things. The only reason that Sky are in the spotlight is that the are based in a country where the media and a bunch of politicians made an issue of something that would have been ignored almost anywhere else and certainly forgotten after the national Anti-doping association had found no evidence of cheating.

He also thinks Sky should suspend Froome despite agreeing he is within his rights to keep racing and says it would be bad for the Tour if he's on the start line with the case unresolved. I suspect he means bad for French riders. I didn't hear him mention getting the anti-doping authorities to speed things up.

I think Lappartient knows which side his bread is buttered on. He may be somewhat unsure of who actually makes the bread though.... The possibility of actually breaking the current biggest team in the sport here isn't something to be toyed with for a bit of publicity and a congratulatory tweet from a few of the doperati.

I caught part of the interview with Desperate Dan and thought: wtf? have the UCI robbed a few Swiss banks?
Can't afford to carry out sufficient testing half the time, yet suddenly can afford to fund an investigation into what equates to a storm in a doping teacup. One with very little chance of turning anything up, to boot.
I'd think the man a complete imbecile if it wasn't so obvious he operates in PR overdrive most of the time.

It really is becoming extremely silly in certain circles.

A doping storm centred around the biggest and most successful team of recent years with the highest profile riders.

Sound familiar, n'est pas?

Yeah, because a potential misuse of the TUE system is exactly the same as using as much epo, hgh as you like whilst topping the old blood reserves up every other day right?

RichN95.

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Yeah, because a potential misuse of the TUE system is exactly the same as using as much epo, hgh as you like whilst topping the old blood reserves up every other day right?

It's the Hillary Clinton's e-mails of scandals. A big frenzy from a media desperate for a scandal while they are probably missing something much bigger going on elsewhere.

slim_boy_fat

RichN95 wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Yeah, because a potential misuse of the TUE system is exactly the same as using as much epo, hgh as you like whilst topping the old blood reserves up every other day right?

It's the Hillary Clinton's e-mails of scandals. A big frenzy from a media desperate for a scandal while they are probably missing something much bigger going on elsewhere.

Exactly. I’ve genuinely got no idea if Sky are gaming the system and until someone provides some factual evidence I’m not going to know. Until that happens I’ll continue to enjoy the racing. One thing’s for certain however, the current climate being created by some in the media and the Twitterati is much worse for the sport than anything Team Sky might be doing.

salsiccia1

I'm not a massive Sky fan (I do like Froome and Rowe amongst others, though) so I'm no apologist, but you'd think they'd been responsible for every ill that's ever visited cycling. There's enough annoyed people who would be able to say something about doping if it had gone on, but the worst we've got is somebody anonymous saying that riders were training on something not banned out of competition, and that they might have gamed the rules on something but not broken them. It's hardly frigging US Postal, as much as the tin-foil hat brigade want to to be.

As for Dan Roan wheeling out Lappartient to keep the fires burning, that's crap. Lappartient ran on the wave of a backlash against GB cycling success, so he's hardly going to be objective. You'd think Lappartient would be trying to hang on to sponsors, especially of a team that's been trying to drag his sport out of the dark ages, rather than feed the fires until Sky has died on a moralistic bonfire stoked by innuendo and 'ethical grey areas'. And as for Roan, I can only think Brailsford has been shagging his missus.

Of course, a radicalised 'fan' base and cycling media that can't see anything other than success = doping are lapping it up. I expect they'll only be happy when Sky are dead and gone; at least for a few minutes until they turn on Sagan or some other successful poor bastard who 'must be to good to be true' and 'not normal'.

RichN95.

Salsiccia1 wrote:

I get the feeling that some people won't be happy until Sky are dead and gone. I'm not a massive Sky fan (I do like Froome and Rowe amongst others, though) so I'm no apologist, but you'd think they'd been responsible for every ill that's visited cycling. There's enough annoyed people who would be able to say something about doping if it had gone on, but the worst we've got is somebody anonymous saying that riders were training on something not banned out of competition, and that they might have gamed the rules on something but not broken them. It's hardly frigging US Postal, as much as the tin-foil hat brigade want to to be.

I've said it many times before - none of these UK journalists care about cycling. They just want a high profile sacking for their trophy cabinet. If Brailsford left Sky this month then they would have a couple of days of 'shame' and 'crisis' and then they'd never look at cycling again. Peter Sagan could step on to the Roubaix podium hooked up to a blood bag and they wouldn't notice.

salsiccia1

RichN95 wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

I get the feeling that some people won't be happy until Sky are dead and gone. I'm not a massive Sky fan (I do like Froome and Rowe amongst others, though) so I'm no apologist, but you'd think they'd been responsible for every ill that's visited cycling. There's enough annoyed people who would be able to say something about doping if it had gone on, but the worst we've got is somebody anonymous saying that riders were training on something not banned out of competition, and that they might have gamed the rules on something but not broken them. It's hardly frigging US Postal, as much as the tin-foil hat brigade want to to be.

I've said it many times before - none of these UK journalists care about cycling. They just want a high profile sacking for their trophy cabinet. If Brailsford left Sky this month then they would have a couple of days of 'shame' and 'crisis' and then they'd never look at cycling again. Peter Sagan could step on to the Roubaix podium hooked up to a blood bag and they wouldn't notice.

Roan's got form on that: he didn't stop until Mark Sampson got the sack from the England Women's football team.

Pross

Salsiccia1 wrote:

And as for Roan, I can only think Brailsford has been shagging his missus.

Only after his Jiffy bag of viagra turn up.

mididoctors

RichN95 wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Dabber wrote:

Because if you fail in persuading the court that your are innocent you risk both you and your family's financial security.
It's risky!

I'm not sure it works like that. If I declare that Dabber has sex with goats, the onus is not on you to persuade the court that something hasn't happened, the onus is on me to show that it has.

civil is a balance of probability but that can work either way.

Which is why having all the arbitors of the rules saying that rules have not been broken is basically a golden ticket. No amount of 'expert' witness testimony from Michael Rasmussen and Ross Tucker is going to overcome that.

well yeah but.... you wouldn't think all these stupid threads would exist either.

redvision

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

I’ve genuinely got no idea if Sky are gaming the system and until someone provides some factual evidence I’m not going to know.

But the evidence may well have been there but sky 'lost' or did not record the medical records.

slim_boy_fat

redvision wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

I’ve genuinely got no idea if Sky are gaming the system and until someone provides some factual evidence I’m not going to know.

But the evidence may well have been there but sky 'lost' or did not record the medical records.

Jesus wept, is that where we are at now. Anyone may well have done anything. That tells us absolutely nothing about what actually happened. Some of the muddled thinking going on over this is staggering.

redvision

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

redvision wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

I’ve genuinely got no idea if Sky are gaming the system and until someone provides some factual evidence I’m not going to know.

But the evidence may well have been there but sky 'lost' or did not record the medical records.

Jesus wept, is that where we are at now. Anyone may well have done anything. That tells us absolutely nothing about what actually happened. Some of the muddled thinking going on over this is staggering.

You can't deny it is highly suspicious.
A top professional team, using professional medics/ doctors, and yet they forget to record what medications the riders are taking!

It's very convenient for a team under so much suspicion and that is the point the report was making.

Pross

redvision wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

redvision wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

I’ve genuinely got no idea if Sky are gaming the system and until someone provides some factual evidence I’m not going to know.

But the evidence may well have been there but sky 'lost' or did not record the medical records.

Jesus wept, is that where we are at now. Anyone may well have done anything. That tells us absolutely nothing about what actually happened. Some of the muddled thinking going on over this is staggering.

You can't deny it is highly suspicious.
A top professional team, using professional medics/ doctors, and yet they forget to record what medications the riders are taking!

It's very convenient for a team under so much suspicion and that is the point the report was making.

Maybe Wiggins is legitimate but the medical records showed that others had been using TUEs or medication on prescription out of competition (or in breach of the rules for that matter) and they didn't want a separate sh!tstorm being kicked up so better to lose the paper trail so no evidence and the insinuations going against a retired rider.

redvision

Pross wrote:

better to lose the paper trail so no evidence and the insinuations going against a retired rider.

Not really. If anything (charges) does come of this, regardless of froomes own case, sky will probably pull funding immediately and the team will fold.

Although following this report I suspect the team will be in need of a new sponsor at the end of the season regardless.

slim_boy_fat

redvision wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

redvision wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

I’ve genuinely got no idea if Sky are gaming the system and until someone provides some factual evidence I’m not going to know.

But the evidence may well have been there but sky 'lost' or did not record the medical records.

Jesus wept, is that where we are at now. Anyone may well have done anything. That tells us absolutely nothing about what actually happened. Some of the muddled thinking going on over this is staggering.

You can't deny it is highly suspicious.
A top professional team, using professional medics/ doctors, and yet they forget to record what medications the riders are taking!

It's very convenient for a team under so much suspicion and that is the point the report was making.

Have you seen the comprehensive records of other teams? I’ve watched and read enough about professional sport to realise that a professional sports team is not NASA or CERN.

I wouldn’t say it’s highly suspicious, I’d say it makes you wonder, and that’s why I’m not here saying that Sky are whiter than white. I’m here saying I haven’t got a clue what the truth of the matter is, so I’m going to keep an open mind and enjoy the sport until someone plonks some factual evidence in front of me that allows me to make a decision either way. I’m not sure how anyone can draw any other conclusion than that.

redvision

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

I’m going to keep an open mind and enjoy the sport until someone plonks some factual evidence in front of me that allows me to make a decision either way. I’m not sure how anyone can draw any other conclusion than that.

That's your prerogative.
But how can evidence be plonked in front of you if it is destroyed??

Got to add, personally I think all this burying head in sand is comical given some of the accusations made on this forum towards doping in other sports (football) without one bit of evidence, yet here numerous members are continuing to believe sky are clean because there is no evidence (because the team lost or destroyed it).

blazing_saddles

redvision wrote:

Pross wrote:

better to lose the paper trail so no evidence and the insinuations going against a retired rider.

Not really. If anything (charges) does come of this, regardless of froomes own case, sky will probably pull funding immediately and the team will fold.

Although following this report I suspect the team will be in need of a new sponsor at the end of the season regardless.

Yeah, cos like the sport has new sponsors climbing over themselves. :roll:
When Sky do eventually pull the plug on sponsorship, the sport in the UK will steadily regress to the odd Conti team and a calendar from the 90s.

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

But how can evidence be plonked in front of you if it is destroyed??

It's not up to the accused to provide evidence for the prosecution.

RichN95.

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Yeah, cos like the sport has new sponsors climbing over themselves. :roll:
When Sky do eventually pull the plug on sponsorship, the sport in the UK will steadily regress to the odd Conti team and a calendar from the 90s.

I'm not sure it will be steady. It will collapse fairly rapidly I'd think. It's not just the money, it's the personnel.