Log in:  

Register

Sky

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen, Valv.Piti

Re:

15 Dec 2017 22:47

The Hegelian wrote:I'm taking a nice little drink of schadenfreude on this.

If only for this reason: Sky have been PR'ing their backsides off for a good year around Wiggins, UKAD, jiffy bag etc. Anyone who examines those discourses closely can see how dodgy it all looks, and how much it destroys their credibility.

But: good expensive PR can override careful analysis of the discourse. And by the end of the year, they had a tdf, a vuelta and the Wiggins stink kind of blowing away.

And then: boom Froome. 12 months of painstaking PR utterly destroyed - no matter which way the cookie crumbles from here, the cost to the 'brand' is massive, and even the most brilliant spin doctors probably have to concede that the game is up.


I tend to agree.

But is the game really up?

DB survived thus far. And most agree without him there is no TeamSky.

They got a huge squad, even without Froome. And we all know it will only take a few months for them to have the next big rider of the decade lined up.

That is presuming they will stick with the program, but perhaps the great manager has gone tired and no longer can control all the details (marginal gains). Hence the casual mistake as with froome?

Now its all-in or fold.

My judgement is they are better off going all in, as folding now would kinda cancel all their achievements.

The pride is strong with this one.

Another factor is the UCI and WADA. They have been looking (as usual) a bit toothless as of late.
And my hunch is that the Kreuziger case was a massive blow for Cookson.
He invested himself in it (probably was told it was done and dusted). Only to see him walk.

Money and rss is a deciding factor here. And everytime they open pandoras box, it just backfires on so many levels.

Everyone is more happer with less scandals. And less loosing!

So the incentive to pursue a team like Sky even more, is close to zero.

I reckon it's mostly up to what DB wants and is willing to put up with until the storm is on recant.
Last edited by mrhender on 15 Dec 2017 22:56, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar mrhender
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,591
Joined: 11 Jul 2013 07:54

15 Dec 2017 22:49

And i do know Cookson is no longer head of UCI. But I dont belive in magic tricks from Lappartient just yet.
User avatar mrhender
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,591
Joined: 11 Jul 2013 07:54

Re: Re:

16 Dec 2017 00:59

mrhender wrote:
The Hegelian wrote:I'm taking a nice little drink of schadenfreude on this.

If only for this reason: Sky have been PR'ing their backsides off for a good year around Wiggins, UKAD, jiffy bag etc. Anyone who examines those discourses closely can see how dodgy it all looks, and how much it destroys their credibility.

But: good expensive PR can override careful analysis of the discourse. And by the end of the year, they had a tdf, a vuelta and the Wiggins stink kind of blowing away.

And then: boom Froome. 12 months of painstaking PR utterly destroyed - no matter which way the cookie crumbles from here, the cost to the 'brand' is massive, and even the most brilliant spin doctors probably have to concede that the game is up.


I tend to agree.

But is the game really up?

DB survived thus far. And most agree without him there is no TeamSky.

They got a huge squad, even without Froome. And we all know it will only take a few months for them to have the next big rider of the decade lined up.

That is presuming they will stick with the program, but perhaps the great manager has gone tired and no longer can control all the details (marginal gains). Hence the casual mistake as with froome?

Now its all-in or fold.

My judgement is they are better off going all in, as folding now would kinda cancel all their achievements.

The pride is strong with this one.

Another factor is the UCI and WADA. They have been looking (as usual) a bit toothless as of late.
And my hunch is that the Kreuziger case was a massive blow for Cookson.
He invested himself in it (probably was told it was done and dusted). Only to see him walk.

Money and rss is a deciding factor here. And everytime they open pandoras box, it just backfires on so many levels.

Everyone is more happer with less scandals. And less loosing!

So the incentive to pursue a team like Sky even more, is close to zero.

I reckon it's mostly up to what DB wants and is willing to put up with until the storm is on recant.


I suppose when I say 'the game is up' I really mean the PR game - of controlling public perceptions.

I'm sure Sky will just roll on. But this mud is sticking; no matter what happens officially, the two big GB-Sky winners will forever have an asterix on them, and the association for the punters is always going to be 'Sky = dodgy.'
User avatar The Hegelian
Member
 
Posts: 701
Joined: 06 Jul 2014 09:18

Re:

16 Dec 2017 01:47

mrhender wrote:And i do know Cookson is no longer head of UCI. But I dont belive in magic tricks from Lappartient just yet.


Who do you think authorised the “leak”? With Cookson gone, then Gibbs and Barfield it was a simple one for Lappartient to leak and let the press do the rest on Froome.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,887
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re:

16 Dec 2017 02:51

The Hegelian wrote:I'm taking a nice little drink of schadenfreude on this.

If only for this reason: Sky have been PR'ing their backsides off for a good year around Wiggins, UKAD, jiffy bag etc. Anyone who examines those discourses closely can see how dodgy it all looks, and how much it destroys their credibility.

But: good expensive PR can override careful analysis of the discourse. And by the end of the year, they had a tdf, a vuelta and the Wiggins stink kind of blowing away.

And then: boom Froome. 12 months of painstaking PR utterly destroyed - no matter which way the cookie crumbles from here, the cost to the 'brand' is massive, and even the most brilliant spin doctors probably have to concede that the game is up.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH01FhqMdc8
JosephK
Junior Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: 24 Jul 2016 15:49

Re: Sky

16 Dec 2017 15:50

Just for the record, here’s Rabobank using their own mattresses in 2008;

https://youtu.be/l40qTfuNLhs

They were also doping.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,887
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

16 Dec 2017 16:02

thehog wrote:
mrhender wrote:And i do know Cookson is no longer head of UCI. But I dont belive in magic tricks from Lappartient just yet.


Who do you think authorised the “leak”? With Cookson gone, then Gibbs and Barfield it was a simple one for Lappartient to leak and let the press do the rest on Froome.


I dont think Lappartient at this early point in his tenure would risk nodding to a leak. He cant be sure it wont bite him in the rear later on.
Cant be sure though. The timeline is suspicous.
User avatar mrhender
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,591
Joined: 11 Jul 2013 07:54

Re: Re:

16 Dec 2017 16:51

Excellent article from Richard Williams who as sports journos go is deffo in the sane and rational camp:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2017/dec/15/team-sky-chris-froome-public-salbutamol-inhalation-cycling

"Despite all Team Sky’s achievements in a tumultuous few years, the sport would now be a better place without them: without their “marginal gains”, without their pretentious corporate culture, without the outsize budget that inflates riders’ salaries and distorts competition, without their race-suffocating tactics, and without the miasma of doubt and innuendo that has settled over them and which no fresh breeze seems able to dispel"
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 500
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Re: Re:

16 Dec 2017 19:08

mrhender wrote:
thehog wrote:
mrhender wrote:And i do know Cookson is no longer head of UCI. But I dont belive in magic tricks from Lappartient just yet.


Who do you think authorised the “leak”? With Cookson gone, then Gibbs and Barfield it was a simple one for Lappartient to leak and let the press do the rest on Froome.


I dont think Lappartient at this early point in his tenure would risk nodding to a leak. He cant be sure it wont bite him in the rear later on.
Cant be sure though. The timeline is suspicous.


Not sure he could have a Froome double with G taking the Vuelta. That would be too much.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,887
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

17 Dec 2017 02:34

mrhender wrote:
The Hegelian wrote:I'm taking a nice little drink of schadenfreude on this.

If only for this reason: Sky have been PR'ing their backsides off for a good year around Wiggins, UKAD, jiffy bag etc. Anyone who examines those discourses closely can see how dodgy it all looks, and how much it destroys their credibility.

But: good expensive PR can override careful analysis of the discourse. And by the end of the year, they had a tdf, a vuelta and the Wiggins stink kind of blowing away.

And then: boom Froome. 12 months of painstaking PR utterly destroyed - no matter which way the cookie crumbles from here, the cost to the 'brand' is massive, and even the most brilliant spin doctors probably have to concede that the game is up.


I tend to agree.

But is the game really up?

DB survived thus far. And most agree without him there is no TeamSky.

They got a huge squad, even without Froome. And we all know it will only take a few months for them to have the next big rider of the decade lined up.

That is presuming they will stick with the program, but perhaps the great manager has gone tired and no longer can control all the details (marginal gains). Hence the casual mistake as with froome?

Now its all-in or fold.

My judgement is they are better off going all in, as folding now would kinda cancel all their achievements.

The pride is strong with this one.

Another factor is the UCI and WADA. They have been looking (as usual) a bit toothless as of late.
And my hunch is that the Kreuziger case was a massive blow for Cookson.
He invested himself in it (probably was told it was done and dusted). Only to see him walk.

Money and rss is a deciding factor here. And everytime they open pandoras box, it just backfires on so many levels.

Everyone is more happer with less scandals. And less loosing!

So the incentive to pursue a team like Sky even more, is close to zero.

I reckon it's mostly up to what DB wants and is willing to put up with until the storm is on recant.


I think the game is up insofar as Sky's reputation is toast. But I don't think that'll make any difference to Brailsfraud. It was clear to me when none of the jiffygate stuff caused him to quit that he would bull it all out, largely uncaring about mere reputation when winning was the desired outcome. Indeed, maybe having a tarnished reputation made it easier - no need to worry how dodgy it all looked and sounded any more, since only something that would prevent your winning was going to be something to worry about.

The big question is not whether Froome will go down - I have no doubt SDB would sell his own grandmother down the river if it meant he (and he is Sky) kept on going. But if this stops Sky winning, whether through removing his alien performer or preventing quite the 'marginalgains' they got away with before, his position will be much more vulnerable.
Electress
Member
 
Posts: 1,217
Joined: 25 Aug 2014 23:40
Location: United Kingdom

17 Dec 2017 07:43

With Pharmstrong, Bruyneel/US Postal as a precedent, this can't bode well for Froome, Brailsford/Sky. Of course, there isn't (as yet) a Landis to drop a bomb, but Froome may have cooked his own goose, so it wouldn't matter. But with the former US affair, it will be rather difficult for British cycling to come clean from this if established paradigms play their roles, as will likely be the case for public opinion in the cycling world. When the mob smells blood, the kill is sure. The UCI can't afford to just sweep this under the rug as it has done time and time again in the past to preserve even a modicum of credibility. And then there were years of contributions made from anonymous, though highly informed, sources right in this forum, which the media can't ignore. Give it time.
User avatar rhubroma
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,606
Joined: 02 Apr 2009 14:31

17 Dec 2017 08:01

Time for the Murdochs to give a "$100,000 donation towards a drug testing machine" ? :D
Salbutamol - Breakfast of Champions!
"Are you going to believe me or what you see with your own eyes?"
Choco Loco for all your doping tips!
User avatar Robert5091
Member
 
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

Re:

17 Dec 2017 11:58

So it seems likely that Sky's marginal gains strategy has since the hiring of Leinders included identifying as many grey area substances as possible which are potentially performance enhancing and finding ways to take as much as possible of each without tripping the wire

Of course this max out the grey areas approach makes a mockery of Sky's claims to win ethically like true Brits. And it's not hard to envisage that an approach that involves pushing as many envelopes as possible as far as possible will fail at some stage whether due to human error or unusual physiological reactions

Cry me a river :rolleyes:
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 500
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Re: Re:

17 Dec 2017 12:22

Fotheringham:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2017/dec/16/chris-froome-buried--under-team-sky-baggage-credicility-cycling

"[Froome] may be cleared, because it may be ruled that the high reading was because of natural causes outside his control. The damage is not about this particular issue but rather its added weight within the cumulative baggage of what has happened at Team Sky in the past eight years. Since the Festina scandal of 1998, the biggest enemy professional cycling teams have faced is not scandal per se. It is not a matter of positive drugs tests, rather the erosion of their credibility to a point where followers of the sport feel that indifference is the only rational human response, because any emotional investment seems doomed to disappointment. There are teams run by survivors of cycling’s wild west era who became fully aware of that danger when the sport glimpsed the abyss in 1998 and have fought accordingly since then to retain the faith of the public. At Team Sky, they have never truly seemed to figure that out, to the great detriment of British cycling’s flagship and all who sail in her. Including Froome."
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 500
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Re: Re:

17 Dec 2017 12:29

Wiggo's Package wrote:So it seems likely that Sky's marginal gains strategy has since the hiring of Leinders included identifying as many grey area substances as possible which are potentially performance enhancing and finding ways to take as much as possible of each without tripping the wire

Of course this max out the grey areas approach makes a mockery of Sky's claims to win ethically like true Brits. And it's not hard to envisage that an approach that involves pushing as many envelopes as possible as far as possible will fail at some stage whether due to human error or unusual physiological reactions

Cry me a river :rolleyes:


It has long been established that Dawg us an alien, his unique physiological characteristics were used to explain all the mystical abilities since the 2011 napkin. The cycling shoes is now on the other foot ;) so to speak, now allowing for this drug bust.
User avatar sittingbison
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,298
Joined: 05 Jul 2012 08:11
Location: Perth WA

Re: Re:

17 Dec 2017 17:26

Wiggo's Package wrote:Excellent article from Richard Williams who as sports journos go is deffo in the sane and rational camp:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2017/dec/15/team-sky-chris-froome-public-salbutamol-inhalation-cycling

"Despite all Team Sky’s achievements in a tumultuous few years, the sport would now be a better place without them: without their “marginal gains”, without their pretentious corporate culture, without the outsize budget that inflates riders’ salaries and distorts competition, without their race-suffocating tactics, and without the miasma of doubt and innuendo that has settled over them and which no fresh breeze seems able to dispel"


I think Lappartient would agree. Why should he want to intervene on behalf of the Dawg? The ‘business’ has ‘had the best of the Uk market’. Let the good ship SKY slip slowly beneath the waves.
Jacques (7 ch)
Junior Member
 
Posts: 85
Joined: 16 May 2015 09:16

Re: Sky

19 Dec 2017 10:47

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/geraint-thomas-i-believe-chris-froome-but-im-racing-my-own-tour-de-france/

Why don’t they just get rid of TUEs and that whole grey area.


Because thats what your whole team has been based upon for the last 7 years.
User avatar MartinGT
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,407
Joined: 04 Jul 2010 20:48

Re: Sky

19 Dec 2017 11:03

MPCC put the boot in. The season of goodwill and all that :D

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mpcc-calls-on-team-sky-to-suspend-chris-froome/
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 500
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Re: Sky

19 Dec 2017 11:13

MartinGT wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/geraint-thomas-i-believe-chris-froome-but-im-racing-my-own-tour-de-france/

Why don’t they just get rid of TUEs and that whole grey area.


Because thats what your whole team has been based upon for the last 7 years.


Throw the African under the bus. Remember Rorke's Drift Geraint!
buckle
Member
 
Posts: 653
Joined: 23 Jul 2012 17:42

Re:

19 Dec 2017 13:23

Robert5091 wrote:Time for the Murdochs to give a "$100,000 donation towards a drug testing machine" ? :D


Given that they just agreed to sell the team, I doubt it. Disney will most likely either look to sell or fold the team once the takeover closes.
MatParker117
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,809
Joined: 28 Aug 2012 22:05

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: deeno1975, Google Adsense [Bot] and 15 guests

Back to top