Log in:  

Register

Dave Brailsford - cycling genius

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

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

31 Mar 2018 09:28

If only people who had not said something wrong had the right to talk, no one would talk! And at anytime discuss the messagen not the messager!

Why did the riders protested at that time? Because the criterium were not races, just a show! Why should riders tested when there were no OOCC in those days? At the end of TDF, riders were tired, sometimes ill and they wanted, mostly, to be able to take the medicine they needed( and maybe more) .
User avatar poupou
Member
 
Posts: 751
Joined: 18 Jul 2009 23:27

Re:

31 Mar 2018 09:33

poupou wrote:If only people who had not said something wrong had the right to talk, no one would talk! And at anytime discuss the messagen not the messager!

Why did the riders protested at that time? Because the criterium were not races, just a show! Why should riders tested when there were no OOCC in those days? At the end of TDF, riders were tired, sometimes ill and they wanted, mostly, to be able to take the medicine they needed( and maybe more) .


or the "medicines" they took during the TDF were still in their body and could be found if controlled
pastronef
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,340
Joined: 19 Aug 2011 08:25
Location: Italia

Re:

31 Mar 2018 09:52

macbindle wrote:Jean-René Bernaudeau?

 L'Équipe 17 August 1982 : « Je considère les contrôles dans les critériums comme une atteinte à la liberté du travail. »

"I consider doping controls at the criteriums as an attack on working freedom"

Some say that duplicity is a French national pastime. ;)

I'd just say that cycling hasn't changed that much in 36 years. Brailsford fits in just nicely.
First and foremost. let's be clear: JRB doped. But...Callac was a mess. Hinault, Le Bigaut, Vallet, Clerc, and Bernaudeau were unlucky. Critériums before then - and for a long time after - were outside of the testing regime. And people doped like crazy for them (and to get to and from them). Something similar happened a few years later on the track at Bercy in 1986: the Winter track circuit was like the critériums, entertainment more than racing, and so had been free from doping control, but in 1986 les flics took an interest.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,800
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

31 Mar 2018 09:53

pastronef wrote:
poupou wrote:If only people who had not said something wrong had the right to talk, no one would talk! And at anytime discuss the messagen not the messager!

Why did the riders protested at that time? Because the criterium were not races, just a show! Why should riders tested when there were no OOCC in those days? At the end of TDF, riders were tired, sometimes ill and they wanted, mostly, to be able to take the medicine they needed( and maybe more) .


or the "medicines" they took during the TDF were still in their body and could be found if controlled
Not likely. There was a lot of doping for crits. (You're read Kimmage? The three occasions he used dope were all crits.)
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,800
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re:

31 Mar 2018 09:56

poupou wrote:If only people who had not said something wrong had the right to talk, no one would talk! And at anytime discuss the messagen not the messager!

Why did the riders protested at that time? Because the criterium were not races, just a show! Why should riders tested when there were no OOCC in those days? At the end of TDF, riders were tired, sometimes ill and they wanted, mostly, to be able to take the medicine they needed( and maybe more) .
A rather rose-tinted view: oh, the poor riders were tired, they just wanted to take some medicine to recover. They doped for the critérium circuit because there was a lot of money to be made on it and it was outside the doping control regime.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,800
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re:

31 Mar 2018 09:59

poupou wrote:If only people who had not said something wrong had the right to talk, no one would talk! And at anytime discuss the messagen not the messager!

Why did the riders protested at that time? Because the criterium were not races, just a show! Why should riders tested when there were no OOCC in those days? At the end of TDF, riders were tired, sometimes ill and they wanted, mostly, to be able to take the medicine they needed( and maybe more) .


We ARE talking about the message.

So I get it. It's ok for French riders to dope...and then criticise others for doing the same (asthma puffer) at a later date.

There is a time limit on hypocrisy...but only if you are French. If you work or ride for Team Sky your hypocrisy lasts forever.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re: Re:

31 Mar 2018 10:08

macbindle wrote:
poupou wrote:If only people who had not said something wrong had the right to talk, no one would talk! And at anytime discuss the messagen not the messager!

Why did the riders protested at that time? Because the criterium were not races, just a show! Why should riders tested when there were no OOCC in those days? At the end of TDF, riders were tired, sometimes ill and they wanted, mostly, to be able to take the medicine they needed( and maybe more) .


We ARE talking about the message.

So I get it. It's ok for French riders to dope...and then criticise others for doing the same (asthma puffer) at a later date.

There is a time limit on hypocrisy...but only if you are French. If you work or ride for Team Sky your hypocrisy lasts forever.
With all due respect, you are missing the fact that times changed. Doping in JRB's day was the norm. There was little real outcry over it. You got busted, you got a suspended suspension. You got busted again, if you played it right you got a winter ban. The media didn't care about it: doping stories were buried down the column on page 94 of l'Équipe. The fans didn't really care: at best were ambivalent, at worst we believed the lies about it being necessary. As for the UCI, it did little to counter the problem, in fact encouraged it. Today, times have changed: the attitude of the fans and the media is clearly different. The culture within the peloton has changed. It's not clean but doping is not what it was. Are people who doped back when it was the norm really supposed to just STFU now? Does condemning doping now having participated in doping then automatically make you a hypocrite? Do you really believe only Simon Pures should speak against doping? Really?

Here's the real question for you: is JRB today encouraging doping? Do you believe that he still operates a culture of the pill and the potion across the teams he runs? If he does and he's damning Sky, then yes, that makes him a hypocrite. Is that what you are saying is going on here?
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,800
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

31 Mar 2018 10:28

fmk_RoI wrote:
pastronef wrote:
poupou wrote:If only people who had not said something wrong had the right to talk, no one would talk! And at anytime discuss the messagen not the messager!

Why did the riders protested at that time? Because the criterium were not races, just a show! Why should riders tested when there were no OOCC in those days? At the end of TDF, riders were tired, sometimes ill and they wanted, mostly, to be able to take the medicine they needed( and maybe more) .


or the "medicines" they took during the TDF were still in their body and could be found if controlled
Not likely. There was a lot of doping for crits. (You're read Kimmage? The three occasions he used dope were all crits.)


An anecdote from a Euro-Pro circa 80's to early 90's was that amphetamines were really popular for post-Tour kermesses because there was tons of money to be won and nobody was testing. Made sense when he said it.

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,733
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

Re: Re:

31 Mar 2018 10:45

fmk_RoI wrote:
macbindle wrote:
poupou wrote:If only people who had not said something wrong had the right to talk, no one would talk! And at anytime discuss the messagen not the messager!

Why did the riders protested at that time? Because the criterium were not races, just a show! Why should riders tested when there were no OOCC in those days? At the end of TDF, riders were tired, sometimes ill and they wanted, mostly, to be able to take the medicine they needed( and maybe more) .


We ARE talking about the message.

So I get it. It's ok for French riders to dope...and then criticise others for doing the same (asthma puffer) at a later date.

There is a time limit on hypocrisy...but only if you are French. If you work or ride for Team Sky your hypocrisy lasts forever.
With all due respect, you are missing the fact that times changed. Doping in JRB's day was the norm. There was little real outcry over it. You got busted, you got a suspended suspension. You got busted again, if you played it right you got a winter ban. The media didn't care about it: doping stories were buried down the column on page 94 of l'Équipe. The fans didn't really care: at best were ambivalent, at worst we believed the lies about it being necessary. As for the UCI, it did little to counter the problem, in fact encouraged it. Today, times have changed: the attitude of the fans and the media is clearly different. The culture within the peloton has changed. It's not clean but doping is not what it was. Are people who doped back when it was the norm really supposed to just STFU now? Does condemning doping now having participated in doping then automatically make you a hypocrite? Do you really believe only Simon Pures should speak against doping? Really?

Here's the real question for you: is JRB today encouraging doping? Do you believe that he still operates a culture of the pill and the potion across the teams he runs? If he does and he's damning Sky, then yes, that makes him a hypocrite. Is that what you are saying is going on here?


I think, first and foremost, he's trying to remove a rival.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re: Re:

31 Mar 2018 10:55

macbindle wrote:I think, first and foremost, he's trying to remove a rival.
That's what they're all doing, surely? Anyone within the peloton speaking one way or the other on this, they're either trying to curry favour and safeguard their future job prospects or they're trying to remove a rival. I mean, they are all that cynical, we know that.

But believing that is a world away from denying his right to speak out against doping today just because he doped in his era and called for critériums to stay outside the doping control regime.
Last edited by fmk_RoI on 31 Mar 2018 11:00, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,800
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

31 Mar 2018 10:57

macbindle wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
macbindle wrote:
poupou wrote:If only people who had not said something wrong had the right to talk, no one would talk! And at anytime discuss the messagen not the messager!

Why did the riders protested at that time? Because the criterium were not races, just a show! Why should riders tested when there were no OOCC in those days? At the end of TDF, riders were tired, sometimes ill and they wanted, mostly, to be able to take the medicine they needed( and maybe more) .


We ARE talking about the message.

So I get it. It's ok for French riders to dope...and then criticise others for doing the same (asthma puffer) at a later date.

There is a time limit on hypocrisy...but only if you are French. If you work or ride for Team Sky your hypocrisy lasts forever.
With all due respect, you are missing the fact that times changed. Doping in JRB's day was the norm. There was little real outcry over it. You got busted, you got a suspended suspension. You got busted again, if you played it right you got a winter ban. The media didn't care about it: doping stories were buried down the column on page 94 of l'Équipe. The fans didn't really care: at best were ambivalent, at worst we believed the lies about it being necessary. As for the UCI, it did little to counter the problem, in fact encouraged it. Today, times have changed: the attitude of the fans and the media is clearly different. The culture within the peloton has changed. It's not clean but doping is not what it was. Are people who doped back when it was the norm really supposed to just STFU now? Does condemning doping now having participated in doping then automatically make you a hypocrite? Do you really believe only Simon Pures should speak against doping? Really?

Here's the real question for you: is JRB today encouraging doping? Do you believe that he still operates a culture of the pill and the potion across the teams he runs? If he does and he's damning Sky, then yes, that makes him a hypocrite. Is that what you are saying is going on here?


I think, first and foremost, he's trying to remove a rival.

How is Froome a rival for Calmejane et al.'s stage hunting?
Goodbye, Tommeke; thank you for all you have given us!
User avatar Netserk
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,999
Joined: 30 Apr 2011 13:10
Location: Denmark

Re: Re:

31 Mar 2018 11:02

ScienceIsCool wrote:An anecdote from a Euro-Pro circa 80's to early 90's was that amphetamines were really popular for post-Tour kermesses because there was tons of money to be won and nobody was testing. Made sense when he said it.
A lot of people, across all the eras, have spoken about the use of drugs on the critérium circuit.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,800
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Dave Brailsford - cycling genius

16 Apr 2018 06:54

So is Sir Flappy Hands to be in Arco to not answer questions from the press corps? :D
"Are you going to believe me or what you see with your own eyes?"

“It doesn’t matter what I do. People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.”
User avatar Robert5091
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,877
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

02 May 2018 21:40

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brailsford-im-constantly-thinking-am-i-the-right-person-to-support-the-team/
...at Team Sky's pre-race press conference on Wednesday, Brailsford seemed to labour under the misapprehension that the assembled media would simply ask about race tactics and his impressions of Israel.

:lol:
"Are you going to believe me or what you see with your own eyes?"

“It doesn’t matter what I do. People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.”
User avatar Robert5091
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,877
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

Re:

03 May 2018 09:06

Robert5091 wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brailsford-im-constantly-thinking-am-i-the-right-person-to-support-the-team/
...at Team Sky's pre-race press conference on Wednesday, Brailsford seemed to labour under the misapprehension that the assembled media would simply ask about race tactics and his impressions of Israel.

:lol:


"Nobody, it seems, can side-step a straight question quite like Dave Brailsford"

:lol:
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

03 May 2018 12:31

Brailsford:
"Have I considered my position? I think anybody who works in this game considers his position. I'm constantly thinking, 'Am I the right person to support the team?' It's not about me, my goal is to try and help these guys, not just to perform but to perform optimally, and there's a difference. I think regardless of DCMS or anything else, there's constantly that piece of self-questioning about am I appropriately placed and have I the skills or whatever else to do that. And I think it's something you ask yourself all the time. Things come and go, things change, and situations change, but I'm here and I'm here because I think I am still in a position to support these guys to be the best they can be."
Brailsford has, in the past, on at least two occasions, admitted that he has given serious consideration to quitting.

The first was after Fiddy-Cent Hayles got busted by the haematocrit police in the Manchester medal factory and the media made a bit of a fuss. Brailsford admitted to Richard Moore, for the Heroes, Villains and Velodromes book, that he almost did the modern equivalent of retiring to the drawing room with a stiff whisky and his revolver.

Given he'd already admitted to Moore in that book how he had firm suspicions about some British Cycling riders doping and dealt with them by just dropping them from the squad - not talking to their teams, not talking to the UCI, just moving them on like a priest to a new parish - I always found it strange that Hayles's haematocrit fluctuation could almost push Brailsford over the edge. Here's what he said to Moore about those pesky riders he moved on:
"Some people are very quiet on doping, but I've always been open about it. I introduced blood testing a long time ago, and I said to the riders, ‘We're going to take your blood and if there's anything suspicious I‘m not going to send you to the police, or the anti-doping guys. We're going to do it in-house, and if I see anything dodgy, I'm just going to phone you up and say, "Look, we know what you're doing. You can tell me about it if you want. But you ain't riding, that's for sure."' And there have been three or four riders, Great Britain riders, who didn't get selected, where I‘ve had to say: ‘No, you're not riding, because we know what you're doing.' And they just said: ‘Oh, alright then.'"
The other time was after the the toxic cloud from the USADA report engulfed Sky and they realised that, despite their much vaunted ZTP, they had somehow become a home from home for former dopers who were still in the closet about their habits. Fortunately Alastair Campbell was on hand to talk Brailsford down off the ledge that time and instead they threw Steve de Jongh, Bobby Julich, Sean Yates and Michael Rogers on the sacrificial altar in a vain attempt to sate the media's desire for blood and allow Sky to retrench behind the thin blue line and rebuild the ramparts of ZTP.

Given that those were probably the two biggest scandals of their time to catch Brailsford unprepared for the media reaction - other scandals had either drawn no media fire or had been successfully dealt with in-house on the hush-hush - you could possibly understand why the man would admit publicly that he'd considered quitting. And I guess we can probably also understand how, with the cumulative effect of the Fancy Bears and the Jiffy Bag and the puffergate things, he's now reached the stage where he'd like us to believe he thinks about quitting every single day now. Just like a smoker, I guess, who every day thinks to themself that they really should give up the habit. Just not today. Maybe tomorrow.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,800
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

03 May 2018 12:33

Wiggo's Package wrote:
Robert5091 wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brailsford-im-constantly-thinking-am-i-the-right-person-to-support-the-team/
...at Team Sky's pre-race press conference on Wednesday, Brailsford seemed to labour under the misapprehension that the assembled media would simply ask about race tactics and his impressions of Israel.

:lol:


"Nobody, it seems, can side-step a straight question quite like Dave Brailsford"

:lol:


Indeed :D many lols

"I'm happy to share them. I'll share them when it's appropriate. I'm not going to share them with you right now."

...it's black, it's grey, it's white........all in one sentence :lol:
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,487
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re:

03 May 2018 13:31

fmk_RoI wrote:Brailsford:
"Have I considered my position? I think anybody who works in this game considers his position. I'm constantly thinking, 'Am I the right person to support the team?' It's not about me, my goal is to try and help these guys, not just to perform but to perform optimally, and there's a difference. I think regardless of DCMS or anything else, there's constantly that piece of self-questioning about am I appropriately placed and have I the skills or whatever else to do that. And I think it's something you ask yourself all the time. Things come and go, things change, and situations change, but I'm here and I'm here because I think I am still in a position to support these guys to be the best they can be."
Brailsford has, in the past, on at least two occasions, admitted that he has given serious consideration to quitting.

The first was after Fiddy-Cent Hayles got busted by the haematocrit police in the Manchester medal factory and the media made a bit of a fuss. Brailsford admitted to Richard Moore, for the Heroes, Villains and Velodromes book, that he almost did the modern equivalent of retiring to the drawing room with a stiff whisky and his revolver.

Given he'd already admitted to Moore in that book how he had firm suspicions about some British Cycling riders doping and dealt with them by just dropping them from the squad - not talking to their teams, not talking to the UCI, just moving them on like a priest to a new parish - I always found it strange that Hayles's haematocrit fluctuation could almost push Brailsford over the edge. Here's what he said to Moore about those pesky riders he moved on:
"Some people are very quiet on doping, but I've always been open about it. I introduced blood testing a long time ago, and I said to the riders, ‘We're going to take your blood and if there's anything suspicious I‘m not going to send you to the police, or the anti-doping guys. We're going to do it in-house, and if I see anything dodgy, I'm just going to phone you up and say, "Look, we know what you're doing. You can tell me about it if you want. But you ain't riding, that's for sure."' And there have been three or four riders, Great Britain riders, who didn't get selected, where I‘ve had to say: ‘No, you're not riding, because we know what you're doing.' And they just said: ‘Oh, alright then.'"
The other time was after the the toxic cloud from the USADA report engulfed Sky and they realised that, despite their much vaunted ZTP, they had somehow become a home from home for former dopers who were still in the closet about their habits. Fortunately Alastair Campbell was on hand to talk Brailsford down off the ledge that time and instead they threw Steve de Jongh, Bobby Julich, Sean Yates and Michael Rogers on the sacrificial altar in a vain attempt to sate the media's desire for blood and allow Sky to retrench behind the thin blue line and rebuild the ramparts of ZTP.

Given that those were probably the two biggest scandals of their time to catch Brailsford unprepared for the media reaction - other scandals had either drawn no media fire or had been successfully dealt with in-house on the hush-hush - you could possibly understand why the man would admit publicly that he'd considered quitting. And I guess we can probably also understand how, with the cumulative effect of the Fancy Bears and the Jiffy Bag and the puffergate things, he's now reached the stage where he'd like us to believe he thinks about quitting every single day now. Just like a smoker, I guess, who every day thinks to themself that they really should give up the habit. Just not today. Maybe tomorrow.


Taking anything Brailsfraud says at face value is a mug's game

I doubt he'll ever quit because he's got multiple cover ups to manage

Without Brailsfraud the centre cannot hold mere anarchy is loosed upon the world
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

25 May 2018 15:55

Said that, quite frankly he wasn't surprised by Froome's performance today, it was part of a plan discussed last night. He put the Froome performance down to a 'fuelling plan' where the team was dispersed throughout the route to ensure Froome was kept fuelled throughout. A new marginal gain.
ontheroad
Member
 
Posts: 925
Joined: 10 Oct 2012 18:04

25 May 2018 15:57

The bike definitely had enough fuel.
DanielSong39
Member
 
Posts: 1,053
Joined: 15 Jul 2016 13:03

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests

Back to top