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

Re: Re:

11 Jul 2018 19:56

Soggy Chamois wrote:
You post some of the most useful info here. Your perception of anything I’ve offered on this subject is way off, though. I’ve clearly stated my opinion of Brailsford is that of an arrogant man who used a public form to disgrace the president of the UCI. I’ve also said that I enjoy the spectacle of it all to the point of wishing Sky would accept and own their role of villain. Rowe tearing down a banner is another example. I don’t condone his or Brailsford’s actions but as a viewer of sports I can appreciate top shelf bad guy behavior as long as no one cheats or is injured.


The confusion may have stemmed from one of your quotations on the previous page - the quotation function made it look like Sam's words were attributed to you. Reading back far enough, one can see it was Sam's words, not yours, but might not be evident to someone not reading back far enough.


Ah, okay. Thank you.
Nighttrain99
New Member
 
Posts: 39
Joined: 21 Sep 2013 03:26
Location: Charleston

Re: Re:

12 Jul 2018 07:52

macbindle wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:
macbindle wrote:If you've gone down the rabbit hole of obsessional fanatical hatred that is common currency in the Clinic, then you won't even be able to put yourself in Brailsford's shoes and consider what he is actually saying at any given moment without thinking that it is part of some nefarious master plan of deceit.


SDB reaps what he sows...of course, what evidence is there of 'young women' being at risk????

If you can provide some then I might not come to conclusion SDB is inferring they are. Do you think they are and on what basis?


You know very well it would be impossible to find evidence of that from my armchair


to take an SDB term...that would be psuedo-armchair ;)
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,466
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: Re:

12 Jul 2018 08:06

gillan1969 wrote:
macbindle wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:
macbindle wrote:If you've gone down the rabbit hole of obsessional fanatical hatred that is common currency in the Clinic, then you won't even be able to put yourself in Brailsford's shoes and consider what he is actually saying at any given moment without thinking that it is part of some nefarious master plan of deceit.


SDB reaps what he sows...of course, what evidence is there of 'young women' being at risk????

If you can provide some then I might not come to conclusion SDB is inferring they are. Do you think they are and on what basis?


You know very well it would be impossible to find evidence of that from my armchair


to take an SDB term...that would be psuedo-armchair ;)

IIRC one-time poster Polish
used have a great hunched in armchair avatar
before he was banned
User avatar TourOfSardinia
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,680
Joined: 16 Feb 2010 14:25
Location: Sardinia

Re: Re:

12 Jul 2018 08:12

gillan1969 wrote:
macbindle wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:
macbindle wrote:If you've gone down the rabbit hole of obsessional fanatical hatred that is common currency in the Clinic, then you won't even be able to put yourself in Brailsford's shoes and consider what he is actually saying at any given moment without thinking that it is part of some nefarious master plan of deceit.


SDB reaps what he sows...of course, what evidence is there of 'young women' being at risk????

If you can provide some then I might not come to conclusion SDB is inferring they are. Do you think they are and on what basis?


You know very well it would be impossible to find evidence of that from my armchair


to take an SDB term...that would be psuedo-armchair ;)


And he'd be right. It's a swivel chair....because, regrettably, I'm at work :sad:
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re: Re:

12 Jul 2018 09:07

Nighttrain99 wrote:
Merckx index wrote:Nighttrain99:

I'm not going to say directly in the clinic because there's never any balanced discussion, but in terms of Brailsford's anger, consider the following statements all said within context of Froome's exoneration from Lappartient.

Lappartient on Ulissi and Pettachi ADRVs
"I must emphasise that each of the relevant athletes had access to a fair hearing as provided for by the WADA Code and the UCI ADR."

Lappartient on UCI's anti-doping credibility generally:
"Everyone will have the same treatment, for sure. In the UCI there are no exceptions, everyone gets the same treatment," Lappartient insisted.

Lappartient on Froome's exoneration provided for by the WADA Code and the UCI ADR
"If you have more money, you can afford more lawyers and more experts. This can sometimes help you to prove you are not guilty"

That is what Brailsford is angry about and if that's not town mayor bias, what is, regardless of Brailsford's numptyness. Lappartients handing is not impartial and his comments make UCI look weak and complacent and unfocused on what exactly they are meant to be and how Lappartient should rise above personal bias.


Talk about discussions lacking balance. What is in any of those quotes that shows bias, that shows Lappartient is not impartial? Making that claim shows incredible lack of balance on your part.

samhocking wrote:
And UCI accepted that. As they accepted it, Lappartient can't then claim money bought Froomes innocence while maintaining UCI under Lappartient is credible and requesting fans to 'please still believe in cycling'. That is a copout, especially while maintaining other similar cases were dealt with properly


He didn’t claim money bought Froome’s innocence. Did you read the quote? He said money helped him prove that he was not guilty. Repeat: "help you to prove you are not guilty". Those are his words. How can someone prove he wasn't guilty, with or without money, unless he wasn't guilty? Lappartient in that quote is saying that in his opinion Froome was not guilty, but without money he might not have been able to prove it. What you’re falsely attributing to him is that he said Froome was guilty, but money bought his innocence. Not helped him prove what he actually was, but bought something he might not have been. "Money bought his innocence" is not the same as "money helps you to prove you are not guilty." I have no idea whether you and nighttrain aren't perceptive enough to see the difference, or whether you intentionally twisted the words to make Lappartient look bad, because you have a pre-existing bias that he is bad. Maybe both.


You post some of the most useful info here. Your perception of anything I’ve offered on this subject is way off, though. I’ve clearly stated my opinion of Brailsford is that of an arrogant man who used a public form to disgrace the president of the UCI. I’ve also said that I enjoy the spectacle of it all to the point of wishing Sky would accept and own their role of villain. Rowe tearing down a banner is another example. I don’t condone his or Brailsford’s actions but as a viewer of sports I can appreciate top shelf bad guy behavior as long as no one cheats or is injured.


Lappartient's exact words 'AFTER' Froomes acquittal were:
Everyone will have the same treatment, for sure. In the UCI there are no exceptions, everyone gets the same treatment," Lappartient insisted.

But what is also sure and not only in cycling or sport but also in business and politics, is that if you have more money, you can afford more lawyers and more experts. This can sometimes help you to prove you are not guilty. But the rules from the UCI are the same."


That statement using 'prove not guilty' alongside assuring everyone the UCI are credible and its anti-doping structure is solid. etc and there are no exceptions in UCI's handling, is Brailsford's issue. Lappartient can't claim both and be credible without it sounding like he has doubts Froome's innocence.

He should have worded it that UCI's doesn't treat anyone differently, while Froome's lawyers and money helped him prove his innocence, the rules are the same for everyone.

Lappartient loaded the statement that Froome was proving he was not guilty, when in fact he was proving he was innocent from what we know so far. i.e. he's proving he didn't inhale more than allowed, not that he inhaled more than allowed, but money made him not guilty of it.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,792
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re: Re:

12 Jul 2018 09:25

gillan1969 wrote:
macbindle wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:
macbindle wrote:If you've gone down the rabbit hole of obsessional fanatical hatred that is common currency in the Clinic, then you won't even be able to put yourself in Brailsford's shoes and consider what he is actually saying at any given moment without thinking that it is part of some nefarious master plan of deceit.


SDB reaps what he sows...of course, what evidence is there of 'young women' being at risk????

If you can provide some then I might not come to conclusion SDB is inferring they are. Do you think they are and on what basis?


You know very well it would be impossible to find evidence of that from my armchair


to take an SDB term...that would be psuedo-armchair ;)


Not really evidence, at best anecdotal.....but i was on ADH for the 2015 stage. All day long, whilst sat on the road side waiting for the race to come through there was a particularly boisterous (not uncommon for ADH obviously) but borderline aggressive group of spectators (Italian, i presume riled by some of the past Froome/Nibali skirmishes). Anything Sky related, (cars, flags, spectators in kit, people riding pinarello's) was getting plenty of abuse, as the day went on and the beer flowed it became more overt and aggressive. By mid afternoon it was becoming quite tense. The memory that sticks with me was SDB in the team jaguar getting blocked on the road, the car surrounded by the mob, liquid objects being thrown. I'd still to this day love to know what SDB said to the mob when he wound his window down and they suddenly all quietened down and let him pass :eek:

Anyway, the relevance of all this to this particular little sub topic....given the heightened tensions in France this year, its not difficult to understand why SDB might be talking about heightened concerns for the safety and security of anyone who might display a remote link to Team Sky, Male or Female.
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 876
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Re:

12 Jul 2018 09:41

brownbobby wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:
macbindle wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:
macbindle wrote:If you've gone down the rabbit hole of obsessional fanatical hatred that is common currency in the Clinic, then you won't even be able to put yourself in Brailsford's shoes and consider what he is actually saying at any given moment without thinking that it is part of some nefarious master plan of deceit.


SDB reaps what he sows...of course, what evidence is there of 'young women' being at risk????

If you can provide some then I might not come to conclusion SDB is inferring they are. Do you think they are and on what basis?


You know very well it would be impossible to find evidence of that from my armchair


to take an SDB term...that would be psuedo-armchair ;)


Not really evidence, at best anecdotal.....but i was on ADH for the 2015 stage. All day long, whilst sat on the road side waiting for the race to come through there was a particularly boisterous (not uncommon for ADH obviously) but borderline aggressive group of spectators (Italian, i presume riled by some of the past Froome/Nibali skirmishes). Anything Sky related, (cars, flags, spectators in kit, people riding pinarello's) was getting plenty of abuse, as the day went on and the beer flowed it became more overt and aggressive. By mid afternoon it was becoming quite tense. The memory that sticks with me was SDB in the team jaguar getting blocked on the road, the car surrounded by the mob, liquid objects being thrown. I'd still to this day love to know what SDB said to the mob when he wound his window down and they suddenly all quietened down and let him pass :eek:

Anyway, the relevance of all this to this particular little sub topic....given the heightened tensions in France this year, its not difficult to understand why SDB might be talking about heightened concerns for the safety and security of anyone who might display a remote link to Team Sky, Male or Female.


riders can deal with crap....where has there been an inkling that 'young women' were at risk? SDB is creating a narrative.......crack on however he can at least be called out on it...he's the one heightening it :D
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,466
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: Re:

12 Jul 2018 09:45

samhocking wrote:
Nighttrain99 wrote:
Merckx index wrote:Nighttrain99:

I'm not going to say directly in the clinic because there's never any balanced discussion, but in terms of Brailsford's anger, consider the following statements all said within context of Froome's exoneration from Lappartient.

Lappartient on Ulissi and Pettachi ADRVs
"I must emphasise that each of the relevant athletes had access to a fair hearing as provided for by the WADA Code and the UCI ADR."

Lappartient on UCI's anti-doping credibility generally:
"Everyone will have the same treatment, for sure. In the UCI there are no exceptions, everyone gets the same treatment," Lappartient insisted.

Lappartient on Froome's exoneration provided for by the WADA Code and the UCI ADR
"If you have more money, you can afford more lawyers and more experts. This can sometimes help you to prove you are not guilty"

That is what Brailsford is angry about and if that's not town mayor bias, what is, regardless of Brailsford's numptyness. Lappartients handing is not impartial and his comments make UCI look weak and complacent and unfocused on what exactly they are meant to be and how Lappartient should rise above personal bias.


Talk about discussions lacking balance. What is in any of those quotes that shows bias, that shows Lappartient is not impartial? Making that claim shows incredible lack of balance on your part.

samhocking wrote:
And UCI accepted that. As they accepted it, Lappartient can't then claim money bought Froomes innocence while maintaining UCI under Lappartient is credible and requesting fans to 'please still believe in cycling'. That is a copout, especially while maintaining other similar cases were dealt with properly


He didn’t claim money bought Froome’s innocence. Did you read the quote? He said money helped him prove that he was not guilty. Repeat: "help you to prove you are not guilty". Those are his words. How can someone prove he wasn't guilty, with or without money, unless he wasn't guilty? Lappartient in that quote is saying that in his opinion Froome was not guilty, but without money he might not have been able to prove it. What you’re falsely attributing to him is that he said Froome was guilty, but money bought his innocence. Not helped him prove what he actually was, but bought something he might not have been. "Money bought his innocence" is not the same as "money helps you to prove you are not guilty." I have no idea whether you and nighttrain aren't perceptive enough to see the difference, or whether you intentionally twisted the words to make Lappartient look bad, because you have a pre-existing bias that he is bad. Maybe both.


You post some of the most useful info here. Your perception of anything I’ve offered on this subject is way off, though. I’ve clearly stated my opinion of Brailsford is that of an arrogant man who used a public form to disgrace the president of the UCI. I’ve also said that I enjoy the spectacle of it all to the point of wishing Sky would accept and own their role of villain. Rowe tearing down a banner is another example. I don’t condone his or Brailsford’s actions but as a viewer of sports I can appreciate top shelf bad guy behavior as long as no one cheats or is injured.


Lappartient's exact words 'AFTER' Froomes acquittal were:
Everyone will have the same treatment, for sure. In the UCI there are no exceptions, everyone gets the same treatment," Lappartient insisted.

But what is also sure and not only in cycling or sport but also in business and politics, is that if you have more money, you can afford more lawyers and more experts. This can sometimes help you to prove you are not guilty. But the rules from the UCI are the same."


That statement using 'prove not guilty' alongside assuring everyone the UCI are credible and its anti-doping structure is solid. etc and there are no exceptions in UCI's handling, is Brailsford's issue. Lappartient can't claim both and be credible without it sounding like he has doubts Froome's innocence.

He should have worded it that UCI's doesn't treat anyone differently, while Froome's lawyers and money helped him prove his innocence, the rules are the same for everyone.

Lappartient loaded the statement that Froome was proving he was not guilty, when in fact he was proving he was innocent from what we know so far. i.e. he's proving he didn't inhale more than allowed, not that he inhaled more than allowed, but money made him not guilty of it.


nope...the reading made him guilty (remember it's an AAF ;) ) and he is allowed to prove he is not guilty

as we can now see through the 'process' we know that the way he did this appears to be him providing uncorroborated evidence....and it being believed.....to quote shaggy...'it wasn't me' ;)

The UCI know this and presumably don't like it....and no wonder...it stinks.....
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,466
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: Re:

12 Jul 2018 09:51

@gillian1969

That was kind of my point if you read it properly..the abuse wasn't being saved for the riders, it was aimed at anyone who displayed any kind of affiliation to Team Sky. Which i think was part of what SDB was saying about not being comfortable sending some people out in Sky vehicles etc....there doesn't need to be a specific threat against females for someone to decide there might be a heightened need to consider the security of said group.

Of course he can be called out on it, just like i can also empathise with what he said if i want to....

To the point on him heightening it himself to a large extent...no argument from me on that one.
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 876
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Re:

12 Jul 2018 09:55

brownbobby wrote:@gillian1969

That was kind of my point if you read it properly..the abuse wasn't being saved for the riders, it was aimed at anyone who displayed any kind of affiliation to Team Sky. Which i think was part of what SDB was saying about not being comfortable sending some people out in Sky vehicles etc....there doesn't need to be a specific threat against females for someone to decide there might be a heightened need to consider the security of said group.

Of course he can be called out on it, just like i can also empathise with what he said if i want to....

To the point on him heightening it himself to a large extent...no argument from me on that one.


the age of equality lives on...SDB on his white horse :D

and quietening hordes of drunken fans on the road side with just a quiet word...there really is no end to the mans 's talents :D
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,466
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: Re:

12 Jul 2018 10:03

gillan1969 wrote:
brownbobby wrote:@gillian1969

That was kind of my point if you read it properly..the abuse wasn't being saved for the riders, it was aimed at anyone who displayed any kind of affiliation to Team Sky. Which i think was part of what SDB was saying about not being comfortable sending some people out in Sky vehicles etc....there doesn't need to be a specific threat against females for someone to decide there might be a heightened need to consider the security of said group.

Of course he can be called out on it, just like i can also empathise with what he said if i want to....

To the point on him heightening it himself to a large extent...no argument from me on that one.


the age of equality lives on...SDB on his white horse :D

and quietening hordes of drunken fans on the road side with just a quiet word...there really is no end to the mans 's talents :D


That bit really was astonishing, i'd love to meet SDB just to ask him what was said...it was like the window was wound down to reveal Don Corleone sat in the passenger seat :eek: :lol:
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 876
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

12 Jul 2018 10:15

He Said "Do that again and Froome's motor gets switch on to MAX POWER with this button on my dashboard and Nibali will lose"

Re: Lappartient not guilty wording. Froome was not charged with anything. You can only be found not-guilty if you are charged with something. Froomes AAF didn't get that far, he was at explanation phase. i.e. UCI asked him to prove we shouldn't charge you an ADRV based on your presumed AAF. AAF is not a charge of guilt, it is a presumed reason to charge you guilty unless you can prove your innocence that it was caused within the rules. ~When this story broke, everyone was using phrases like "Froome must prove his innocence with the pharmo test". Now he's aquitted, everyone's now using 'he proved he wasn't guilty'? Make your mind up!
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,792
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re:

12 Jul 2018 10:28

samhocking wrote:He Said "Do that again and Froome's motor gets switch on to MAX POWER with this button on my dashboard and Nibali will lose"

Re: Lappartient not guilty wording. Froome was not charged with anything. You can only be found not-guilty if you are charged with something. Froomes AAF didn't get that far, he was at explanation phase. i.e. UCI asked him to prove we shouldn't charge you an ADRV based on your presumed AAF. AAF is not a charge of guilt, it is a presumed reason to charge you guilty unless you can prove your innocence that it was caused within the rules.


:D you keep clinging...the numbers speak for themselves

so he wasn't 'charged' with anything??? really...so nothing happened at all? he was innocent and asked to prove that innocence....

double innocence...so what about all the other riders at the Vuelta....were they treble innocent...quadriple???

love it :D
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,466
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re:

12 Jul 2018 10:28

samhocking wrote:He Said "Do that again and Froome's motor gets switch on to MAX POWER with this button on my dashboard and Nibali will lose"

Re: Lappartient not guilty wording. Froome was not charged with anything. You can only be found not-guilty if you are charged with something. Froomes AAF didn't get that far, he was at explanation phase. i.e. UCI asked him to prove we shouldn't charge you an ADRV based on your presumed AAF. AAF is not a charge of guilt, it is a presumed reason to charge you guilty unless you can prove your innocence that it was caused within the rules. ~When this story broke, everyone was using phrases like "Froome must prove his innocence with the pharmo test". Now he's aquitted, everyone's now using 'he proved he wasn't guilty'? Make your mind up!


I thought it being in UCI tribunal means that he was charged? And we have pretty much solid proof that the case was in tribunal.
bambino
Member
 
Posts: 829
Joined: 24 May 2013 10:37

12 Jul 2018 11:14

I've not read he was charged with an anti-doping rule violation? That's news to me. Don't see how it could have been given WADA's wording he was acquitted of the AAF, not acquitted of an ADRV?

the sample may be considered not to be an AAF.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,792
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re:

12 Jul 2018 11:29

samhocking wrote:I've not read he was charged with an anti-doping rule violation? That's news to me. Don't see how it could have been given WADA's wording he was acquitted of the AAF, not acquitted of an ADRV?

the sample may be considered not to be an AAF.


Well the UCI tribunal procedure is quite clear in which cases the Tribunal will have jurisdiction. All 3 elements refers to cases where ADRV has been charged.

Here is the producedural document, Article 3.

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Organisation/16/95/42/Anti-DopingTribunalProceduralRules_English.pdf

Maybe there is something I don't understand, or maybe UCI has decided to bend their own procedures in going to Tribunal, all I know is this procedure talks solely on ADRV's and that Froome's case was in Tribunal.

Edit: It seems the order of things are: WADA: There is an AAF --> Froome explains ---> UCI not happy, charges ADRV --> Froome not accepting ---> UCI Tribunal established ---> WADA: There was no AAF!! --> UCI needs to accept because the first trigger was voided . Why on earth WADA did that, I guess we will never know (in details).
bambino
Member
 
Posts: 829
Joined: 24 May 2013 10:37

Re: Re:

12 Jul 2018 11:43

samhocking wrote:
Nighttrain99 wrote:
Merckx index wrote:Nighttrain99:

I'm not going to say directly in the clinic because there's never any balanced discussion, but in terms of Brailsford's anger, consider the following statements all said within context of Froome's exoneration from Lappartient.

Lappartient on Ulissi and Pettachi ADRVs
"I must emphasise that each of the relevant athletes had access to a fair hearing as provided for by the WADA Code and the UCI ADR."

Lappartient on UCI's anti-doping credibility generally:
"Everyone will have the same treatment, for sure. In the UCI there are no exceptions, everyone gets the same treatment," Lappartient insisted.

Lappartient on Froome's exoneration provided for by the WADA Code and the UCI ADR
"If you have more money, you can afford more lawyers and more experts. This can sometimes help you to prove you are not guilty"

That is what Brailsford is angry about and if that's not town mayor bias, what is, regardless of Brailsford's numptyness. Lappartients handing is not impartial and his comments make UCI look weak and complacent and unfocused on what exactly they are meant to be and how Lappartient should rise above personal bias.


Talk about discussions lacking balance. What is in any of those quotes that shows bias, that shows Lappartient is not impartial? Making that claim shows incredible lack of balance on your part.

samhocking wrote:
And UCI accepted that. As they accepted it, Lappartient can't then claim money bought Froomes innocence while maintaining UCI under Lappartient is credible and requesting fans to 'please still believe in cycling'. That is a copout, especially while maintaining other similar cases were dealt with properly


He didn’t claim money bought Froome’s innocence. Did you read the quote? He said money helped him prove that he was not guilty. Repeat: "help you to prove you are not guilty". Those are his words. How can someone prove he wasn't guilty, with or without money, unless he wasn't guilty? Lappartient in that quote is saying that in his opinion Froome was not guilty, but without money he might not have been able to prove it. What you’re falsely attributing to him is that he said Froome was guilty, but money bought his innocence. Not helped him prove what he actually was, but bought something he might not have been. "Money bought his innocence" is not the same as "money helps you to prove you are not guilty." I have no idea whether you and nighttrain aren't perceptive enough to see the difference, or whether you intentionally twisted the words to make Lappartient look bad, because you have a pre-existing bias that he is bad. Maybe both.


You post some of the most useful info here. Your perception of anything I’ve offered on this subject is way off, though. I’ve clearly stated my opinion of Brailsford is that of an arrogant man who used a public form to disgrace the president of the UCI. I’ve also said that I enjoy the spectacle of it all to the point of wishing Sky would accept and own their role of villain. Rowe tearing down a banner is another example. I don’t condone his or Brailsford’s actions but as a viewer of sports I can appreciate top shelf bad guy behavior as long as no one cheats or is injured.


Lappartient's exact words 'AFTER' Froomes acquittal were:
Everyone will have the same treatment, for sure. In the UCI there are no exceptions, everyone gets the same treatment," Lappartient insisted.

But what is also sure and not only in cycling or sport but also in business and politics, is that if you have more money, you can afford more lawyers and more experts. This can sometimes help you to prove you are not guilty. But the rules from the UCI are the same."



That statement using 'prove not guilty' alongside assuring everyone the UCI are credible and its anti-doping structure is solid. etc and there are no exceptions in UCI's handling, is Brailsford's issue. Lappartient can't claim both and be credible without it sounding like he has doubts Froome's innocence.

He should have worded it that UCI's doesn't treat anyone differently, while Froome's lawyers and money helped him prove his innocence, the rules are the same for everyone.

Lappartient loaded the statement that Froome was proving he was not guilty, when in fact he was proving he was innocent from what we know so far. i.e. he's proving he didn't inhale more than allowed, not that he inhaled more than allowed, but money made him not guilty of it.


He said exactly like he should've, and he said it like that so the all cycling fans knows his stance on this subject. He thinks Froome's guilty and the Sky money bought him exoneration, and he wants that everyone knows that. He also was pretty clear, that WADA played deciding role in this case, and that UCI had no other choice than to accept their decision.
User avatar Blanco
Member
 
Posts: 1,308
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 19:33
Location: Serbia

Re:

12 Jul 2018 12:29

Mayo from Mayo wrote:From Guardian today:

For Team Sky, their safety during the Tour remains a concern, according to Brailsford. “We’ve got young women in the team that come and support the VIPs, and normally they drive around on their own, but I can’t allow that to happen in this race,” he said. “I want to make sure we get this on the agenda so the people with influence, who are mainly the French, can influence things like the crowds.”

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/11/tour-de-france-peter-sagan-wins-stage-five-simmering-team-sky-tension

How to make friends and influence people!


Dont put your staff in that position in the first place then Dave by being a lying cheating scumbag.
B_Ugli
Member
 
Posts: 446
Joined: 23 Feb 2011 13:41

Re: Re:

12 Jul 2018 13:10

B_Ugli wrote:
Mayo from Mayo wrote:From Guardian today:

For Team Sky, their safety during the Tour remains a concern, according to Brailsford. “We’ve got young women in the team that come and support the VIPs, and normally they drive around on their own, but I can’t allow that to happen in this race,” he said. “I want to make sure we get this on the agenda so the people with influence, who are mainly the French, can influence things like the crowds.”

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/11/tour-de-france-peter-sagan-wins-stage-five-simmering-team-sky-tension

How to make friends and influence people!


Dont put your staff in that position in the first place then Dave by being a lying cheating scumbag.


Is this the same Dave Brailsford who tried to blame Emma Pooely for meeting Michael Cope to avoid the Jiffy Bag story? Dave sure has a problem with women.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,480
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

17 Jul 2018 06:08

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/16/bradley-wiggins-stirs-pot-warning-danger-rift-team-sky
Wiggins continued, describing the Team Sky principal, Dave Brailsford, as “divisive” and “self-serving.” He said: “Does Dave B come in and do his usual and be quite divisive and get in each other’s ear and kind of keep them both motivated for the same goal and there be a natural selection?

“Dave will be telling them they can both win it, as a way of motivating them, as a way of playing these cards deep in to the race. He’s quite self-serving. For him it’s about the team winning, it’s not about the individuals or the characters. He will always be in those riders’ ears constantly, and he has been, up till now as you can see.”


Shocked! SDB "Divisive"? OMG! :surprised:
"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: 2,687
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

Back to top