Brailsford Should Stand Down

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
IainMc said:
I think Vaughters is more likely to take us to a better future by using the experience of past dopers to help guide the sport. In Team Sky both Julich and de Jong were great assets. To have them leave just because one guy can't let go of what appears to be a personal crusade is just crazy.
Thats what i am thinking for weeks now, and every time he fires the next person that comes forward honest and penitent, even without any serious pressure.
Everyone should be just happy with that, learn and move on. He's not. A true 175er.

On top of that, Bobby and Steven are nicer that nice persons. I would choose them to look after my kids any day.
I wouldn't even hire Brailsford to clean the cats toilet. It would be dirty after that.

Zero tolerance for him. Just go away.
 
Telmisartan new said:
Sweet baby jesus,"it remains to be seen what Leinders involvement at Rabo actually was" That's it,i am out,your gullibility procludes you from being taken seriously anymore.Game over.
Go on then. Show me. Actual links which mention him by name. Let's see what he's actually known to have done.

It's strange that such a famously dirty doctor doesn't even have a page on dopeology.org
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
BroDeal said:
When does Brailsford start sacking riders?

If at least half a dozen riders are not booted then this policy is a scam.
They are probably looking at transfers as we speak, with Brailsford having given them some time to avoid damage to them and Sky by sacking them.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Parker said:
.........................
So name one owner that can be questioned by the media, if they are so visible. Name one person that can be held responsible.

Oh wait you can't.

Looks like we're back at Brailsford. Dayam.
 
Tinman said:
They are probably looking at transfers as we speak, with Brailsford having given them some time to avoid damage to them and Sky by sacking them.
The scorecard so far:

One foreigner who coaches time trialing is loudly proclaimed to be a doper and is publicly sacked.

One foreigner who drives a car and calls strategy is loudly proclaimed to be a doper and gets the sack.

One Brit who drives a car, calls strategy, and who tested positive in 1989 retires but it had nothing to do with doping.

No riders.

Not a peep about a certain individual who is critical to the track program but widely known to be a doper by his fellow racers when he was racing.

It looks very much like a public relations campaign where the scapegoats are carefully chosen to not harm the team's chances next year. Next up, the team janitor gets sacked for firing up a doobie in 1985.
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
BroDeal said:
The scorecard so far:
...
It looks very much like a public relations campaign where the scapegoats are carefully chosen to not harm the team's chances next year. Next up, the team janitor gets sacked for firing up a doobie in 1985.
Be patient. Brailsford is an ambitious man. He won't go down with the ship, but is working overtime to get his riders in the lifeboats.

Over the next 2 months we will see riders leave and Brailsford's hands will remain relatively clean. What will remain of Sky will be a shell (unless Tiernan Locke becomes the newborn), Wiggins will retire a hero after a disappointing 2013 and focus on his charity, and Brailsford will be looking to pick up a senior cycling admin function somewhere.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Tinman said:
Be patient. Brailsford is an ambitious man. He won't go down with the ship, but is working overtime to get his riders in the lifeboats.

Over the next 2 months we will see riders leave and Brailsford's hands will remain relatively clean. What will remain of Sky will be a shell (unless Tiernan Locke becomes the newborn), Wiggins will retire a hero after a disappointing 2013 and focus on his charity, and Brailsford will be looking to pick up a senior cycling admin function somewhere.
Broken collar bones can be godsends sometimes....
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
There is a sweet irony that in the Clinic there is a thread calling for Brailsford to go for sacking staff that have doped or were involved in doping. throughout the pro-peloton there are far more sinister figures running teams, and plenty of riders and staff that are yet to admit their doping or be found out and sanctioned. Yet Brailsford gets the all the heat.

Starting to wonder whether it's the Australian lobby again, the one that is so keen to point out the splinter in someone's eye while ignoring the plank in theirs.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Parker said:
Go on then. Show me. Actual links which mention him by name. Let's see what he's actually known to have done.

It's strange that such a famously dirty doctor doesn't even have a page on dopeology.org
Oh My, someone is embarrasing himself :rolleyes:

1. we have the case of the unknown Danish Cyclist who almost won a regional race in France. The judge deemed it necessary to say Leinders, Breukink and de Rooij were guilty of whereabouts fraud.

Public domain:

Major paper 13 November 2007

http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4324/nieuws/article/detail/1387760/2007/11/13/Zware-verwijten-aan-het-adres-van-ploegleiding-Rabobank.dhtml

Judicial ruling 2 july 2008

http://www.marinusvromans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Sport-en-Recht-Rasmussen-Rabo.pdf

2. But of course, it started a bit earlier when Leinders got a "Carte Blanche" and the goal was to win a GT. Note that they gave the medic on the management team a carte blanche, which is... surprising considering history in cycling ;)

Now the more speculative things:

3. We have the past scandals and upcoming scandals: Humanplasma and the crap that comes out due to Levi Leipheimers confessions. Leinders was the medical guy on the Management Team (with the "Carte Blanche") and certainly will have known of the going ons (if only by his monitoring).

4. Related to three we notice that Rabobank had an extremely high succesrate testing negative. Leinders as head medical staff and Management team certainly was responsible (it was his job AND his responsibility, no way to spin this one). Add to this the willingness to be less than forthcoming in whereabouts.

Parker, seems you are championing a case without any knowledge of the facts. Perhaps time to read up before you start to play?
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
Franklin, can you edit the links in your post so they are full links without the ....... please.

Dopology might be able to use that info for a quick update.
 
JimmyFingers said:
There is a sweet irony that in the Clinic there is a thread calling for Brailsford to go for sacking staff that have doped or were involved in doping. throughout the pro-peloton there are far more sinister figures running teams, and plenty of riders and staff that are yet to admit their doping or be found out and sanctioned. Yet Brailsford gets the all the heat.

Starting to wonder whether it's the Australian lobby again, the one that is so keen to point out the splinter in someone's eye while ignoring the plank in theirs.

How dare you suggest that the Aussies of the clinic have a problem seeing straight. Scandalous.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
I Watch Cycling In July said:
Franklin, can you edit the links in your post so they are full links without the ....... please.

Dopology might be able to use that info for a quick update.
Fixed (They still look truncated, but work now). I just quoted my earlier post and didn't realize it truncated the links.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Just to repeat: people want Brailsford to be sacked for sacking dopers. I honestly don't get it, double-standards really, and speaks volumes for their prejuduces against him and Sky
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
JimmyFingers said:
Just to repeat: people want Brailsford to be sacked for sacking dopers. I honestly don't get it, double-standards really, and speaks volumes for their prejuduces against him and Sky
Ah, a nice strawman, as the problem is in the HIRING of dopers.

Seems you are not discussing in good faith.
 
JimmyFingers said:
Just to repeat: people want Brailsford to be sacked for sacking dopers. I honestly don't get it, double-standards really, and speaks volumes for their prejuduces against him and Sky
This has probably been covered before but as far as I can tell this is a summary of Dave Bs actions:

Announces Team Sky will have a zero tolerance for doping
Recruits riders and personnel that he knows / should know have history
Backtracks slightly saying that zero tolerance is hard to achieve
Michael Barry is named by Floyd Landis - Brailsford says that he will speak to him and take his at his word. Sack him if he admits, keep him if he doesn't. Worth bearing in mind that Barry wasn't raced much after this.
Recruits Leinders
Recruits Rogers
The USADA report comes out and *** starts flying.
Dave B / Sky decide that the zero tolerance policy should be enforced
Has to get ride of people he hired knowing that they had history, pretending that he didn't know or showing incompetence in his recruitment

If I ran a department like that in my job I'd be sacked.
 
Feb 23, 2011
618
0
0
bobbins said:
This has probably been covered before but as far as I can tell this is a summary of Dave Bs actions:

Announces Team Sky will have a zero tolerance for doping
Recruits riders and personnel that he knows / should know have history
Backtracks slightly saying that zero tolerance is hard to achieve
Michael Barry is named by Floyd Landis - Brailsford says that he will speak to him and take his at his word. Sack him if he admits, keep him if he doesn't. Worth bearing in mind that Barry wasn't raced much after this.
Recruits Leinders
Recruits Rogers
The USADA report comes out and *** starts flying.
Dave B / Sky decide that the zero tolerance policy should be enforced
Has to get ride of people he hired knowing that they had history, pretending that he didn't know or showing incompetence in his recruitment

If I ran a department like that in my job I'd be sacked.
I can imagine Murdoch saying to Brailsford "employ the people you need to win the tour, if anything causes us bad publicity in the future we will deal with it when it happens". That is pretty much how his organisation operates.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
Instead, you get people saying Brailsford should be applauded.... :eek:

There's no doubt that whilst under his overall leadership British Cycling has gone from strength to strength, resulting in Sky approaching him for sponsorship and eventually a Professional team. As the post above suggests, there may have been sponsor influence to get better results. Someone from Sky mentioned that in their first tour the majority of high place getters were most likely medically assisted. This may just have been spin form the team to explain their relatively poor showing. They then recruited a dodgy doc and won the Tour. This part is where doubts can form and from the reactions in this forum, there are plenty of them.

As the top man, the buck stops with him.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
bobbins said:
There's no doubt that whilst under his overall leadership British Cycling has gone from strength to strength, resulting in Sky approaching him for sponsorship and eventually a Professional team. As the post above suggests, there may have been sponsor influence to get better results. Someone from Sky mentioned that in their first tour the majority of high place getters were most likely medically assisted. This may just have been spin form the team to explain their relatively poor showing. They then recruited a dodgy doc and won the Tour. This part is where doubts can form and from the reactions in this forum, there are plenty of them.

As the top man, the buck stops with him.
Agreed. Despite what some poster was saying about the sponsor calling the shots.

This is what I posted on Vroomen's "Skyfall" blog post - noticed a similarity to your post above:

Sky’s timeline:

2009:
“We’re going to win the Tour clean with a zero-tolerance policy within 5 years.”
Hires a bunch of ex-dopers

2010: Come 24th at the Tour

2011:
“We’re going to relax our zero tolerance policy a bit”
Hires Geert Leinders
2nd & 3rd at Vuelta

2012:
1st at every multi-stage race Feb – Aug.
50% more CQ points than derided dirty teams like Katusha.
USADA decision handed down.
Some Sky team members mentioned in USADA decision.
“We are a clean team with a zero-tolerance policy”.
Fires or does not renew contracts of ex-dopers.

And for this people want to give Sky credit?

Is Movistar a known doping team?
(Final question was due to the hiring of 2 Movistar riders to Sky for 2013)
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Franklin said:
Ah, a nice strawman, as the problem is in the HIRING of dopers.

Seems you are not discussing in good faith.
Except that is an addendum to the discussion, as the origin of this thread was his policy post-USADA report of sacking anyone with doping links, and as a result he should go.

Should he go for the mistakes he made hiring Barry, Julich, Yates, Leinders et al? Still no, as I said he isn't an experienced road-team manager and given the past of most of the people in pro-cycling coming up with a roster entirely free of suspicion would be a virtually impossible task.

He is trying to make it right now though, although apparently he should be sacked for that too
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
How is dismissing people (yet paying them off) when you should not have hired them in the first place doing the "right thing"?
As the past cannot be undone there are only really three options:

1 - Do nothing now
2 - Pay off the person's contract if they fess up immediately
3 - Terminate the contract with no payoff if a rider is suspected of being dodgy

Option 3 cannot be used at the moment, as there needs to be a clear incentive for people to fess up immediately, which is offered by option 2.

Option 1 would be best if one could guarantee that no skeletons were going to come out of the cupboard in the future. As one can't guarantee this, option 2 is best, as when skeletons do come out in future, Sky can say then they've acknowleded that something needed to be done post Armstrong and have been victim of a serial liar, rather than having stuck their heads in the sand.

Option 2 guarantees a relatively low level of pain for Sky, whereas option 1 offers a good chance of no pain but a non-trivial risk of an absolute disaster in the future. It is this latter risk that is their priority to manage, so option 2 is the least bad thing that Sky can be doing now. It's not good as such, given the tosh they've spouted in the past, but this cannot be unspouted and they are where they are.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY