Brailsford Should Stand Down

Page 9 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
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.
Option 4. Brailsford steps down and takes full responsibility for mistakes.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
JimmyFingers said:
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.
Strangely enough the first post has no mention that "DB needs to be sacked because he is sacking people". :rolleyes:

IainMc said:
If Brailsford can't embrace pro cycling warts and all, he should stand down before he does any more damage. Guys like Jonathan Vaughters are the future.
What is said that DB's policy is bad and that JV has a much better philosophy. What you did is condense it up to ridicule.

Furthermore if we read on it fast becomes clear that the criticism is not only that the idea is bonkers, it's also highly hypocritical.

So yeah, good job putting up a strawman ;)

And full points for being okay with hiring a doctor under whose guidance a rider and team almost stole the grand price. Because yes, DB, the manager of David Millar clearly had no idea how bad doctors are. And no, Leinders is not "under suspicion" as there is that pesky public domain court ruling :rolleyes:

I await your spin and handwaving. Just a bit hard to handwave a court ruling, but you obviously have no problem with trying.
 
It's worth noting that he spent the season before the Sky launch following the pro road circuit around europe and built up an extensive database of riders he would like to hire. I can't believe that his research didn't include staff and I find it harder to believe that he wasn't aware of riders history. He knew not to recruit Ballan which was a rumour at the time so anyone who thinks he hasn't got his ear to the ground as far as dodgy riders is concerned is very much mistaken. His right hand man (Fran Millar) was a riders agent so has direct access to speak to riders and surely find out more than we can.

If he was naive and misled by the riders, surely that is as bad as overlooking their history until now.
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Option 4. Brailsford steps down and takes full responsibility for mistakes.
This might make the Clinic feel good, but it won't really achieve anything for Sky, and ultimately Sky take decisions solely in the interests of Sky, not cycling as a whole. The real issue is where the "blame" will land for any doping at Sky, not ill-advised PR guff in the past. Sky want to shift the blame to the riders, not the senior management.

Ditching Brailsford now would simply raise more questions for Sky without doing anything to manage the real risk, which is of Sky being perceived by the masses to have knowingly employed a proven doper. They can (just about) get away with tacitly admitting they didn't do their homework first time round, unaware, pre-Armstrong, just how prevelant organised doping actually was. The current plan shows that they are now doing their homework. Thus, in the future, when/if a doping scandal arises, the Sky management will be able to blame it on a lying rider, and at the moment, the public will probably swallow that as an argument.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
This might make the Clinic feel good, but it won't really achieve anything for Sky, and ultimately Sky take decisions solely in the interests of Sky, not cycling as a whole. The real issue is where the "blame" will land for any doping at Sky, not ill-advised PR guff in the past. Sky want to shift the blame to the riders, not the senior management.
If they want cycling to believe in Sky then they will do what is good for cycling ;) but most of us see through the smoke screen being laid down with staff being ejected.

Wallace and Gromit said:
Ditching Brailsford now would simply raise more questions for Sky without doing anything to manage the real risk, which is of Sky being perceived by the masses to have knowingly employed a proven doper. They can (just about) get away with tacitly admitting they didn't do their homework first time round, unaware, pre-Armstrong, just how prevelant organised doping actually was. The current plan shows that they are now doing their homework. Thus, in the future, when/if a doping scandal arises, the Sky management will be able to blame it on a lying rider, and at the moment, the public will probably swallow that as an argument.
Brailsford said from day 1 Sky were about clean cycling. He lied. He hired people with a doping past to win the TdF. Now after they achieved Sky's aim he dumps most of them. But not Mick Rogers who has a dodgy past. He lied about Mick Barry. He lied about why he hired Leinders.

So if he is true to a clean team their is no place for Rogers. But they dont give a hoot about cycling or cleaning up the sport.

If he is true to Sky, why dump anyone?

Brailsford is making a total hash of this.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Benotti69 said:
If they want cycling to believe in Sky then they will do what is good for cycling ;) but most of us see through the smoke screen being laid down with staff being ejected.



Brailsford said from day 1 Sky were about clean cycling. He lied. He hired people with a doping past to win the TdF. Now after they achieved Sky's aim he dumps most of them. But not Mick Rogers who has a dodgy past. He lied about Mick Barry. He lied about why he hired Leinders.

So if he is true to a clean team their is no place for Rogers. But they dont give a hoot about cycling or cleaning up the sport.

If he is true to Sky, why dump anyone?

Brailsford is making a total hash of this.
indeed, which is why i'm still having trouble understanding the motives.
clean cycling obviously isn't the motive. but it isn't good PR either (on the contrary). and not good for business, I'd assume, as they'll have to replace those that were thrown out, and also financially compensate them.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
sniper said:
indeed, which is why i'm still having trouble understanding the motives.
clean cycling obviously isn't the motive. but it isn't good PR either (on the contrary). and not good for business, I'd assume, as they'll have to replace those that were thrown out, and also financially compensate them.
He is trying to throw out the dirty bath water and keep the baby.

But he threw out the dirty bath water but we all can see the baby is still dirty.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Benotti69 said:
He is trying to throw out the dirty bath water and keep the baby.

But he threw out the dirty bath water but we all can see the baby is still dirty.
:D

the point is: there was no need to.. It was all nice and quiet around Sky, especially after he'd thrown out Leinders. The press hasn't even begun to scrutinize Sky. BSford has been drawing attention to matters that were better left untouched, and which the press wasn't anywhere near looking at.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
del1962 said:
If Leinders was so well known as a dodgy doctor, why is there no info on him on the dopology website? Or at least I could not find any when I looked the other day.
dopeology is put together by L'arriviste of this and other parishes.

It is not the official doping bible, but pretty damn flipping close.

Leinders escaped any punishment for his involvement in Rabobanks doping affair so far.

But not many doubt he was running or at the very least enabling doping.

I believe Leinders has his own thread here in the clinic. go check it out
 
Benotti69 said:
dopeology is put together by L'arriviste of this and other parishes.

It is not the official doping bible, but pretty damn flipping close.

Leinders escaped any punishment for his involvement in Rabobanks doping affair so far.

But not many doubt he was running or at the very least enabling doping.

I believe Leinders has his own thread here in the clinic. go check it out
All I am saying that if a site like dopology had not picked up on leinders which you say is pretty close to a doping bible, then it is quite possible that Brailsford would not have known anything of Leinders involvement.

Did the thread on Leinders start before he was used by Sky?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
del1962 said:
All I am saying that if a site like dopology had not picked up on leinders which you say is pretty close to a doping bible, then it is quite possible that Brailsford would not have known anything of Leinders involvement.

Did the thread on Leinders start before he was used by Sky?
It would not just be "quite possible" but completely plausible that Brailsford did not know about his Leinders past if he did not ask him directly.

Which begs the question - exactly how much research (if any) did DB do on his staff? If Leinders was the only person one might argue that it was an oversight, but not when you add the names, Barry, Yates, Jullich etc.
 
Jul 13, 2012
263
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
It would not just be "quite possible" but completely plausible that Brailsford did not know about his Leinders past if he did not ask him directly.

Which begs the question - exactly how much research (if any) did DB do on his staff? If Leinders was the only person one might argue that it was an oversight, but not when you add the names, Barry, Yates, Jullich etc.
If DB had chatted or even taken note of Race Radio and his ilke then maybe he would of been smarter;)

Its worth noting that hindsight for those in here is not quite the same for those in the wider scope of cycling and yes that includes teams who looked at previous winning recipes and simply followed suite. :D
 
sniper said:
indeed, which is why i'm still having trouble understanding the motives.
clean cycling obviously isn't the motive. but it isn't good PR either (on the contrary). and not good for business, I'd assume, as they'll have to replace those that were thrown out, and also financially compensate them.
My crackpot theory, and it's a crazy one, is they are more or less buying silence on Sky's 2012 fraud. The basic plan being, "we want to end this working relationship and will give you a handsome sum and a glorious send-off if you agree to keep your mouth shut about Sky's 2012. I have no clue what labour laws are like in GB, so maybe someone can fill in the likelihood that it could happen.

Firing people more or less coincides with the usual post-home-Olympics budget slashing too. Sky more or less could have tried to wrap the budget melt-down as an anti-doping story. Maybe it's as simple as that?

2012's TdF/Olympics performances were simply not possible. There's going to be a scandal about it eventually. Sky's 2013 TdF squad might return to historic norms. Which, will just highlight 2012's fraud. If they crush the fields again, who knows???
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Dr. Maserati said:
It would not just be "quite possible" but completely plausible that Brailsford did not know about his Leinders past if he did not ask him directly.

Which begs the question - exactly how much research (if any) did DB do on his staff? If Leinders was the only person one might argue that it was an oversight, but not when you add the names, Barry, Yates, Jullich etc.
This is absolutely mindbogling! :mad:

1. The guy comes from a team where they almost won the TdF, which ended in a whereabout uproar. DB probably has heard from this event. :rolleyes:
2. Geert Leinders wasn't just a medic, he was part of the management troika and thus responsible for all matters medical. This will definitely have been on his CV.
3. Leinders has been publically implicated in whereabouts fraud (see my earlier links) in 2008. He was also mentioned in every major Dutch newspapers (several times I might add).
4. Leinders also was responsible for people like Mencov. Now of course there is a chance that DB never heard of Mencov :rolleyes: Thinking about Mencov probably would trigger recollections about Rasmussen. And the 9 of Mencov also stands out as "noteworthy".

Considering DB was manager of David Millar he probaly heard of Rasmussen.
You would expect that the subject would come up in the interview.
You would expect a cursory check would bring up these public facts.

He hired Geert 'Chamois cream" Leinders for his experience. This means they fully knew his prior position at Rabo!

There simply isn't enough facepalm to show here, but let's try:

 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
DirtyWorks said:
My crackpot theory, and it's a crazy one, is they are more or less buying silence on Sky's 2012 fraud. The basic plan being, "we want to end this working relationship and will give you a handsome sum and a glorious send-off if you agree to keep your mouth shut about Sky's 2012. I have no clue what labour laws are like in GB, so maybe someone can fill in the likelihood that it could happen.

Firing people more or less coincides with the usual post-home-Olympics budget slashing too. Sky more or less could have tried to wrap the budget melt-down as an anti-doping story. Maybe it's as simple as that?

2012's TdF/Olympics performances were simply not possible. There's going to be a scandal about it eventually. Sky's 2013 TdF squad might return to historic norms. Which, will just highlight 2012's fraud. If they crush the fields again, who knows???
+1
sounds brilliantly plausible to me.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Franklin said:
This is absolutely mindbogling! :mad:

1. The guy comes from a team where they almost won the TdF, which ended in a whereabout uproar. DB probably has heard from this event. :rolleyes:
2. Geert Leinders wasn't just a medic, he was part of the management troika and thus responsible for all matters medical. This will definitely have been on his CV.
3. Leinders has been publically implicated in whereabouts fraud (see my earlier links) in 2008. He was also mentioned in every major Dutch newspapers (several times I might add).
4. Leinders also was responsible for people like Mencov. Now of course there is a chance that DB never heard of Mencov :rolleyes: Thinking about Mencov probably would trigger recollections about Rasmussen. And the 9 of Mencov also stands out as "noteworthy".

Considering DB was manager of David Millar he probaly heard of Rasmussen.
You would expect that the subject would come up in the interview.
You would expect a cursory check would bring up these public facts.

He hired Geert 'Chamois cream" Leinders for his experience. This means they fully knew his prior position at Rabo!

There simply isn't enough facepalm to show here, but let's try:

Easy tiger - "one might argue it was an oversight".
 
Jul 13, 2012
263
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
My crackpot theory, and it's a crazy one, is they are more or less buying silence on Sky's 2012 fraud. The basic plan being, "we want to end this working relationship and will give you a handsome sum and a glorious send-off if you agree to keep your mouth shut about Sky's 2012. I have no clue what labour laws are like in GB, so maybe someone can fill in the likelihood that it could happen.

Firing people more or less coincides with the usual post-home-Olympics budget slashing too. Sky more or less could have tried to wrap the budget melt-down as an anti-doping story. Maybe it's as simple as that?

2012's TdF/Olympics performances were simply not possible. There's going to be a scandal about it eventually. Sky's 2013 TdF squad might return to historic norms. Which, will just highlight 2012's fraud. If they crush the fields again, who knows???
More posts like this one and Sky may well coming knocking on your door with a job offer ;)
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Easy tiger - "one might argue it was an oversight".
Oversight from a team that made its specialiality to study the minute details!

The hiring of a doctor, an important part of a cycling team (although not according to Bassons) after a soigneur died was done ad hoc?

Not likely.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Benotti69 said:
Oversight from a team that made its specialiality to study the minute details!

The hiring of a doctor, an important part of a cycling team (although not according to Bassons) after a soigneur died was done ad hoc?

Not likely.
Did you actually read what I wrote?

I never said or even implied it was "likely" - if it was the hiring of one dodgy person it "could" be viewed as an oversight.
As Sky hired far more than that (whose names I quoted in a previous post) I am showing that "oversight" is indeed "not likely".
 
del1962 said:
All I am saying that if a site like dopology had not picked up on leinders which you say is pretty close to a doping bible, then it is quite possible that Brailsford would not have known anything of Leinders involvement.

Did the thread on Leinders start before he was used by Sky?
Dopeology records an individual where he/she is directly responsible for a doping-related incident.

Whereabouts violations by Rasmussen were recorded. Had Leinders been disciplined by Rabobank for an act or omission in relation to this matter, that would have been recorded.

Dopeology does not attempt to judge the conduct of individuals nor should it be indicative of an individual's culpability, otherwise a guy like Luigi Cecchini would only be as dodgy as a Fabio Bartalucci and much less so than Servais Knaven, to name but two others among Sky's questionable hires.

The site records people doing things. It does not record people being aware of other people doing things.

My personal opinion is that Leinders, who is mentioned once in Dopeology with regard to Jans Koerts' revelations, should not have been hired by Sky. However, I am quite certain Sky does not refer to Dopeology when deciding who to hire and nor should anyone here. :)
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
It would not just be "quite possible" but completely plausible that Brailsford did not know about his Leinders past if he did not ask him directly.
Sorry Dr., usually I fully agree with you, but what you said there is what I railed against and which I still find complete nonsense.

They hired him for his experience: Thus they looked into his past.

De Jong could have been a plausible oversight, but Leinders? No.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
L'arriviste said:
Dopeology records an individual where he/she is directly responsible for a doping-related incident.

Whereabouts violations by Rasmussen were recorded. Had Leinders been disciplined by Rabobank for an act or omission in relation to this matter, that would have been recorded.
Does this count? ;)

About the fate of Breukink and Geert Leinders, the other two managers, he (De Rooij) kept aloof. Leinders this year had already resigned as team doctor. Rasmussen stated that they both were aware of the fact that he was not in Mexico in June.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY