British Sporting Administrators - what's the deal?

[yaco]

Re: Re:

UK Sport could have saved the taxpayers money by forcing the Murdoch funded Team Sky to pay publicly funded UKAD's costs relating to the jiffybag investigation

And the police could save the taxpayers money by forcing every suspect they question to pay their costs. But things don't work like that outside the weird fantasies of the Clinic.

Unfortunately these weird ideas are not only restricted to this forum - For sporting administrators to even consider such an action and then publicise it makes them the laughing stock of the world.

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

UK Sport could have saved the taxpayers money by forcing the Murdoch funded Team Sky to pay publicly funded UKAD's costs relating to the jiffybag investigation

And the police could save the taxpayers money by forcing every suspect they question to pay their costs. But things don't work like that outside the weird fantasies of the Clinic.

Unfortunately these weird ideas are not only restricted to this forum - For sporting administrators to even consider such an action and then publicise it makes them the laughing stock of the world.

I doubt they did consider it. It just looks like a response to a leading question from a journalist to me.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

For sporting administrators to even consider such an action and then publicise it makes them the laughing stock of the world.

I think we've had this conversation before yaco, about the need to check things. The DCMS Select Committee's report included a call for Sky and British Cycling to reimburse UKAD for the investigation in light of their failure to keep proper records. UKAD then said they would consider all the recommendations made in the DCMS Select Committee report.

 

[fmk_RoI]

EIGHT AND A HALF GRAND FOR A LOGO!!! THEY BLEW EIGHT AND A HALF GRAND ON A FECKIN' LOGO!!!

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

UK Sport could have saved the taxpayers money by forcing the Murdoch funded Team Sky to pay publicly funded UKAD's costs relating to the jiffybag investigation

And the police could save the taxpayers money by forcing every suspect they question to pay their costs. But things don't work like that outside the weird fantasies of the Clinic.

Unfortunately these weird ideas are not only restricted to this forum - For sporting administrators to even consider such an action and then publicise it makes them the laughing stock of the world.

I doubt they did consider it. It just looks like a response to a leading question from a journalist to me.

Thus proving that you haven't bothered to read the DCMS report

Or indeed the posts upthread which pointed you in that direction

Feel free to retract your "things don't work like that outside the weird fantasies of the Clinic" statement (but I won't hold my breath) :razz:

 

[GraftPunk]

Re:

EIGHT AND A HALF GRAND FOR A LOGO!!! THEY BLEW EIGHT AND A HALF GRAND ON A FECKIN' LOGO!!!

I've done logo work, and in branding, PR, and advertising that is not a lot at all.

 

[fmk_RoI]

UKAD's plan for the next four years: snitches and sniffers

First, the snitches

We also want to renew our approach to encourage and enable people to come forward with their suspicions and information about doping activity. As we have seen in an international context this can be a game changer. In our plan you will see the word ‘insight’; we want to work alongside athletes and those who work with athletes to understand what the best tools are to make this happen. Investing in social media and other online tools will be key to delivering this.

Then, the sniffers

“Sniffer dogs is an area we are exploring with the NCA (National Crime Agency). Clearly not every testing regime needs a sniffer dog, but if we are investigation an illicit lab, for example, they can be a useful aid.”

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

EIGHT AND A HALF GRAND FOR A LOGO!!! THEY BLEW EIGHT AND A HALF GRAND ON A FECKIN' LOGO!!!

I've done logo work, and in branding, PR, and advertising that is not a lot at all.

They're pleading penury. But figured a new logo was worth it...cause they're worth it.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

I doubt they did consider it. It just looks like a response to a leading question from a journalist to me.

Ditto. The claim that they were considering it in the first place was a standard DM wild exaggeration. Now, this, this is a response to a question.

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

For sporting administrators to even consider such an action and then publicise it makes them the laughing stock of the world.

I think we've had this conversation before yaco, about the need to check things. The DCMS Select Committee's report included a call for Sky and British Cycling to reimburse UKAD for the investigation in light of their failure to keep proper records. UKAD then said they would consider all the recommendations made in the DCMS Select Committee report.

So I targeted the wrong group - It should have been the politicians - This recommendation by the DCMS Committee is unusual at best and bizarre at worst.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/43798297

Boosting its annual budget from about £8m to £11m has also allowed UKAD to recruit around 10 new staff.

just think
if Wiggo/Sky had coughed up
they might have afforded another couple of staff!

 

[Craigee]

Re: Re:

UK Sport could have saved the taxpayers money by forcing the Murdoch funded Team Sky to pay publicly funded UKAD's costs relating to the jiffybag investigation

And the police could save the taxpayers money by forcing every suspect they question to pay their costs. But things don't work like that outside the weird fantasies of the Clinic.

The idea of charging Sky for investigating them wasn't made up here. It was an official announcement by UK Sport. Sheesh

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

The idea of charging Sky for investigating them wasn't made up here. It was an official announcement by UK Sport. Sheesh

One more time: it was not. It came from the DCMS Select Committee report.... I challenge you to go to the UK Sport website and find evidence of an official announcement concerning it. The best you may find is them saying they will consider all recommendations made by the DCMS Select Committee but I am not sure if even that was an official announcement, I think it too was just a response to a question from a journalist.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

UK Sport could have saved the taxpayers money by forcing the Murdoch funded Team Sky to pay publicly funded UKAD's costs relating to the jiffybag investigation

And the police could save the taxpayers money by forcing every suspect they question to pay their costs. But things don't work like that outside the weird fantasies of the Clinic.

Or the FDA or MHRA could save taxpayers money by forcing the industry that benefits from it to pay for its regulation... Oh wait, hang on...

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

The idea of charging Sky for investigating them wasn't made up here. It was an official announcement by UK Sport. Sheesh

One more time: it was not. It came from the DCMS Select Committee report.... I challenge you to go to the UK Sport website and find evidence of an official announcement concerning it. The best you may find is them saying they will consider all recommendations made by the DCMS Select Committee but I am not sure if even that was an official announcement, I think it too was just a response to a question from a journalist.

Do you have any evidence for the "response to a question from a journalist" theory?

Parker is trying to deny something that's there in black and white in a parliamentary report. Bizarrely claiming it's a made up Clinic thing

But unless you can substantiate the "response to a question from a journalist" theory your deflection tactics are not much better

Message for Kool Aid and the Gang. Fake news may be the new paradigm. Yes it's big. But it's not clever

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Do you have any evidence for the "response to a question from a journalist" theory?

You may have to make *** up WP, I don't.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

Do you have any evidence for the "response to a question from a journalist" theory?

You may have to make **** up WP, I don't.

Wow, you're getting brazen with your BS and deflection now, FMK

That link is Matt Lawton's summary of the DCMS report. But it doesn't answer the question, eh. Not even close

So I'll repeat, please substantiate by quoting the relevant text (an irrelevant link just doesn't cut it) Parker's assertion, which you have chosen to stand behind, that the DCMS report's suggestion that UK Sport should make Team Sky/BC meet UKAD's costs was made in response to a question from a journalist

Parker digging himself a hole is amusing enough. You digging your own hole trying to dig Parker out of his hole is awesome :razz:

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Do you have any evidence for the "response to a question from a journalist" theory?

You may have to make **** up WP, I don't.

Wow, you're getting brazen with your BS and deflection now, FMK

That link is Matt Lawton's summary of the DCMS report. But it doesn't answer the question, eh. Not even close

So I'll repeat, please substantiate by quoting the relevant text (an irrelevant link just doesn't cut it) Parker's assertion, which you have chosen to stand behind, that the DCMS report's suggestion that UK Sport should make Team Sky/BC meet UKAD's costs was made in response to a question from a journalist

Parker digging himself a hole is amusing enough. You digging your own hole trying to dig Parker out of his hole is awesome :razz:

Wow WP. You really have gone full mental jacket on the making crap up thing today...

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

Do you have any evidence for the "response to a question from a journalist" theory?

You may have to make **** up WP, I don't.

Wow, you're getting brazen with your BS and deflection now, FMK

That link is Matt Lawton's summary of the DCMS report. But it doesn't answer the question, eh. Not even close

So I'll repeat, please substantiate by quoting the relevant text (an irrelevant link just doesn't cut it) Parker's assertion, which you have chosen to stand behind, that the DCMS report's suggestion that UK Sport should make Team Sky/BC meet UKAD's costs was made in response to a question from a journalist

Parker digging himself a hole is amusing enough. You digging your own hole trying to dig Parker out of his hole is awesome :razz:

Here's the report on the BBC website: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43787155

Here's two lines from it:

"But Nicholl told BBC Sport: "It's not for UK Sport to do that."

Asked about trying to get compensation from the two parties involved in the investigation, Nicholl reiterated: "It's not a matter for UK Sport.

So the BBC asked, they answered and that's how the headline cam about.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

Do you have any evidence for the "response to a question from a journalist" theory?

You may have to make **** up WP, I don't.

Wow, you're getting brazen with your BS and deflection now, FMK

That link is Matt Lawton's summary of the DCMS report. But it doesn't answer the question, eh. Not even close

So I'll repeat, please substantiate by quoting the relevant text (an irrelevant link just doesn't cut it) Parker's assertion, which you have chosen to stand behind, that the DCMS report's suggestion that UK Sport should make Team Sky/BC meet UKAD's costs was made in response to a question from a journalist

Parker digging himself a hole is amusing enough. You digging your own hole trying to dig Parker out of his hole is awesome :razz:

Here's the report on the BBC website: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43787155

Here's two lines from it:

"But Nicholl told BBC Sport: "It's not for UK Sport to do that."

Asked about trying to get compensation from the two parties involved in the investigation, Nicholl reiterated: "It's not a matter for UK Sport.

So the BBC asked, they answered and that's how the headline cam about.

Err, whether by accident or design your timeline is all over the place

You claimed that UK Sport forcing Team Sky/BC to pay UKAD's costs relating to the jiffybag investigation is a "weird fantasy of the Clinic". But it's in the DCMS report (Btw, did you get round to reading it yet? No, thought not )

You then claimed that the DCMS report's suggestion that Team Sky/BC to pay UKAD's costs came about as a result of a leading question by a journalist (and FMK has your back on that). But neither of you have backed up this assertion with any evidence. Which should be easy enough given that the DCMS website lists everyone they interviewed or took evidence from it's all in the public domain

And now post-publication of the DCMS report you are citing an interview with UK Sport's CEO three days ago to prop up your "leading question by a journalist" theory. But the DCMS report was published several weeks ago! And so it's suggestion that Team Sky/BC pay UKAD's costs comfortably pre-dates the recent UK Sport CEO interview

So, you and FMK gonna keep digging? :razz:

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

Do you have any evidence for the "response to a question from a journalist" theory?

You may have to make **** up WP, I don't.

Wow, you're getting brazen with your BS and deflection now, FMK

That link is Matt Lawton's summary of the DCMS report. But it doesn't answer the question, eh. Not even close

So I'll repeat, please substantiate by quoting the relevant text (an irrelevant link just doesn't cut it) Parker's assertion, which you have chosen to stand behind, that the DCMS report's suggestion that UK Sport should make Team Sky/BC meet UKAD's costs was made in response to a question from a journalist

Parker digging himself a hole is amusing enough. You digging your own hole trying to dig Parker out of his hole is awesome :razz:

Wow WP. You really have gone full mental jacket on the making crap up thing today...

Lolz, you must hate having your articles fact checked, eh!

Cleaners must get bored of putting the toys back in the pram

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Do you have any evidence for the "response to a question from a journalist" theory?

You may have to make **** up WP, I don't.

Wow, you're getting brazen with your BS and deflection now, FMK

That link is Matt Lawton's summary of the DCMS report. But it doesn't answer the question, eh. Not even close

So I'll repeat, please substantiate by quoting the relevant text (an irrelevant link just doesn't cut it) Parker's assertion, which you have chosen to stand behind, that the DCMS report's suggestion that UK Sport should make Team Sky/BC meet UKAD's costs was made in response to a question from a journalist

Parker digging himself a hole is amusing enough. You digging your own hole trying to dig Parker out of his hole is awesome :razz:

Wow WP. You really have gone full mental jacket on the making crap up thing today...

Lolz, you must hate having your articles fact checked, eh!

Cleaners must get bored of putting the toys back in the pram

WP, I would politely request that you go back and read what I actually wrote, and not what your fevered imagination is telling you I wrote. Right now it looks a lot like you're either trolling me or just can't read.

 

[Alpe73]

Lads ... let him have the stuffed dog ... so we can move on. Muito obrigado.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re:

Lads ... let him have the stuffed dog ... so we can move on. Muito obrigado.

Feel free to move on Alpe

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

Lads ... let him have the stuffed dog ... so we can move on. Muito obrigado.

Feel free to move on Alpe

Some of us started out (perhaps naively) believing Sky might be worth defending

But most of us have, as you say, moved on since then

For me it was when the story broke that Leinders had been hired. So a while back

Kool Aid and the Gang are stuck, stuck, stuck!