British Sporting Administrators - what's the deal?

[Sorped]

Re: Re:

It's all very incestuous - Beloff a jurist and CAS Arbitrator is on the IAAF Ethics Commission and is a good friend of Tony Blair.

I guess that's why we'll never see the full Reason Decision on the Lizzie Armitstead 3 missed tests?

To be fair UKAD is much better than other NDO's at publishing reasoned decisions than other NDO's - My problem with the Lizzie Armistead case was that you should have to challenge a missing test at the time, not when you have racked up 3 missing tests.

What difference would that make to you? You'd still claim that anybody missing a single test was doping and that being cleared is just a cover up.

You can miss 3 tests in a rolling 12 month period. So why bother challenging 1 test when you have no intention of missing another one and can always appeal if you hit 3 by accident.

The casual racism on the clinic is something to behold. If you were Yes voters using such language about the english you'd have had the daily mail at your door and JK Rowling setting 6 million cultists on you.

I don't understand why there was no reaction when the second warning "ticked in" - if you'd been "unlucky" enough to miss the first and the second, where does your bad fortune stop? Wouldn't you do something?

The racism claim is just silly. There is a reason there's so much attention on cycling in the British Isles and that reason, I hope, you're well aware of. Can you really deny that the whole Sky/Wiggins/BC ordeal screams to high heavens of shady dealings going on?

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

It's all very incestuous - Beloff a jurist and CAS Arbitrator is on the IAAF Ethics Commission and is a good friend of Tony Blair.

I guess that's why we'll never see the full Reason Decision on the Lizzie Armitstead 3 missed tests?

To be fair UKAD is much better than other NDO's at publishing reasoned decisions than other NDO's - My problem with the Lizzie Armistead case was that you should have to challenge a missing test at the time, not when you have racked up 3 missing tests.

What difference would that make to you? You'd still claim that anybody missing a single test was doping and that being cleared is just a cover up.

You can miss 3 tests in a rolling 12 month period. So why bother challenging 1 test when you have no intention of missing another one and can always appeal if you hit 3 by accident.

The casual racism on the clinic is something to behold. If you were Yes voters using such language about the english you'd have had the daily mail at your door and JK Rowling setting 6 million cultists on you.

I don't understand why there was no reaction when the second warning "ticked in" - if you'd been "unlucky" enough to miss the first and the second, where does your bad fortune stop? Wouldn't you do something?

The racism claim is just silly. There is a reason there's so much attention on cycling in the British Isles and that reason, I hope, you're well aware of. Can you really deny that the whole Sky/Wiggins/BC ordeal screams to high heavens of shady dealings going on?

I dont think ANYONE on the board actually gets it. sorry, that is rhetoric and hyperbole.

But the proportion of folks on the board dont get it.

It is not #TeamSKY.

It is everyone. *_______________*bar a minute number

It is not about Brailsford and Sky and British riders, it is everyone in the professional peloton. They are not axiomatically poor of character. They have just occured in this invidious position.

The focus on Sky, is a confluence of things. Brailsford building the project to the 2012 Games and the dominance on the track, which he pressed onto the road.

If you look at it thru a lens of economic resources, i) Germany was withdrawing their support over the last decade, ii) Landis was the death knell of the high water mark of US corporate backing iii) Spain, Italy, continental Europe had sport sponsorship revenue outflows since 2008 banking crisis iv) UK flush with Olympic and Lotteries money, and Murdoch was patron.

No doubt Britain had talent that would have otherwise been fallow. Cavendish was always gonna be Cavendish no matter where and in what era. But the other squad members, it is still unforseen if they would flourish if they never had the support and anglophone culture in Brailsford's team.

So Brits out there, this puts it in context. It is not everyone just bagging you guys because of some bigotry and discrimination. Sky rose to the apogee in a dirty sport. Comes with the territory.

 

[Franklin]

So, what's the deal? From Cookson, to Coe to Reedie, all finished by U.K. Sport to become chocolate teapots and in some cases cover up corruption.

What's the deal?

That's easy.

A state sponsored program (read money bin) with a highly political structure, largely run by well-willing amateurs. High focus on success, which determines one's career. High stakes, money and a lack of oversight.

And if *** hits the fan? Contrary to the Spanish and the Italians, in this case there's deep involvement of the government and a complete unwillingness to get judicial involvement. That's the kicker. Whereas in Spain cyclists and doctors actually get subpoenaed, in the UK this is absolutely not in the cards (for any sport).

 

[blackcat]

So, what's the deal? From Cookson, to Coe to Reedie, all finished by U.K. Sport to become chocolate teapots and in some cases cover up corruption.

What's the deal?

That's easy.

A state sponsored program (read money bin) with a highly political structure, largely run by well-willing amateurs. High focus on success, which determines one's career. High stakes, money and a lack of oversight.

And if **** hits the fan? Contrary to the Spanish and the Italians, in this case there's deep involvement of the government and a complete unwillingness to get judicial involvement. That's the kicker. Whereas in Spain cyclists and doctors actually get subpoenaed, in the UK this is absolutely not in the cards (for any sport).

and Germany killed their professional cycling industry, and the 5th estate took them down, and they are yet to recover (may never recover), unless, Greipel and Kittell qualify as 'sport recovered'.

 

[thehog]

Another good day for British Sporting Administrators, just goes to show that Russian method of bribing is way more revealing that having your own guys in power to cover everything up.

 

[GraftPunk]

Another good day for British Sporting Administrators, just goes to show that Russian method of bribing is way more revealing that having your own guys in power to cover everything up.

What's going down?

 

[Catwhoorg]

Dame Katherine Grainger named as the new head of UK Sport.

Plus ca change

 

[sniper]

From last year, but still speaks volumes:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jan/22/british-government-iaaf-sebastian-coe

 

[thehog]

Good day for the British Sporting Administrators. First Russia get a hand slap for the Olympic which Reddie and Coe had allowed the doping to go on unabated. Today, Cookson asks all of us to reinstate the reputations of Wiggins and Sky. Gold medal performance! :lol:

 

[Irondan]

Good day for the British Sporting Administrators. First Russia get a hand slap for the Olympic which Reddie and Coe had allowed the doping to go on unabated. Today, Cookson asks all of us to reinstate the reputations of Wiggins and Sky. Gold medal performance! :lol:

Yeah, I almost lost my *** when I read that B. Cookson's telling the world to change their opinions of Sir Wiggo to something more like the Lilly white unicorn we were spoon fed by Team Sky and Dave Brailsford before they were outed. Cookson's acting like people still listen to what he has to say! :lol:

 

[Craigee]

Good day for the British Sporting Administrators. First Russia get a hand slap for the Olympic which Reddie and Coe had allowed the doping to go on unabated. Today, Cookson asks all of us to reinstate the reputations of Wiggins and Sky. Gold medal performance! :lol:

Yeah, I almost lost my **** when I read that B. Cookson's telling the world to change their opinions of Sir Wiggo to something more like the Lilly white unicorn we were spoon fed by Team Sky and Dave Brailsford before they were outed. Cookson's acting like people still listen to what he has to say! :lol:

True. It could be to score points with his mate Bradley but you never know, he really could be delusional.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Interesting to read the comments of British Cycling's new CEO and new chairman in this interview:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jan/10/leak-chris-froome-failed-drugs-test-british-cycling-julie-harrington

New CEO Julie Harrington defends BC's selection of Froome for the Worlds even though she admits BC knew about his AAF. Odd that she fails to mention that BC could have decided not to pick Froome

'Despite British Cycling being made aware of the failed test, Froome was later selected to compete for Great Britain at the world time trial championships where he won a bronze medal. Harrington defended that decision. “Chris Froome isn’t banned and he is available for selection,” she said. “There is an option for an athlete to rule themselves out of being available for selection and Chris hasn’t chosen to do that so under the rules of racing he is available and it’s innocent until proven guilty.” '

New chairman Frank Slevin is taking a more robust approach to Bob Howden continuing as BC President:

'The governing body announced Frank Slevin, the executive chair of House of Fraser, as its new chairman, the third person to take the role in a year after the resignation of Jonathan Browning. Slevin used his first day in the job to question the wisdom of Bob Howden continuing as the president of British Cycling despite the board during his tenure being widely considered as unfit for purpose. “It’s safe to say I am surprised,” Slevin said. “One of the reviews determined the previous conduct of the board had been inept, inexcusable, so I think responsibility needs to be taken for that. I do believe in a bright line and I think we ought to be reviewing that situation.” '

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re:

Interesting to read the comments of British Cycling's new CEO and new chairman in this interview:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jan/10/leak-chris-froome-failed-drugs-test-british-cycling-julie-harrington

New CEO Julie Harrington defends BC's selection of Froome for the Worlds even though she admits BC knew about his AAF. Odd that she fails to mention that BC could have decided not to pick Froome

'Despite British Cycling being made aware of the failed test, Froome was later selected to compete for Great Britain at the world time trial championships where he won a bronze medal. Harrington defended that decision. “Chris Froome isn’t banned and he is available for selection,” she said. “There is an option for an athlete to rule themselves out of being available for selection and Chris hasn’t chosen to do that so under the rules of racing he is available and it’s innocent until proven guilty.” '

New chairman Frank Slevin is taking a more robust approach to Bob Howden continuing as BC President:

'The governing body announced Frank Slevin, the executive chair of House of Fraser, as its new chairman, the third person to take the role in a year after the resignation of Jonathan Browning. Slevin used his first day in the job to question the wisdom of Bob Howden continuing as the president of British Cycling despite the board during his tenure being widely considered as unfit for purpose. “It’s safe to say I am surprised,” Slevin said. “One of the reviews determined the previous conduct of the board had been inept, inexcusable, so I think responsibility needs to be taken for that. I do believe in a bright line and I think we ought to be reviewing that situation.” '

I read this as "Good for British Cycling" = Good for Cycling.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Not sure that these elements of the DCMS report (from p42) have been mentioned on here

First the recommendation that in the UK supplying drugs to sportspeople with intent to enhance performance be criminalised (Would that have made the likes of Brailsfraud, Sutton, Freeman and even Cope think twice?)

"The Government should give serious consideration to criminalising the supply of drugs to sportspeople with intent to enhance performance rather than to mitigate ill-health, and in so doing defraud clean athletes they are competing against. This would send a stronger message about the unacceptability and the dangers of doping, not only to the suppliers but also to the athletes."

Second, and as a consequence of the above, UKAD would in effect have the benefit of proper investigative powers (so Sky/BC would not have had the chance the clean house before UKAD made a pre-arranged visit)

"For UK Anti-Doping to be more effective, it not only needs more resources, but greater powers too. It has no powers to demand to see private papers, and financial and medical records, to aid its investigations. A change in the law to criminalise the supply of drugs to sports people could give UKAD the powers to access documents without seeking prior agreement, and the right to seek the support of the law enforcement agencies in their investigations, as appropriate."

Unfortunately, the current Brexit paralysis on the legislature means that, even if there is a polictical will to make these changes, it won't happen for years. And given that the current government keeps funding UK Sport it seems our politicians are happy enough with the "keep the medals coming, no questions asked" Olympic funding model notwithstanding the very bad smell

 

[TourOfSardinia]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43787155

UK Sport will not seek costs from Team Sky and British Cycling for 'jiffy bag' enquiry

i.e. more b.ll.cks from TeamGB

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43787155

UK Sport will not seek costs from Team Sky and British Cycling for 'jiffy bag' enquiry

i.e. more b.ll.cks from TeamGB

Team Sky told UKAD they need the money to fund the Dawg's interminable drag the sport down with me defence

 

[yaco]

Re:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43787155

UK Sport will not seek costs from Team Sky and British Cycling for 'jiffy bag' enquiry

i.e. more b.ll.cks from TeamGB

Thank God common sense has prevailed - UKAD is funded to perform such a duty - Any talk of charging an athlete/sporting organisation is totally ridiculous.

 

[simoni]

Re:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43787155

UK Sport will not seek costs from Team Sky and British Cycling for 'jiffy bag' enquiry

i.e. more b.ll.cks from TeamGB

I'm no particular fan of sky but not sure how you can recover costs from an organisation you investigated but didn't actually convict of anything.

If that's how it works then I'm in the money!

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43787155

UK Sport will not seek costs from Team Sky and British Cycling for 'jiffy bag' enquiry

i.e. more b.ll.cks from TeamGB

Thank God common sense has prevailed - UKAD is funded to perform such a duty - Any talk of charging an athlete/sporting organisation is totally ridiculous.

Imagine making them pay for their own regulation?!?? Have a word with the MHRA, it’ll never work...

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43787155

UK Sport will not seek costs from Team Sky and British Cycling for 'jiffy bag' enquiry

i.e. more b.ll.cks from TeamGB

I'm no particular fan of sky but not sure how you can recover costs from an organisation you investigated but didn't actually convict of anything.

If that's how it works then I'm in the money!

UKAD didn't convict but to use an analogy from Scottish law their judgement was not proven rather than not guilty

And UKAD did say that Sky/BC had been deliberately obstructive to their investigation which is why the DCMS report suggested that Sky/BC should cover UKAD's costs

But yes there is no regulation under which Sky/BC could be compelled to meet UKAD's costs so of course it was never going to happen. Particularly since UK Sport's funding model is the very essence of bring us the medals/victories we won't ask how

And "No bad news before Rio" UKAD is not the innocent victim here so don't feel sorry for them. The MPs got UKAD more funding but in isolation without proper investigative powers and a huge shift in culture to actually want to catch high profile athletes that's just window dressing

Just British sports administrators doing their usual thang - move along now nothing to see here!

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43787155

UK Sport will not seek costs from Team Sky and British Cycling for 'jiffy bag' enquiry

i.e. more b.ll.cks from TeamGB

I'm no particular fan of sky but not sure how you can recover costs from an organisation you investigated but didn't actually convict of anything.

If that's how it works then I'm in the money!

UKAD didn't convict but to use an analogy from Scottish law their judgement was not proven rather than not guilty

And UKAD did say that Sky/BC had been deliberately obstructive to their investigation which is why the DCMS report suggested that Sky/BC should cover UKAD's costs

But yes there is no regulation under which Sky/BC could be compelled to meet UKAD's costs so of course it was never going to happen. Particularly since UK Sport's funding model is the very essence of bring us the medals/victories we won't ask how

And "No bad news before Rio" UKAD is not the innocent victim here so don't feel sorry for them. The MPs got UKAD more funding but in isolation without proper investigative powers and a huge shift in culture to actually want to catch high profile athletes that's just window dressing

Just British sports administrators doing their usual thang - move along now nothing to see here!

WP ... in context and in perspective ... there was a fair chunk of time, energy and money spent on this. To keep running this issue though the MRI machine ... in order to find 'something' ... that would lead to a significant amelioration of 'something' in sport and culture ... is a further waste of taxpayers' money and the time of aforementioned bureaucracies. Time to move on ... and wait for the next big earthquake.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43787155

UK Sport will not seek costs from Team Sky and British Cycling for 'jiffy bag' enquiry

i.e. more b.ll.cks from TeamGB

I'm no particular fan of sky but not sure how you can recover costs from an organisation you investigated but didn't actually convict of anything.

If that's how it works then I'm in the money!

UKAD didn't convict but to use an analogy from Scottish law their judgement was not proven rather than not guilty

And UKAD did say that Sky/BC had been deliberately obstructive to their investigation which is why the DCMS report suggested that Sky/BC should cover UKAD's costs

But yes there is no regulation under which Sky/BC could be compelled to meet UKAD's costs so of course it was never going to happen. Particularly since UK Sport's funding model is the very essence of bring us the medals/victories we won't ask how

And "No bad news before Rio" UKAD is not the innocent victim here so don't feel sorry for them. The MPs got UKAD more funding but in isolation without proper investigative powers and a huge shift in culture to actually want to catch high profile athletes that's just window dressing

Just British sports administrators doing their usual thang - move along now nothing to see here!

WP ... in context and in perspective ... there was a fair chunk of time, energy and money spent on this. To keep running this issue though the MRI machine ... in order to find 'something' ... that would lead to a significant amelioration of 'something' in sport and culture ... is a further waste of taxpayers' money and the time of aforementioned bureaucracies. Time to move on ... and wait for the next big earthquake.

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

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43787155

UK Sport will not seek costs from Team Sky and British Cycling for 'jiffy bag' enquiry

i.e. more b.ll.cks from TeamGB

I'm no particular fan of sky but not sure how you can recover costs from an organisation you investigated but didn't actually convict of anything.

If that's how it works then I'm in the money!

UKAD didn't convict but to use an analogy from Scottish law their judgement was not proven rather than not guilty

And UKAD did say that Sky/BC had been deliberately obstructive to their investigation which is why the DCMS report suggested that Sky/BC should cover UKAD's costs

But yes there is no regulation under which Sky/BC could be compelled to meet UKAD's costs so of course it was never going to happen. Particularly since UK Sport's funding model is the very essence of bring us the medals/victories we won't ask how

And "No bad news before Rio" UKAD is not the innocent victim here so don't feel sorry for them. The MPs got UKAD more funding but in isolation without proper investigative powers and a huge shift in culture to actually want to catch high profile athletes that's just window dressing

Just British sports administrators doing their usual thang - move along now nothing to see here!

WP ... in context and in perspective ... there was a fair chunk of time, energy and money spent on this. To keep running this issue though the MRI machine ... in order to find 'something' ... that would lead to a significant amelioration of 'something' in sport and culture ... is a further waste of taxpayers' money and the time of aforementioned bureaucracies. Time to move on ... and wait for the next big earthquake.

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

Could have, would have, should have ... move on, mate.

 

[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.

 

[pastronef]

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.

I like that