Dave Brailsford - cycling genius

Page 51 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 21, 2016
913
0
0
carton said:
Benotti69 said:
State provided funds to BC. State funding or state sponsorship, why split hairs?

It was the pursuit of medals and a win at all costs which is a state sponsored doping program.

If the state was concerned about doping they have not shown that. In fact UK sports has shown they are not interested in investigating how the medal count is so high against known state sponsored programs.
I don' think I'm splitting hairs here. There's a real difference IMHO. It doesn't mean that it wasn't potentially very bad. USPS wasn't state sponsored doping as well. The state (via the postal service) clearly wasn't attempting to organize a doping programarme there either.

That the British State should've exerted more oversight seems like a rather uncontroversial statement at this point. But as you put it yourself, doping the athletes was an ongoing concern of the state, as far as we know.
De facto state sponsored perhaps...possibly, maybe. A state throws a huge wad money at a sport, sees a return of endless medals and willfully ignores the history of the sport and how said medals are often/usually won. No questions asked at any stage. Knowing and willful participation is maybe an unnecessarily narrow definition.
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,270
2
0
A lot of the comments to the articles on the CN main page sound just like the astroturfed comments that Lance's PR team bought for when he went down. Almost word-for-word arguments. UK Postal just keeps on following the model.

I feel sorry for people who don't believe in miracles. I feel sorry for people who believe those arguments are real.
 
Jul 21, 2016
913
0
0
Re:

Beech Mtn said:
A lot of the comments to the articles on the CN main page sound just like the astroturfed comments that Lance's PR team bought for when he went down. Almost word-for-word arguments. UK Postal just keeps on following the model.

I feel sorry for people who don't believe in miracles. I feel sorry for people who believe those arguments are real.

Yeah I've seen that. I feel a bit sorry for them, I don't mean that patronisingly, I mean I feel bad for them. I know some of these people, not literally the ones commenting...ye know what I mean. Many of them really love the sport, many of them race etc., etc.

Their love of it, and the meaning they get out of it, is predicated on 'the good stuff', ye know, the pure, white, moral hero stuff. It's important to many people innit. Not everyone easily embraces the dark and the absurd and the chaotic realities without loosing their footing. Kind of like a religious psychology.

I reckon some people are giving them too hard a time, a bit too much mocking and sneering.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Brailsford the so-called master of details and leave no stone unturned is coming across as a run of the mill cycling manager. :D
 
Re:

Dan2016 said:
carton said:
Benotti69 said:
State provided funds to BC. State funding or state sponsorship, why split hairs?

It was the pursuit of medals and a win at all costs which is a state sponsored doping program.

If the state was concerned about doping they have not shown that. In fact UK sports has shown they are not interested in investigating how the medal count is so high against known state sponsored programs.
I don' think I'm splitting hairs here. There's a real difference IMHO. It doesn't mean that it wasn't potentially very bad. USPS wasn't state sponsored doping as well. The state (via the postal service) clearly wasn't attempting to organize a doping programarme there either.

That the British State should've exerted more oversight seems like a rather uncontroversial statement at this point. But as you put it yourself, doping the athletes was an ongoing concern of the state, as far as we know.
De facto state sponsored perhaps...possibly, maybe. A state throws a huge wad money at a sport, sees a return of endless medals and willfully ignores the history of the sport and how said medals are often/usually won. No questions asked at any stage. Knowing and willful participation is maybe an unnecessarily narrow definition.

This is a sins of commission, sins of omission issue. It sounds more like the latter to me. But it's a very fine line. Its all very well saying 'well, we went easy so as not to upset the apple-cart', so long as there was no suspicion that the apple cart was being fuelled by illegal or unethical means. If there were the slightest questions of this, and they turned a blind eye, well, that's tacit acceptance that there may be doping going on which they were not going to look for very hard. Not quite 'state sponsored' but not very far off, since it's the tacit acceptance that the money you provide might not be going where it should. Too much of that, and pretty soon its an active blind eye you are turning, and all of a sudden....'here's the money, get the medals, don't tell me how'.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Re: Re:

carton said:
Benotti69 said:
State provided funds to BC. State funding or state sponsorship, why split hairs?

It was the pursuit of medals and a win at all costs which is a state sponsored doping program.

If the state was concerned about doping they have not shown that. In fact UK sports has shown they are not interested in investigating how the medal count is so high against known state sponsored programs.
I don' think I'm splitting hairs here. There's a real difference IMHO. It doesn't mean that it wasn't potentially very bad. USPS wasn't state sponsored doping as well. The state (via the postal service) clearly wasn't attempting to organize a doping programarme there either.

That the British State should've exerted more oversight seems like a rather uncontroversial statement at this point. But as you put it yourself, doping the athletes wasn't an ongoing concern of the state, as far as we know.

Edit: Obviously the typo is where it matters most. Duh.

State wanted medals. State provided money to get medals. State didn't ask how they procured said medals.
 
Re:

Beech Mtn said:
A lot of the comments to the articles on the CN main page sound just like the astroturfed comments that Lance's PR team bought for when he went down. Almost word-for-word arguments. UK Postal just keeps on following the model.

I feel sorry for people who don't believe in miracles. I feel sorry for people who believe those arguments are real.

Something tells me that DB is not going away without hoisting the middle finger. If Paris-Nice and Milan-San Remo are indicators, we should all be looking forward to the Giro with a fully transformed Geeeee Man, and, of course, Le Tour. Froomie is going to go thermonuclear. It goes without saying he will win the Maillot Jaune, but for good measure, I expect him to add the Green Jersey, the Polka Dot Jersey, and cap it off with a winning sprint on the Champs-Élysées, blowing away Cavendish, Sagan, Greipel, and Kittel in fully seated washing-machine-spinning rocket mode.
 
Re: Re:

JosephK said:
Beech Mtn said:
A lot of the comments to the articles on the CN main page sound just like the astroturfed comments that Lance's PR team bought for when he went down. Almost word-for-word arguments. UK Postal just keeps on following the model.

I feel sorry for people who don't believe in miracles. I feel sorry for people who believe those arguments are real.

Something tells me that DB is not going away without hoisting the middle finger. If Paris-Nice and Milan-San Remo are indicators, we should all be looking forward to the Giro with a fully transformed Geeeee Man, and, of course, Le Tour. Froomie is going to go thermonuclear. It goes without saying he will win the Maillot Jaune, but for good measure, I expect him to add the Green Jersey, the Polka Dot Jersey, and cap it off with a winning sprint on the Champs-Élysées, blowing away Cavendish, Sagan, Greipel, and Kittel in fully seated washing-machine-spinning rocket mode.
In all seriousness I can see Froome going crazy on the final lap in Paris a lá Vino/Hinault.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,853
2
0
Re: Re:

42x16ss said:
JosephK said:
Beech Mtn said:
A lot of the comments to the articles on the CN main page sound just like the astroturfed comments that Lance's PR team bought for when he went down. Almost word-for-word arguments. UK Postal just keeps on following the model.

I feel sorry for people who don't believe in miracles. I feel sorry for people who believe those arguments are real.

Something tells me that DB is not going away without hoisting the middle finger. If Paris-Nice and Milan-San Remo are indicators, we should all be looking forward to the Giro with a fully transformed Geeeee Man, and, of course, Le Tour. Froomie is going to go thermonuclear. It goes without saying he will win the Maillot Jaune, but for good measure, I expect him to add the Green Jersey, the Polka Dot Jersey, and cap it off with a winning sprint on the Champs-Élysées, blowing away Cavendish, Sagan, Greipel, and Kittel in fully seated washing-machine-spinning rocket mode.
In all seriousness I can see Froome going crazy on the final lap in Paris a lá Vino/Hinault.

this is a fundamtental misreading of #TeamSky's JohNash gametheory doping.

Everyone is like JTL and does their diffused own responsibility doping, the era from bringing it inside the team has been quashed, riders need to manage their own enhancement and supply/logistics,

this #gametheory allows the team plausible deniability.

as my neologism is, implausible undeniability[sic]

effectively, nothing has changed, but everything has changed.

Edita Rumsas does the job of the USPS doctors.

ok, you can say Leinders, Cope etc...

for one rider. No more. The programs are diffused, this allows the teams to defuse risk, and to deny.
 
Re:

Dan2016 said:
The thread title should be changed appropriately, it's confusing looking for DB
Yes, I can certainly see how difficult and confusing it must be to do a search for "Dave Brailsford" with the returning results being "Dave Brailsford - cycling genius"... :rolleyes:

I'll see what I can do to make it simpler. :D
 
Jul 21, 2016
913
0
0
Re: Re:

blackcat said:
Dan2016 said:
The thread title should be changed appropriately, it's confusing looking for DB

wot u say?

"SDB or Gollum - you choose? the official thread"

You suggesting ''...the official thread''? Yeah do it. The moniker SDB should be banishes, a dead dreamses. Gollum. Gollum...
 
Jul 21, 2016
913
0
0
Re: Re:

Irondan said:
Dan2016 said:
The thread title should be changed appropriately, it's confusing looking for DB
Yes, I can certainly see how difficult and confusing it must be to do a search for "Dave Brailsford" with the returning results being "Dave Brailsford - cycling genius"... :rolleyes:

I'll see what I can do to make it simpler. :D

Cheers Dan. Just ''Gollum'' would make it loads easier. Need a bit of sense around here. :D
 
May 6, 2016
224
0
0
I believed Dave Brailsford when he said that the 'Jiffy Bag' contained Fluimucil. If Dave said it was Fluimucil then you betta it was Fluimucil, as Dr Freeman told him it was Fluimucil for a nebuliser.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,770
3
0
ebandit said:
image.jpg


davey boy ya told me you would be doing everything differently

...........is the difference having all bases covered and not getting

caught?

Mark L
WOW bandit!

welcome back. Nice art work.
 
Jul 21, 2016
913
0
0
ebandit said:
image.jpg


davey boy ya told me you would be doing everything differently

...........is the difference having all bases covered and not getting

caught?

Mark L

:D

That's very funny and very nicely done.

I wish I knew how to do that stuff, endless hours could be wasted in absurdist humour...
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,853
2
0
Dan2016 said:
ebandit said:
image.jpg


davey boy ya told me you would be doing everything differently

...........is the difference having all bases covered and not getting

caught?

Mark L

:D

That's very funny and very nicely done.

I wish I knew how to do that stuff, endless hours could be wasted in absurdist humour...

yeah, SDB aka gollum is pretty sexy in that Tom Hanks cast away modesty apron, is pretty darn sexy innit