Dave Brailsford - cycling genius

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

Brailsfraud interviewed just now on, ahem, Sky Sports News:

"What we're talking about is how many times he used his puffer. You're allowed to use it 16 times in 24 hours. The question is did he use it more. The rules aren't about the levels in the urine as has been widely reported. The rules are about how many times you use the puffer. You can't falsely accuse someone of wrong doing. That's the worst case scenario if someone has done nothing wrong. That's the whole basis of our society"

lolol, so brailsfraud doe snot consider the salbutamol urine levels (at twice the limit) to be a problem, thats an in interesting defence. if he was right of course CF could rock up to the uci lab, do his test, take 16 puffs on his iunhaler and then test at 2000ng; except they cant prove this because it is not possible. the '' The question is did he use it more.'' line is interesting , are they going to claim that CF himself decided to use ~100 puffs to reach 2000ng? in any case he still gets a ban as he exceeded the urine concentration allowed, twice over.

It's a remarkable statement in many ways. Just playing to the fanboys on the in-house TV channel. But remarkable all the same

The bit where he says the rules aren't about the levels in the urine is an interesting spin. Total BS of course. Takes some front to put that idea out there though

The suggestion that Froome being found guilty would be an affront to society really takes the BS biscuit. Is he taking a high moral line? Sorry Dave, that ship sailed a while ago, mate!

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Dear SDB
No wrong-doing
=\=
the high moral ground
you once pouted.

 

[Robert5091]

You can't falsely accuse someone of wrong doing.

Are we really going to go down the Trumpian explanation route? Fake urine samples!

 

[53*11]

Re: Re:

Brailsfraud interviewed just now on, ahem, Sky Sports News:

"What we're talking about is how many times he used his puffer. You're allowed to use it 16 times in 24 hours. The question is did he use it more. The rules aren't about the levels in the urine as has been widely reported. The rules are about how many times you use the puffer. You can't falsely accuse someone of wrong doing. That's the worst case scenario if someone has done nothing wrong. That's the whole basis of our society"

lolol, so brailsfraud doe snot consider the salbutamol urine levels (at twice the limit) to be a problem, thats an in interesting defence. if he was right of course CF could rock up to the uci lab, do his test, take 16 puffs on his iunhaler and then test at 2000ng; except they cant prove this because it is not possible. the '' The question is did he use it more.'' line is interesting , are they going to claim that CF himself decided to use ~100 puffs to reach 2000ng? in any case he still gets a ban as he exceeded the urine concentration allowed, twice over.

It's a remarkable statement in many ways. Just playing to the fanboys on the in-house TV channel. But remarkable all the same

The bit where he says the rules aren't about the levels in the urine is an interesting spin. Total BS of course. Takes some front to put that idea out there though

The suggestion that Froome being found guilty would be an affront to society really takes the BS biscuit. Is he taking a high moral line? Sorry Dave, that ship sailed a while ago, mate!

i cant figure out if sdb is really so delusional that he believes his own BS or that it is a cheer leading effort to appeal to the casual sports fan, he certainly doesnt seem to give a toss about their ever dwindling credibility coming out with BS like that though

 

[Blanco]

Dave B is hilarious! :lol: So all we need to do is to ask Froome how many puffs he had, and everything is gonna be ok Either this is a serious PR ***, or Dave seriously lost it.

 

[veganrob]

It's can sometimes be rather hard to know what he is saying. He is a born liar after all.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re:

It's can sometimes be rather hard to know what he is saying. He is a born liar after all.

If you watch him on TV he "looks" convincing but if you analyse what he actually says it turns to dust

 

[ontheroad]

Just listened to him talking about Froome and Lappartient. Could any man be any more smug, arrogant and condesending. Power, fame and money corrupts and DB obviously believes that he is infallible. Maybe it's because the heat has been turned away from him slightly and onto Froome himself. Every time I see the title of this thread popping up I have to smile. Cycling genius? You're having a laugh.

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

Just listened to him talking about Froome and Lappartient. Could any man be any more smug, arrogant and condesending. Power, fame and money corrupts and DB obviously believes that he is infallible. Maybe it's because the heat has been turned away from him slightly and onto Froome himself. Every time I see the title of this thread popping up I have to smile. Cycling genius? You're having a laugh.

Oh i don't know....i think he probably is deserving of the title 'cycling genius'

He led the most successful Olympic cycling programme in the history of Olympic cycling. 'His' team have won 5 of the last 6 TDF's. Admittedly, money has played a part in this, but convincing funders to invest big sums in your project in itself requires a great deal of skill in persuasion. Historically, with such lofty goals many people have failed regardless of how much money they've had to throw at a project. Other teams have had not too dissimilar budgets and therefore access to the same means and methods at their potential disposal.

No Genius is without their faults, and our Dave certainly isn't.

The question for our cycling genius, is wether history will judge him as 'good' genius or 'evil' genius'

 

[veganrob]

If the curtain is ever drawn back on DB, things may look a little different

 

[thehog]

Re:

It's can sometimes be rather hard to know what he is saying. He is a born liar after all.

Would you buy a used car from Dave Brailsford?

 

[B_Ugli]

Dave Brailsford =

 

[TourOfSardinia]

You got it wrong there is no jimney cricket for SDB

 

[zalacain]

Re: Re:

It's can sometimes be rather hard to know what he is saying. He is a born liar after all.

Would you buy a used car from Dave Brailsford?

I wouldn't buy a used bike from Brailsfraud unless it was a team issue with the thingwy that lets you spin out and accelerate at the same time.

 

[ontheroad]

Sir Dave has got his mojo back. Has come out totally bullish in the last few days, it's like the last 18 months just didn't happen.

 

[53*11]

Re:

Sir Dave has got his mojo back. Has come out totally bullish in the last few days, it's like the last 18 months just didn't happen.

the trump strategy, say it didnt happen 3 times and 90% people believe your #BS!

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

It's can sometimes be rather hard to know what he is saying. He is a born liar after all.

Would you buy a used car from Dave Brailsford?

I wouldn't buy a used bike from Brailsfraud unless it was a team issue with the thingwy that lets you spin out and accelerate at the same time.

Nice

 

[TourOfSardinia]

What's the spin on this?

Up to this point Brailsford has been paid as consultant to parent company not an employee of Team Sky
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-5424283/Sir-Dave-Brailsford-closes-consultancy-business.html

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re:

What's the spin on this?

Up to this point Brailsford has been paid as consultant to parent company not an employee of Team Sky
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-5424283/Sir-Dave-Brailsford-closes-consultancy-business.html

Looks like a tax dodge

Presumably Brailsfraud's company was based off-shore so he could dodge the inconvenient business of paying income tax

Another example of Braislfraud and Team Sky setting an exemplary ethical example

Not clear why the arrangement has now changed and he's had to become a humble employee. Maybe the tax dodge was challenged by HMRC

Whatever we should pity the poor Knight of the Realm. Time for another Kickstarter so Sir Dave doesn't end up out of pocket...?

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

Presumably Brailsfraud's company was based off-shore so he could dodge the inconvenient business of paying income tax

Another example of Braislfraud and Team Sky setting an exemplary ethical example

Not clear why the arrangement has now changed and he's had to become a humble employee. Maybe the tax dodge was challenged by HMRC

Have you had a look where the company is based or are you just guessing?

(Hint: An industrial estate in Cardiff isn't 'off-shore')

It was co-owned by his wife/partner. My guess is they're splitting up.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

Presumably Brailsfraud's company was based off-shore so he could dodge the inconvenient business of paying income tax

Another example of Braislfraud and Team Sky setting an exemplary ethical example

Not clear why the arrangement has now changed and he's had to become a humble employee. Maybe the tax dodge was challenged by HMRC

Have you had a look where the company is based or are you just guessing?

(Hint: An industrial estate in Cardiff isn't 'off-shore')

It was co-owned by his wife/partner. My guess is they're splitting up.

no he didnt, he just "presumed"

anyway, after the latest "twisty" months we can notice Sky still keeps him and now he is an official Sky employee.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

Presumably Brailsfraud's company was based off-shore so he could dodge the inconvenient business of paying income tax

Another example of Braislfraud and Team Sky setting an exemplary ethical example

Not clear why the arrangement has now changed and he's had to become a humble employee. Maybe the tax dodge was challenged by HMRC

Have you had a look where the company is based or are you just guessing?

(Hint: An industrial estate in Cardiff isn't 'off-shore')

It was co-owned by his wife/partner. My guess is they're splitting up.

So the industrial estate in Cardiff is the registered office according to Companies House's records? Is it possible that the company's HQ for accounting purposes is based elsewhere?

And if he's splitting up why not just set up a new company all of his own with a registered office in a Cardiff industrial estate and an HQ for accounting purposes who knows where to receive his bunce for that consultancy work for Sky?

Sorry, but your "he's split up so must become an employee" theory doesn't stack up

 

[samhocking]

Looks a pretty typical UK company to me if you are a consultant. Spouse is made secretary, then director which will have some benefits for them both of course, but all pretty typical. If I was going to guess it will be they are separating too. Not sure what the advantages are for Disney to put him on Tour Racing Ltd as a full-time employee rather than pay him as a consultant like Sky? Interestingly the company moved address just a couple of days ago, so I would imagine Brailsford will set another company up at that new address without his spouse as partner maybe?

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re:

Looks a pretty typical UK company to me if you are a consultant. Spouse is made secretary, then director which will have some benefits for them both of course, but all pretty typical. If I was going to guess it will be they are separating too. Not sure what the advantages are for Disney to put him on Tour Racing Ltd as a full-time employee rather than pay him as a consultant like Sky? Interestingly the company moved address just a couple of days ago, so I would imagine Brailsford will set another company up at that new address without his spouse as partner maybe?

Financially it's a loser for the employer if a consultant becomes an employee. If Jess Varnish wins her legal case against BC that will increase BC's (and probably the other Olympics sports) employment costs by 20%. Getting hit for income tax and national insurance (like mug punters everywhere!) is just so unfair if you've relied on a blagger's loophole for a long time

So suggesting this change is driven by Sky or their overlords doesn't stack up financially. Just like Parker suggesting it's due to a relationship break up doesn't stack up. Nice try though, dudes

Given the financial downside to both employer and consultant/employee more likely IMO their hand has been forced by HMRC. And don't forget Wiggo ("Just a humble kid from Kilburn blah blah blah") was exposed as the recipient of a tax dodge scam. Heroes with feet of clay etc

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2227264/Bradley-Wiggins-withdraws-controversial-tax-dodging-scheme-linked-company-Caymans.html

So, are you and Parker going to stop drinking the Kool-Aid any time soon? Just because the Sky gang keep telling you they're ethical (or did they stop?) it doesn't mean they're telling you the truth

 

[samhocking]

There's no possible way, from two directors liquidating a company from Minnesota and changing company address to a new premises 3 days ago, you can possibly know it's got anything to do with HMRC or otherwise. You know as little as we do and that he's liquidating his company. Anything else you've said is a guess like us, nobody's claiming to be correct, it's simple discussion. In a few days time he might have set-up a new company, announced retirement, getting married and buying a £5M house with the assets, nobody knows anything, even Daily Mail who didn't expand on it either.