Dave Brailsford - cycling genius

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

He paid £188K in Corporation Tax, £67K VAT and £5K NIC so hardly escaping HMRC lol!

So much for being a company director making you an expert. You are taking those figures from the Declaration of Solvency, and they are the amounts outstanding at Feb 2. We do not know how much Corporation Tax Brailsford Ltd has paid. We do not know how much VAT Brailsford Ltd has paid. We do not know how much NIC Brailsford Ltd has paid.

We can go back through the filed accounts and say that £164,961 was owed in CT at the end of February 2017, £189,062 in 2016. That £71,586 in other Revenue related debt was outstanding at the end of February 2017, £126,436 in 2016. But can we claim, as you just have, to know who much was paid? Can we even claim to know what the liability arising was? No, we cannot.

As for what the liability arising was - was it more or less than the liability that would have arisen had he been an employee? (And we can take the VAT out for a start, given that's reclaimed on the other side.)

 

[fmk_RoI]

I really don't get why people are getting so bothered about this. Some idiot in an idiotic newspaper writes a headline calling the damned thing a riddle and people here go nuts trying to figure it out. On riddle scales, it's not even up there with the standard of Batman's nemesis, now is it?

Brailsford's set-up with Tour Racing Limited looks like any standard IR35 arrangement.

IR35 is not illegal. Given Brailsford's other income - publishing royalties (he never did deliver the book, though), appearance fees, interview fees (if what some have said about charging for interviews is correct), whatever - the arrangement may even have been suitable.

However. Things change.

The policing of IR35 is changing, as Revenue's recent win shows. The liability arising is also changing: heretofore, the employee - through the company they created - was held liable if Revenue successfully cried foul on an IR35 arrangement. That responsibility is shifting more and more toward the employer.

Brailsford's relationship with Tour Racing Limited may have changed - to explain with pure speculation, he could have a more restrictive contract, Tour Racing Limited may have more control over his activities outside the team, the sort of control that would make Revenue sit up and say he's an employee.

Or, for that matter, someone could simply be sitting up and saying that the relationship was always dodge and they'd better get ahead of Revenue on this. We don't know.

And then there's the Sky sale. We don't know what's happening there, whether Tour Racing Limited is going to be part of the deal with Disney or whether Tour Racing Limited is going to have to have a change in ownership. Whichever it is, though, the deal could be seen as offering incentive / an opportunity to reassess Brailsford's relationship with the team and 'regularise' everything, just in case.

There is zero evidence Brailsford has been subject to a Revenue audit and found liable for unpaid taxes. That's important. Zero evidence. Revenue still publish the names of people they punish. Is Brailsford's name on any of these lists? I realise that, for some, this sort of wishful thinking is what drives them, the belief that despite their own impotence in the matter, others will 'get' him. But it's still utter nonsense.

As are the claims of off-shoring. This is just an attempt to demonise, dehumanise the man. We don't like him, so we make a monster of him. But what sort of monster is that, anyway? What would Frankenstein, Dracula, the Mummy have been like if all they did was managed their tax affairs in a legally efficient fashion?

What are the real moral objections to Brailsford managing his tax affairs in a legally efficient fashion?

That he made his name and his fortune on the back of UK Sport funding? But that doesn't come from taxation, not proper taxation. That comes from the Stupidity Tax, Lottery funding. Maybe some people think that anyone in receipt of Lottery funding should have to actually buy Lottery tickets, put something back for what they've taken out, I don't know. I'd love to see how that idiot's colleagues in the idiotic newspaper would report that.

Has Brailsford ever spoken out and called on others to pay their fair share of taxes, not just the legal minimum? Has Brailsford ever called for Government to spend tax money on cycling in the way that that other noted tax dodger Chris Boardman has? I don't recall him doing it.

So the moral problem is the same moral problem we have with everyone who manages their tax affairs in a legally efficient manner. Which is almost every professional cyclist out there. And an awful lot of people in the world beyond cycling.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re:

I really don't get why people are getting so bothered about this. Some idiot in an idiotic newspaper writes a headline calling the damned thing a riddle and people here go nuts trying to figure it out. On riddle scales, it's not even up there with the standard of Batman's nemesis, now is it?

Brailsford's set-up with Tour Racing Limited looks like any standard IR35 arrangement.

IR35 is not illegal. Given Brailsford's other income - publishing royalties (he never did deliver the book, though), appearance fees, interview fees (if what some have said about charging for interviews is correct), whatever - the arrangement may even have been suitable.

However. Things change.

The policing of IR35 is changing, as Revenue's recent win shows. The liability arising is also changing: heretofore, the employee - through the company they created - was held liable if Revenue successfully cried foul on an IR35 arrangement. That responsibility is shifting more and more toward the employer.

Brailsford's relationship with Tour Racing Limited may have changed - to explain with pure speculation, he could have a more restrictive contract, Tour Racing Limited may have more control over his activities outside the team, the sort of control that would make Revenue sit up and say he's an employee.

Or, for that matter, someone could simply be sitting up and saying that the relationship was always dodge and they'd better get ahead of Revenue on this. We don't know.

And then there's the Sky sale. We don't know what's happening there, whether Tour Racing Limited is going to be part of the deal with Disney or whether Tour Racing Limited is going to have to have a change in ownership. Whichever it is, though, the deal could be seen as offering incentive / an opportunity to reassess Brailsford's relationship with the team and 'regularise' everything, just in case.

There is zero evidence Brailsford has been subject to a Revenue audit and found liable for unpaid taxes. That's important. Zero evidence. Revenue still publish the names of people they punish. Is Brailsford's name on any of these lists? I realise that, for some, this sort of wishful thinking is what drives them, the belief that despite their own impotence in the matter, others will 'get' him. But it's still utter nonsense.

As are the claims of off-shoring. This is just an attempt to demonise, dehumanise the man. We don't like him, so we make a monster of him. But what sort of monster is that, anyway? What would Frankenstein, Dracula, the Mummy have been like if all they did was managed their tax affairs in a legally efficient fashion?

What are the real moral objections to Brailsford managing his tax affairs in a legally efficient fashion?


That he made his name and his fortune on the back of UK Sport funding? But that doesn't come from taxation, not proper taxation. That comes from the Stupidity Tax, Lottery funding. Maybe some people think that anyone in receipt of Lottery funding should have to actually buy Lottery tickets, put something back for what they've taken out, I don't know. I'd love to see how that idiot's colleagues in the idiotic newspaper would report that.

Has Brailsford ever spoken out and called on others to pay their fair share of taxes, not just the legal minimum? Has Brailsford ever called for Government to spend tax money on cycling in the way that that other noted tax dodger Chris Boardman has? I don't recall him doing it.

So the moral problem is the same moral problem we have with everyone who manages their tax affairs in a legally efficient manner. Which is almost every professional cyclist out there. And an awful lot of people in the world beyond cycling.

Moral objections?! Brailsfraud has been out there with his ethical schtick for a while now. Did you miss that? And the thing about being moralistic is you can't cherry pick

But at least the debate ha moved on. No point denying this is all about Brailsfraud's dodgy tax affairs. Kool Aid and the Gang's BS about him splitting up with his partner is dust now

 

[TheSpud]

Re:

Reports in today's Sunday papers that Wayne Rooney is furious at being hit with a £5m tax bill after a film finance tax "avoidance" scheme he invested in was ruled to be tax "evasion"

See here for an explainer on film finance schemes (it's a BBC article so those who thought they were too important to pay tax are, for balance, allowed to bleat about how unfair it all now is ):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39080743

And there are loads of high net worth individuals (sports stars, celebs, etc) being hit now HMRC has called their bluff (there's a narrow circle of celeb advisers who push these scams)

So is Brailsfraud now digging round the sofa for £5m in loose change (or having to liquidate his Minnesota nest egg) because he pumped his Team Sky "consultancy fees" into a film finance scheme? The timing in uncanny eh...

1. The company being liquidated is NOT a Minnesota based company. It is registered in the UK, owned by 2 UK based individuals who are also Directors. The fact it owes UK Corp Tax shows that it is domiciled in the UK.

2. You have no idea what he did with his consultancy fees. We dont know how much the company earned in that time as it only produces small co accounts. I would summise it is at least £5m given that is what is left in the company.

3. If he really wanted to avoid Tax on the money in there he would be better to (a) start to domicile the company abroad (which can be done), then domicile himself abroad in a low tax area (which Minnesota isnt) - Isle of Man / Jersey / Guernsey would be better. Then pay out all the money in dividends / salary and pay little / no income tax.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

And the thing about being moralistic is you can't cherry pick

Well no one would ever accuse you of cherry picking. But by God do you quote selectively. For someone who wants to hold Brailsford to such high standards, that seems ... off.

 

[rick james]

Cycling and tax experts don’t mix

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Wow this has become a Kool Aid and the Gang convention fighting over whether tax evasion or SDB's high moral standards should be put on a higher moral pedestal

Useful though if you're trying to identify fanboys in the top tax bracket

"I am a director of blah blah blah"

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Wow this has become a Kool Aid and the Gang convention fighting over whether tax evasion or SDB's high moral standards should be put on a higher moral pedestal

Useful though if you're trying to identify fanboys in the top tax bracket

"I am a director of blah blah blah"

Could we please move beyond the schoolyard name-calling and saying that someone you disagree with is a fanboy?

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re:

Wow this has become a Kool Aid and the Gang convention fighting over whether tax evasion or SDB's high moral standards should be put on a higher moral pedestal

Useful though if you're trying to identify fanboys in the top tax bracket

"I am a director of blah blah blah"

Classic

 

[wansteadimp]

The Christa Ackroyd case probably shows the writing is on the wall for companies playing fast and loose with the IR35 rules. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of people reviewed their contractor status, may be what SDB is doing?

The liquidation means he can get the money out of the company paying 10% CGT (assuming he hasn't used his entrepreneurs' relief already).

 

[Robert5091]

What would Frankenstein, Dracula, the Mummy have been like if all they did was managed their tax affairs in a legally efficient fashion?

Monsters! Pretty boring monsters though ... :lol:

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

What would Frankenstein, Dracula, the Mummy have been like if all they did was managed their tax affairs in a legally efficient fashion?

Monsters! Pretty boring monsters though ... :lol:

And imagine what Van Helsing would be like if he was an accountant...

 

[samhocking]

Re:

The Christa Ackroyd case probably shows the writing is on the wall for companies playing fast and loose with the IR35 rules. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of people reviewed their contractor status, may be what SDB is doing?

The liquidation means he can get the money out of the company paying 10% CGT (assuming he hasn't used his entrepreneurs' relief already).

I think the point is, even if HMRC was forcing Tour Racing ltd to put him on payroll and even if HMRC was forcing Brailsford Ltd to pay more tax than he's clearly already doing, none of that means you have to liquidate your company. HMRC are not closing BBC down or suspending Ackroyds company, they will simply want to see changes and payments of any owing tax. Brailsford doesn't need to and wont be asked to liquidate his company to do that.

 

[Parker]

Look people. Brailsford has reorganised his standard employment terms, possibly due to new legislation. Possibly due to something else.

However, one person who clearly thinks anything and everything Sky related is a scandal decided this was some sort of offshore tax dodge - with nothing to support this. Pointing out that the company is based in Cardiff was enough to disprove this. So stop engaging his delusions. It just gives his nonsense credibility.

If someone comes up with some nonsense theory and calls people 'fanboys' or 'Kool-aid drinkers' just ignore the idiot.

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

I really don't get why people are getting so bothered about this. Some idiot in an idiotic newspaper writes a headline calling the damned thing a riddle and people here go nuts trying to figure it out. On riddle scales, it's not even up there with the standard of Batman's nemesis, now is it?

Brailsford's set-up with Tour Racing Limited looks like any standard IR35 arrangement.

IR35 is not illegal. Given Brailsford's other income - publishing royalties (he never did deliver the book, though), appearance fees, interview fees (if what some have said about charging for interviews is correct), whatever - the arrangement may even have been suitable.

However. Things change.

The policing of IR35 is changing, as Revenue's recent win shows. The liability arising is also changing: heretofore, the employee - through the company they created - was held liable if Revenue successfully cried foul on an IR35 arrangement. That responsibility is shifting more and more toward the employer.

Brailsford's relationship with Tour Racing Limited may have changed - to explain with pure speculation, he could have a more restrictive contract, Tour Racing Limited may have more control over his activities outside the team, the sort of control that would make Revenue sit up and say he's an employee.

Or, for that matter, someone could simply be sitting up and saying that the relationship was always dodge and they'd better get ahead of Revenue on this. We don't know.

And then there's the Sky sale. We don't know what's happening there, whether Tour Racing Limited is going to be part of the deal with Disney or whether Tour Racing Limited is going to have to have a change in ownership. Whichever it is, though, the deal could be seen as offering incentive / an opportunity to reassess Brailsford's relationship with the team and 'regularise' everything, just in case.

There is zero evidence Brailsford has been subject to a Revenue audit and found liable for unpaid taxes. That's important. Zero evidence. Revenue still publish the names of people they punish. Is Brailsford's name on any of these lists? I realise that, for some, this sort of wishful thinking is what drives them, the belief that despite their own impotence in the matter, others will 'get' him. But it's still utter nonsense.

As are the claims of off-shoring. This is just an attempt to demonise, dehumanise the man. We don't like him, so we make a monster of him. But what sort of monster is that, anyway? What would Frankenstein, Dracula, the Mummy have been like if all they did was managed their tax affairs in a legally efficient fashion?

What are the real moral objections to Brailsford managing his tax affairs in a legally efficient fashion?

That he made his name and his fortune on the back of UK Sport funding? But that doesn't come from taxation, not proper taxation. That comes from the Stupidity Tax, Lottery funding. Maybe some people think that anyone in receipt of Lottery funding should have to actually buy Lottery tickets, put something back for what they've taken out, I don't know. I'd love to see how that idiot's colleagues in the idiotic newspaper would report that.

Has Brailsford ever spoken out and called on others to pay their fair share of taxes, not just the legal minimum? Has Brailsford ever called for Government to spend tax money on cycling in the way that that other noted tax dodger Chris Boardman has? I don't recall him doing it.

So the moral problem is the same moral problem we have with everyone who manages their tax affairs in a legally efficient manner. Which is almost every professional cyclist out there. And an awful lot of people in the world beyond cycling.

Ask Radio Raheem. He knows the real story.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

I really don't get why people are getting so bothered about this. Some idiot in an idiotic newspaper writes a headline calling the damned thing a riddle and people here go nuts trying to figure it out. On riddle scales, it's not even up there with the standard of Batman's nemesis, now is it?

Brailsford's set-up with Tour Racing Limited looks like any standard IR35 arrangement.

IR35 is not illegal. Given Brailsford's other income - publishing royalties (he never did deliver the book, though), appearance fees, interview fees (if what some have said about charging for interviews is correct), whatever - the arrangement may even have been suitable.

However. Things change.

The policing of IR35 is changing, as Revenue's recent win shows. The liability arising is also changing: heretofore, the employee - through the company they created - was held liable if Revenue successfully cried foul on an IR35 arrangement. That responsibility is shifting more and more toward the employer.

Brailsford's relationship with Tour Racing Limited may have changed - to explain with pure speculation, he could have a more restrictive contract, Tour Racing Limited may have more control over his activities outside the team, the sort of control that would make Revenue sit up and say he's an employee.

Or, for that matter, someone could simply be sitting up and saying that the relationship was always dodge and they'd better get ahead of Revenue on this. We don't know.

And then there's the Sky sale. We don't know what's happening there, whether Tour Racing Limited is going to be part of the deal with Disney or whether Tour Racing Limited is going to have to have a change in ownership. Whichever it is, though, the deal could be seen as offering incentive / an opportunity to reassess Brailsford's relationship with the team and 'regularise' everything, just in case.

There is zero evidence Brailsford has been subject to a Revenue audit and found liable for unpaid taxes. That's important. Zero evidence. Revenue still publish the names of people they punish. Is Brailsford's name on any of these lists? I realise that, for some, this sort of wishful thinking is what drives them, the belief that despite their own impotence in the matter, others will 'get' him. But it's still utter nonsense.

As are the claims of off-shoring. This is just an attempt to demonise, dehumanise the man. We don't like him, so we make a monster of him. But what sort of monster is that, anyway? What would Frankenstein, Dracula, the Mummy have been like if all they did was managed their tax affairs in a legally efficient fashion?

What are the real moral objections to Brailsford managing his tax affairs in a legally efficient fashion?


That he made his name and his fortune on the back of UK Sport funding? But that doesn't come from taxation, not proper taxation. That comes from the Stupidity Tax, Lottery funding. Maybe some people think that anyone in receipt of Lottery funding should have to actually buy Lottery tickets, put something back for what they've taken out, I don't know. I'd love to see how that idiot's colleagues in the idiotic newspaper would report that.

Has Brailsford ever spoken out and called on others to pay their fair share of taxes, not just the legal minimum? Has Brailsford ever called for Government to spend tax money on cycling in the way that that other noted tax dodger Chris Boardman has? I don't recall him doing it.

So the moral problem is the same moral problem we have with everyone who manages their tax affairs in a legally efficient manner. Which is almost every professional cyclist out there. And an awful lot of people in the world beyond cycling.

Moral objections?! Brailsfraud has been out there with his ethical schtick for a while now. Did you miss that? And the thing about being moralistic is you can't cherry pick

But at least the debate ha moved on. No point denying this is all about Brailsfraud's dodgy tax affairs. Kool Aid and the Gang's BS about him splitting up with his partner is dust now

We all drink some form of "Kool Aid" ... (if that's the TOR to which you currently have an adhesion, ntm ..."Fanboy")... and yours is no better than ours, really.

It appears that you have consumed your fair share. KJV: Matthew 19: 23-24 ... or is it Mao's LRB ... dealing with Zou zipai.

That you bring these grand premises to bear on professional cycling ... communicates an issue you have with power, property and wealth distribution ... not sport. Perhaps there's another thread for that.

Seems a bit rich and over qualified for crank arms and derailleurs. Having said that, seems that your knowledge base is somewhat parochial for bona fide class warfare. Best stay 'local' before you attempt 'international.'

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

..if I were 'genius'...would I be as loaded as SDB?

Mark L

The Politics of Envy pentecostals ... right on cue ... snake handlers 'n all. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

I think the point is, even if HMRC was forcing Tour Racing ltd to put him on payroll and even if HMRC was forcing Brailsford Ltd to pay more tax than he's clearly already doing, none of that means you have to liquidate your company. HMRC are not closing BBC down or suspending Ackroyds company, they will simply want to see changes and payments of any owing tax. Brailsford doesn't need to and wont be asked to liquidate his company to do that.

I think the point is there's only one person saying anyone's been forced to do anything and that person has also offered fictitious off-shoring arrangements, imaginary judgements against Brailsford and hallucinatory investments in film schemes. The rest, as I read it, are simply noting that the IR35 situation is changing. So no one is really saying Revenue is forcing Brailsford to do this. Circumstances are encouraging him, that's all that's being said.

There is a perfectly practical - and perfectly legal - reason to shutter the company: while it doesn't quite draw a line under it, it does erect a fence around the issue of IR35 liability, acting as a deterrent.

We have established - by the absence of Brailsford's name from Revenue's list of punishments - that no judgement has been rendered against him. If there was an open investigation, Revenue would object to the dissolution. Revenue could also object were they to have reason to believe they should open a case. (They have, IIRC, until May to do this.) So, we're fairly clear (or will be in a couple of months), that all is legit, or currently being seen as being legit.

Were Revenue, a year, two years down the road, to receive new information that encouraged them to pursue an IR35 case, they could - in the absence of the service company - go against Brailsford personally, the law specifically allows them to do this. To do it, however, first Revenue would have to be confident of winning the IR35 case. Then Revenue would have to be confident of being able to prove that Brailsford knew that he had had a dodgy IR35 situation. Neither is an easy win, especially the second.

So, as I said, dissolution doesn't draw a line under the matter, say 'end of', but it does act as a bloody good deterrent. A practical and perfectly legal one.

Even more of a deterrent is that Brailsford has now 'regularised' his employment status.

So, one more time: nothing necessarily illegal. Morally questionable? That's really only an issue to those silly enough to believe the man should be a paragon of moral virtue.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

I think the point is, even if HMRC was forcing Tour Racing ltd to put him on payroll and even if HMRC was forcing Brailsford Ltd to pay more tax than he's clearly already doing, none of that means you have to liquidate your company. HMRC are not closing BBC down or suspending Ackroyds company, they will simply want to see changes and payments of any owing tax. Brailsford doesn't need to and wont be asked to liquidate his company to do that.

I think the point is there's only one person saying anyone's been forced to do anything and that person has also offered fictitious off-shoring arrangements, imaginary judgements against Brailsford and hallucinatory investments in film schemes. The rest, as I read it, are simply noting that the IR35 situation is changing. So no one is really saying Revenue is forcing Brailsford to do this. Circumstances are encouraging him, that's all that's being said.

There is a perfectly practical - and perfectly legal - reason to shutter the company: while it doesn't quite draw a line under it, it does erect a fence around the issue of IR35 liability, acting as a deterrent.

We have established - by the absence of Brailsford's name from Revenue's list of punishments - that no judgement has been rendered against him. If there was an open investigation, Revenue would object to the dissolution. Revenue could also object were they to have reason to believe they should open a case. (They have, IIRC, until May to do this.) So, we're fairly clear (or will be in a couple of months), that all is legit, or currently being seen as being legit.

Were Revenue, a year, two years down the road, to receive new information that encouraged them to pursue an IR35 case, they could - in the absence of the service company - go against Brailsford personally, the law specifically allows them to do this. To do it, however, first Revenue would have to be confident of winning the IR35 case. Then Revenue would have to be confident of being able to prove that Brailsford knew that he had had a dodgy IR35 situation. Neither is an easy win, especially the second.

So, as I said, dissolution doesn't draw a line under the matter, say 'end of', but it does act as a bloody good deterrent. A practical and perfectly legal one.

Even more of a deterrent is that Brailsford has now 'regularised' his employment status.

So, one more time: nothing necessarily illegal. Morally questionable? That's really only an issue to those silly enough to believe the man should be a paragon of moral virtue

A tax expect who thinks ethical considerations are irrelevant. Whoda thunk it!

Brailsfraud started Team Sky with all that ethical BS about winning clean, Brit doctors un-tainted by the continental racing scene, blah, blah. He put himself on the "paragon of moral virtue" pedestal. And lapped up the adulation. Because some people were stupid enough to believe him. They drank the Kool Aid

So whether Brailsfraud's tax arrangements are ethical is absolutely a subject of interest. Just as whether his team's medical practices are ethical is a subject of interest. He put the ethics issue out there. Reap what you sow

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

A tax expect who thinks ethical considerations are irrelevant. Whoda thunk it!

Brailsfraud started Team Sky with all that ethical BS about winning clean, Brit doctors un-tainted by the continental racing scene, blah, blah. He put himself on the "paragon of moral virtue" pedestal. And lapped up the adulation. Because some people were stupid enough to believe him. They drank the Kool Aid

So whether Brailsfraud's tax arrangements are ethical is absolutely a subject of interest. Just as whether his team's medical practices are ethical is a subject of interest. He put the ethics issue out there. Reap what you sow

I'll do you a deal Wiggo's Package: the day you apply to yourself the standards you wish to judge others by, then I'll accept you have a point. Until then, you're walking talking proof that you don't.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

A tax expect who thinks ethical considerations are irrelevant. Whoda thunk it!

Brailsfraud started Team Sky with all that ethical BS about winning clean, Brit doctors un-tainted by the continental racing scene, blah, blah. He put himself on the "paragon of moral virtue" pedestal. And lapped up the adulation. Because some people were stupid enough to believe him. They drank the Kool Aid

So whether Brailsfraud's tax arrangements are ethical is absolutely a subject of interest. Just as whether his team's medical practices are ethical is a subject of interest. He put the ethics issue out there. Reap what you sow

I'll do you a deal Wiggo's Package: the day you apply to yourself the standards you wish to judge others by, then I'll accept you have a point. Until then, you're walking talking proof that you don't.

This is what happens when a tax expert gets involved in an ethical discussion. Contradictory nonsense. A logical mobius strip eating its own tail :razz:

At least your "ethics are silly" comment was on its own logically coherent (whilst also being ethically dubious - that mobius strip thing again). But now you've undermined your own argument by trying to take the ethical high ground

Are ethics silly or not? Time to make your mind up, dude

 

[Wiggo's Package]

So Sky have been caught lying about a PED

Any Kool Aid and the Gang members fancy another chat about ethics?

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

So Sky have been caught lying about a PED

Any Kool Aid and the Gang members fancy another chat about ethics?

Lookin down the wrong end of the cannon, WP. And looking for ethics in all the wrong places. Pro Sport’s got you between a rock and a hard place. Your move.

 

[yaco]

Yet again The Clinic let's British Cycling get off scott free.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

So Sky have been caught lying about a PED

Any Kool Aid and the Gang members fancy another chat about ethics?

Lookin down the wrong end of the cannon, WP. And looking for ethics in all the wrong places. Pro Sport’s got you between a rock and a hard place. Your move.

It's true, who would look for ethics in pro sport. Except that Sky put it at the center if their brand, made it their reason for existence. Those with brains laughed. Some lapped it up. So I would reserve these kind of comments for those who Bought the Sky brand, not those pointing out the foolishness of such beliefs.

More goal post moving.