Dave Brailsford - cycling genius

[red_flanders]

Re:

indeed goal posts move,,,,,,sky made bold claims..................when they were a little off the pace

wins came and team sky spoke less about the winning clean bit....................................

Mark L

Some powerful revisionism there my friend.

 

[TheSpud]

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

Being employed through a service company is not unethical at all - there are thousands of people employed that way in the UK.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

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.

This

If Brailsfraud hadn't played the ethical card in the first place he wouldn't be getting this level of ethical heat now

Simples

 

[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

Being employed through a service company is not unethical at all - there are thousands of people employed that way in the UK.

A Kool Aid and the Gang member with a tin ear for ethics - quel surprise, Rodney

Now perhaps there are situations where consultancy/service company arrangements hold all concerned (including third parties like the exchequer) harmless - but I'm struggling to think of one

On the other hand, if the whole or part of the reason why a consultancy/service company arrangement is put in place is to dodge tax or employment rights obligations (the usual suspects) - then that's an ethical decision

 

[Alpe73]

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.

Any athlete, team, sponsor, organization or fan ... who has broken the rules, the law, etc. ... should be held to account by the relevant authorities.

There's been plenty of that. If you'd like more ... contact your local authority and demand more justice.

However, it appears ... so far ... that you do not trust the relevant authorities ... those examining the reams of real evidence ... to do their job. It appears ... that you'd prefer to stick with your (what shall we call it? ... "a REAL FAN's") own 'sense' of the evidence and justice ... to try and convict teams, athletes ... and even ... their wives.

However, it further appears ... that you're not really bothered too much about a bit of doping. You're more perturbed by your instrinic feeling ... that some professional sports team has defrauded you ... and owes you ??? ... an apology? ... a collapse upon a sword ... an assuming of the submissive posture?

"foolishness of such beliefs" Bingo! Own your belief system, RF. Fobbing it off on others is very unattractive.

For your part, RF. Do you assume any complicity for your disillusionment with pro cycling, Team Sky, etc. Have you reconciled with your voluntary assumption of risk?

Honest question, RF. What do you want?

 

[Robert5091]

So, is SDB booked for all the Monday Breakfast TV shows?

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re:

So, is SDB booked for all the Monday Breakfast TV shows?

The usual soft interview with Sky Sports News only for some reason

 

[TheSpud]

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

Being employed through a service company is not unethical at all - there are thousands of people employed that way in the UK.

A Kool Aid and the Gang member with a tin ear for ethics - quel surprise, Rodney

Now perhaps there are situations where consultancy/service company arrangements hold all concerned (including third parties like the exchequer) harmless - but I'm struggling to think of one

On the other hand, if the whole or part of the reason why a consultancy/service company arrangement is put in place is to dodge tax or employment rights obligations (the usual suspects) - then that's an ethical decision

When you start hurling insults, you've lost ...

 

[Robert5091]

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/366/36602.htm

Team Sky’s statements that coaches and team managers are largely unaware of the methods used by the medical staff to prepare pro-cyclists for major races seem incredible, and inconsistent with their original aim of “winning clean”, and maintaining the highest ethical standards within their sport. How can David Brailsford ensure that his team is performing to his requirements, if he does not know and cannot tell, what drugs the doctors are giving the riders? David Brailsford must take responsibility for these failures, the regime under which Team Sky riders trained and competed and the damaging scepticism about the legitimacy of his team’s performance and accomplishments.

110.From the evidence that has been received by the Committee regarding the use of triamcinolone at Team Sky during the period under investigation, and particularly in 2012, we believe that this powerful corticosteroid was being used to prepare Bradley Wiggins, and possibly other riders supporting him, for the Tour de France. The purpose of this was not to treat medical need, but to improve his power to weight ratio ahead of the race. The application for the TUE for the triamcinolone for Bradley Wiggins, ahead of the 2012 Tour de France, also meant that he benefited from the performance enhancing properties of this drug during the race. This does not constitute a violation of the WADA code, but it does cross the ethical line that David Brailsford says he himself drew for Team Sky. In this case, and contrary to the testimony of David Brailsford in front of the Committee, we believe that drugs were being used by Team Sky, within the WADA rules, to enhance the performance of riders, and not just to treat medical need.

Ouch!

 

[doolols]

Ah, it's the old "we broke no rules" defence.

 

[pastronef]

Re:

Ah, it's the old "we broke no rules" defence.

well, they say it even before DB can say it. -within the wada rules- - this does not constitute a violation of the wada code-

The application for the TUE for the triamcinolone for Wiggins, ahead of the 2012 TDF, also meant that he benefited from the performance enhancing properties of this drug during the race. This does not constitute a violation of the WADA code, but it does cross the ethical line that DB says he himself drew for Sky. In this case, and contrary to the testimony of DB in front of the Committee, we believe that drugs were being used by Sky, within the WADA rules, to enhance the performance of riders and not just to treat medical need.

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

Ah, it's the old "we broke no rules" defence.

well, they say it even before DB can say it. -within the wada rules- - this does not constitute a violation of the wada code-

The application for the TUE for the triamcinolone for Wiggins, ahead of the 2012 TDF, also meant that he benefited from the performance enhancing properties of this drug during the race. This does not constitute a violation of the WADA code, but it does cross the ethical line that DB says he himself drew for Sky. In this case, and contrary to the testimony of DB in front of the Committee, we believe that drugs were being used by Sky, within the WADA rules, to enhance the performance of riders and not just to treat medical need.

Yep, we'll just keep moving those goalposts.

 

[Sciatic]

Maybe someone can say more about this, but I thought that regardless of the fact that the use of the drug with a TUE makes it "legal"- that knowingless using any medicine (legal or not) for performance-enhancing purposes is a violation?
Thanks

 

[Merckx index]

Maybe someone can say more about this, but I thought that regardless of the fact that the use of the drug with a TUE makes it "legal"- that knowingly using any medicine (legal or not) for performance-enhancing purposes is a violation?
Thanks

It’s a good question. According to the WADA Code 4.3.1, a substance has to meet two of three criteria to be on the prohibited list:
1) performance-enhancing
2) health risk
3) violates spirit of the sport

Corticosteroids are on the list in the first place because they satisfy 1) and 3). The granting of a TUE for a prohibited substance implies that it will be used in a way that doesn’t fit the criteria. But if Sky used corticosteroids for weight loss, rather than medical reasons, then it seems as though in effect the criteria are satisfied.

Also. Article 2.5 of the Code, which defines tampering (which is a doping violation), includes “providing fraudulent information to an Anti-Doping Organization”. It seems to me that if a TUE were applied for on the basis of medical need, but was actually used to gain access to a drug used for PE, that would fit the definition of tampering. It says right on the TUE form what the drug is supposed to be used for.

 

[gillan1969]

Maybe someone can say more about this, but I thought that regardless of the fact that the use of the drug with a TUE makes it "legal"- that knowingly using any medicine (legal or not) for performance-enhancing purposes is a violation?
Thanks

It’s a good question. According to the WADA Code 4.3.1, a substance has to meet two of three criteria to be on the prohibited list:
1) performance-enhancing
2) health risk
3) violates spirit of the sport

Corticosteroids are on the list in the first place because they satisfy 1) and 3). The granting of a TUE for a prohibited substance implies that it will be used in a way that doesn’t fit the criteria. But if Sky used corticosteroids for weight loss, rather than medical reasons, then it seems as though in effect the criteria are satisfied.

Also. Article 2.5 of the Code, which defines tampering (which is a doping violation), includes “providing fraudulent information to an Anti-Doping Organization”. It seems to me that if a TUE were applied for on the basis of medical need, but was actually used to gain access to a drug used for PE, that would fit the definition of tampering. It says right on the TUE form what the drug is supposed to be used for.

Probably a good time to ask a legitimate question the answer to which we still await (from '13)......

"To illustrate the point, Paul Kimmage asked Brailsford precisely how Peter Kennaugh had managed - by his own admission - to lose five kilograms since he lined up at the Tour de Romandie in late April.

"Through calorie deficit," Brailsford said bluntly, before then expanding slightly on his answer. "Why not speak to Nigel our nutritionist? It's a good question to ask. That is a lot of weight to lose and I totally agree with you. What do we do to get to that kind of weight loss? They're the types of questions that would be legitimate to answer. I don't think there's any great secret in that." "

 

[The Hitch]

Maybe someone can say more about this, but I thought that regardless of the fact that the use of the drug with a TUE makes it "legal"- that knowingly using any medicine (legal or not) for performance-enhancing purposes is a violation?
Thanks

It’s a good question. According to the WADA Code 4.3.1, a substance has to meet two of three criteria to be on the prohibited list:
1) performance-enhancing
2) health risk
3) violates spirit of the sport

Corticosteroids are on the list in the first place because they satisfy 1) and 3). The granting of a TUE for a prohibited substance implies that it will be used in a way that doesn’t fit the criteria. But if Sky used corticosteroids for weight loss, rather than medical reasons, then it seems as though in effect the criteria are satisfied.

Also. Article 2.5 of the Code, which defines tampering (which is a doping violation), includes “providing fraudulent information to an Anti-Doping Organization”. It seems to me that if a TUE were applied for on the basis of medical need, but was actually used to gain access to a drug used for PE, that would fit the definition of tampering. It says right on the TUE form what the drug is supposed to be used for.

Probably a good time to ask a legitimate question the answer to which we still await (from '13)......

"To illustrate the point, Paul Kimmage asked Brailsford precisely how Peter Kennaugh had managed - by his own admission - to lose five kilograms since he lined up at the Tour de Romandie in late April.

"Through calorie deficit," Brailsford said bluntly, before then expanding slightly on his answer. "Why not speak to Nigel our nutritionist? It's a good question to ask. That is a lot of weight to lose and I totally agree with you. What do we do to get to that kind of weight loss? They're the types of questions that would be legitimate to answer. I don't think there's any great secret in that." "

Kimmage let him get away with that?

 

[rick james]

Maybe someone can say more about this, but I thought that regardless of the fact that the use of the drug with a TUE makes it "legal"- that knowingly using any medicine (legal or not) for performance-enhancing purposes is a violation?
Thanks

It’s a good question. According to the WADA Code 4.3.1, a substance has to meet two of three criteria to be on the prohibited list:
1) performance-enhancing
2) health risk
3) violates spirit of the sport

Corticosteroids are on the list in the first place because they satisfy 1) and 3). The granting of a TUE for a prohibited substance implies that it will be used in a way that doesn’t fit the criteria. But if Sky used corticosteroids for weight loss, rather than medical reasons, then it seems as though in effect the criteria are satisfied.

Also. Article 2.5 of the Code, which defines tampering (which is a doping violation), includes “providing fraudulent information to an Anti-Doping Organization”. It seems to me that if a TUE were applied for on the basis of medical need, but was actually used to gain access to a drug used for PE, that would fit the definition of tampering. It says right on the TUE form what the drug is supposed to be used for.

Probably a good time to ask a legitimate question the answer to which we still await (from '13)......

"To illustrate the point, Paul Kimmage asked Brailsford precisely how Peter Kennaugh had managed - by his own admission - to lose five kilograms since he lined up at the Tour de Romandie in late April.

"Through calorie deficit," Brailsford said bluntly, before then expanding slightly on his answer. "Why not speak to Nigel our nutritionist? It's a good question to ask. That is a lot of weight to lose and I totally agree with you. What do we do to get to that kind of weight loss? They're the types of questions that would be legitimate to answer. I don't think there's any great secret in that." "

Kimmage let him get away with that?

Doubt it, Kimmage likes the sound of his own voice to much to let that go

 

[Jagartrott]

Dead man walking.

 

[ontheroad]

In a bizarre sort of manner, you have to admire how Brailsford has still survived until now. He is like the Teflon man employing deflection and spoofing as his main tactics. If he can manage to make it to France in July he will have a neck made of brass.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

In a bizarre sort of manner, you have to admire how Brailsford has still survived until now. He is like the Teflon man employing deflection and spoofing as his main tactics. If he can manage to make it to France in July he will have a neck made of brass.

People with no morals often survive longer because they are willing to go further to defend the lie

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

In a bizarre sort of manner, you have to admire how Brailsford has still survived until now. He is like the Teflon man employing deflection and spoofing as his main tactics. If he can manage to make it to France in July he will have a neck made of brass.

People with no morals often survive longer because they are willing to go further to defend the lie

Hmmmm. Thought it was the fish, choy sum and British Public Health system. But the Hitch confirms that it's the immorality pushin them to their mid 80s down in ole Hong Kong. :surprised:

 

[fmk_RoI]

I love - LOVE! - that the Clinic is now dealing with topics like morality and ethics. Talk about Zeno's paradoxes...

 

[hrotha]

I don't see Brailsford as a Teflon man. Sounds to me like he might be going down the moment the first serious allegation popped up because he put up a hilariously bad defense.

 

[fmk_RoI]

To those who believe Brailsford is a 'dead man walking', that Brailsford is 'going down' ... may I ask just who you think is going to pull the trigger and put him out of our misery?

Is it going to be the Murdochs? The same Murdochs who sent Rebekah Brooks off on a very expensive gap year and then took her back into the fold on an even more generous new salary?

Is it going to be Disney, who did *** all about Harvey Weinstein when they owned Miramax?

Maybe it'll be Comcast, if their takeover of Sky goes ahead? Comcast, the owners of NBC, who nixed Ronan Farrow's Weinstein exposé?

Just who do you expect to actually turn off the life support machine here, people? Are you expecting Travis Tygart to come charging in on his white horse just like Richard Gere at the end of Pretty Woman?

 

[TourOfSardinia]