• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Dave Brailsford - cycling genius

Page 78 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

samhocking said:
Just discussing what Jeremy Whittle reported Hog. You can make your own mind up from the Time trials and tour tribulations podcast. He doesn't say what teams, just that he asked several team managers. Must you attack every post with the presumption you do and turn it into personal attack? Why not debate why what Jeremy Whittle said can't be correct perhaps?

Sure and the British Cycling media have done such a fine job reporting cycling and Sky and all the team managers love SDB even though he was prepared to throw them under a bus to avoid the Jiffy bag story :cool:

Next up you’ll be telling us David Walsh is impartial :p
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
@nighttrain99

Not sure about 'fair analysis'.....but interesting

Probably hard to believe looking back now; I don't hate them like many people do, but i've never really considered myself a Sky supporter, certainly not to the point that i'm rooting for them to win races. I stopped worshipping sports stars many years ago, but there's a long list of riders who i enjoy watching ahead of Froome....but i'll certainly put my hands up to being a Froome sympathiser now, the Clinic has made me that way.

See, whilst there's some solid circumstantial evidence and theories that point towards the probability that he's at it big style, there's also masses of BS piled on top of the plausible stuff that i enjoy challenging and debating.

No one pays me to come on here (honest!) When there's no real investment in the outcome, i find it much more interesting and stimulating to be the underdog in a debate, rather than just wallowing in the glow of group consensus. Debating on behalf of Froome in this particular forum certainly puts me in the position of underdog.I like that.

PS. i prefer Brownbobby.....Bobby Browne just doesnt have the same meaning for me ;)

I apologize for the error, Brownbobby. It was unintentional and not meant to be a slight.
 
Re: Re:

Nighttrain99 said:
brownbobby said:
@nighttrain99

Not sure about 'fair analysis'.....but interesting

Probably hard to believe looking back now; I don't hate them like many people do, but i've never really considered myself a Sky supporter, certainly not to the point that i'm rooting for them to win races. I stopped worshipping sports stars many years ago, but there's a long list of riders who i enjoy watching ahead of Froome....but i'll certainly put my hands up to being a Froome sympathiser now, the Clinic has made me that way.

See, whilst there's some solid circumstantial evidence and theories that point towards the probability that he's at it big style, there's also masses of BS piled on top of the plausible stuff that i enjoy challenging and debating.

No one pays me to come on here (honest!) When there's no real investment in the outcome, i find it much more interesting and stimulating to be the underdog in a debate, rather than just wallowing in the glow of group consensus. Debating on behalf of Froome in this particular forum certainly puts me in the position of underdog.I like that.

PS. i prefer Brownbobby.....Bobby Browne just doesnt have the same meaning for me ;)

I apologize for the error, Brownbobby. It was unintentional and not meant to be a slight.

Ha ha...no offence taken. Until i remembered that Bobby Brown was that rubbish singer from the 80's/90's who corrupted Whitney Houston :lol:
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Mayo from Mayo said:
Check the Frank Zappa song 'Bobby Brown' before you forgive. It's NSFW by the way.

Oh jesus..i just googled the lyrics :redface:

I'm going to give @nighttrain99 the benefit of the doubt and presume/hope that song wasn't in his mind when he rechristened me :eek:
:lol: Just now is the first time I’ve heard the Zappa song. He was quite the lyrical poet, eh? I did not like Bobby Brown’s music either but did enjoy some Rick James tunes.
 
Re: Re:

Nighttrain99:

I'm not going to say directly in the clinic because there's never any balanced discussion, but in terms of Brailsford's anger, consider the following statements all said within context of Froome's exoneration from Lappartient.

Lappartient on Ulissi and Pettachi ADRVs
"I must emphasise that each of the relevant athletes had access to a fair hearing as provided for by the WADA Code and the UCI ADR."

Lappartient on UCI's anti-doping credibility generally:
"Everyone will have the same treatment, for sure. In the UCI there are no exceptions, everyone gets the same treatment," Lappartient insisted.

Lappartient on Froome's exoneration provided for by the WADA Code and the UCI ADR
"If you have more money, you can afford more lawyers and more experts. This can sometimes help you to prove you are not guilty"

That is what Brailsford is angry about and if that's not town mayor bias, what is, regardless of Brailsford's numptyness. Lappartients handing is not impartial and his comments make UCI look weak and complacent and unfocused on what exactly they are meant to be and how Lappartient should rise above personal bias.

Talk about discussions lacking balance. What is in any of those quotes that shows bias, that shows Lappartient is not impartial? Making that claim shows incredible lack of balance on your part.

samhocking said:
And UCI accepted that. As they accepted it, Lappartient can't then claim money bought Froomes innocence while maintaining UCI under Lappartient is credible and requesting fans to 'please still believe in cycling'. That is a copout, especially while maintaining other similar cases were dealt with properly

He didn’t claim money bought Froome’s innocence. Did you read the quote? He said money helped him prove that he was not guilty. Repeat: "help you to prove you are not guilty". Those are his words. How can someone prove he wasn't guilty, with or without money, unless he wasn't guilty? Lappartient in that quote is saying that in his opinion Froome was not guilty, but without money he might not have been able to prove it. What you’re falsely attributing to him is that he said Froome was guilty, but money bought his innocence. Not helped him prove what he actually was, but bought something he might not have been. "Money bought his innocence" is not the same as "money helps you to prove you are not guilty." I have no idea whether you and nighttrain aren't perceptive enough to see the difference, or whether you intentionally twisted the words to make Lappartient look bad, because you have a pre-existing bias that he is bad. Maybe both.
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
Nighttrain99:

I'm not going to say directly in the clinic because there's never any balanced discussion, but in terms of Brailsford's anger, consider the following statements all said within context of Froome's exoneration from Lappartient.

Lappartient on Ulissi and Pettachi ADRVs
"I must emphasise that each of the relevant athletes had access to a fair hearing as provided for by the WADA Code and the UCI ADR."

Lappartient on UCI's anti-doping credibility generally:
"Everyone will have the same treatment, for sure. In the UCI there are no exceptions, everyone gets the same treatment," Lappartient insisted.

Lappartient on Froome's exoneration provided for by the WADA Code and the UCI ADR
"If you have more money, you can afford more lawyers and more experts. This can sometimes help you to prove you are not guilty"

That is what Brailsford is angry about and if that's not town mayor bias, what is, regardless of Brailsford's numptyness. Lappartients handing is not impartial and his comments make UCI look weak and complacent and unfocused on what exactly they are meant to be and how Lappartient should rise above personal bias.

Talk about discussions lacking balance. What is in any of those quotes that shows bias, that shows Lappartient is not impartial? Making that claim shows incredible lack of balance on your part.

samhocking said:
And UCI accepted that. As they accepted it, Lappartient can't then claim money bought Froomes innocence while maintaining UCI under Lappartient is credible and requesting fans to 'please still believe in cycling'. That is a copout, especially while maintaining other similar cases were dealt with properly

He didn’t claim money bought Froome’s innocence. Did you read the quote? He said money helped him prove that he was not guilty. Repeat: "help you to prove you are not guilty". Those are his words. How can someone prove he wasn't guilty, with or without money, unless he wasn't guilty? Lappartient in that quote is saying that in his opinion Froome was not guilty, but without money he might not have been able to prove it. What you’re falsely attributing to him is that he said Froome was guilty, but money bought his innocence. Not helped him prove what he actually was, but bought something he might not have been. "Money bought his innocence" is not the same as "money helps you to prove you are not guilty." I have no idea whether you and nighttrain aren't perceptive enough to see the difference, or whether you intentionally twisted the words to make Lappartient look bad, because you have a pre-existing bias that he is bad. Maybe both.

You post some of the most useful info here. Your perception of anything I’ve offered on this subject is way off, though. I’ve clearly stated my opinion of Brailsford is that of an arrogant man who used a public form to disgrace the president of the UCI. I’ve also said that I enjoy the spectacle of it all to the point of wishing Sky would accept and own their role of villain. Rowe tearing down a banner is another example. I don’t condone his or Brailsford’s actions but as a viewer of sports I can appreciate top shelf bad guy behavior as long as no one cheats or is injured.
 
From Guardian today:

For Team Sky, their safety during the Tour remains a concern, according to Brailsford. “We’ve got young women in the team that come and support the VIPs, and normally they drive around on their own, but I can’t allow that to happen in this race,” he said. “I want to make sure we get this on the agenda so the people with influence, who are mainly the French, can influence things like the crowds.”

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/11/tour-de-france-peter-sagan-wins-stage-five-simmering-team-sky-tension

How to make friends and influence people!
 
Brailsford doing himself proud :cool:

Froome’s team-mate, Luke Rowe, was subsequently identified as the Sky rider involved. Asked immediately afterwards by reporters if he had been the rider concerned, Rowe denied any involvement. “I don’t know what you mean, it wasn’t me,” he said.

“The rider came over, quickly grabbed my placard and threw it down,” French fan, Didier Bregardes from Lorient, said. “I’ve nothing against Froome or the riders, but it’s the way the manager of Sky, Brailsford, dealt with it. It’s insulting what Brailsford said about Lappartient, about him being a mayor of a small town.”
 
If you've gone down the rabbit hole of obsessional fanatical hatred that is common currency in the Clinic, then you won't even be able to put yourself in Brailsford's shoes and consider what he is actually saying at any given moment without thinking that it is part of some nefarious master plan of deceit.
 
Re: Re:

You post some of the most useful info here. Your perception of anything I’ve offered on this subject is way off, though. I’ve clearly stated my opinion of Brailsford is that of an arrogant man who used a public form to disgrace the president of the UCI. I’ve also said that I enjoy the spectacle of it all to the point of wishing Sky would accept and own their role of villain. Rowe tearing down a banner is another example. I don’t condone his or Brailsford’s actions but as a viewer of sports I can appreciate top shelf bad guy behavior as long as no one cheats or is injured.

The confusion may have stemmed from one of your quotations on the previous page - the quotation function made it look like Sam's words were attributed to you. Reading back far enough, one can see it was Sam's words, not yours, but might not be evident to someone not reading back far enough.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
If you've gone down the rabbit hole of obsessional fanatical hatred that is common currency in the Clinic, then you won't even be able to put yourself in Brailsford's shoes and consider what he is actually saying at any given moment without thinking that it is part of some nefarious master plan of deceit.

SDB reaps what he sows...of course, what evidence is there of 'young women' being at risk????

If you can provide some then I might not come to conclusion SDB is inferring they are. Do you think they are and on what basis?
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
macbindle said:
If you've gone down the rabbit hole of obsessional fanatical hatred that is common currency in the Clinic, then you won't even be able to put yourself in Brailsford's shoes and consider what he is actually saying at any given moment without thinking that it is part of some nefarious master plan of deceit.

SDB reaps what he sows...of course, what evidence is there of 'young women' being at risk????

If you can provide some then I might not come to conclusion SDB is inferring they are. Do you think they are and on what basis?

You know very well it would be impossible to find evidence of that from my armchair
 
Re: Re:

Soggy Chamois said:
You post some of the most useful info here. Your perception of anything I’ve offered on this subject is way off, though. I’ve clearly stated my opinion of Brailsford is that of an arrogant man who used a public form to disgrace the president of the UCI. I’ve also said that I enjoy the spectacle of it all to the point of wishing Sky would accept and own their role of villain. Rowe tearing down a banner is another example. I don’t condone his or Brailsford’s actions but as a viewer of sports I can appreciate top shelf bad guy behavior as long as no one cheats or is injured.

The confusion may have stemmed from one of your quotations on the previous page - the quotation function made it look like Sam's words were attributed to you. Reading back far enough, one can see it was Sam's words, not yours, but might not be evident to someone not reading back far enough.

Ah, okay. Thank you.
 
Re: Re:

macbindle said:
gillan1969 said:
macbindle said:
If you've gone down the rabbit hole of obsessional fanatical hatred that is common currency in the Clinic, then you won't even be able to put yourself in Brailsford's shoes and consider what he is actually saying at any given moment without thinking that it is part of some nefarious master plan of deceit.

SDB reaps what he sows...of course, what evidence is there of 'young women' being at risk????

If you can provide some then I might not come to conclusion SDB is inferring they are. Do you think they are and on what basis?

You know very well it would be impossible to find evidence of that from my armchair

to take an SDB term...that would be psuedo-armchair ;)
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
macbindle said:
gillan1969 said:
macbindle said:
If you've gone down the rabbit hole of obsessional fanatical hatred that is common currency in the Clinic, then you won't even be able to put yourself in Brailsford's shoes and consider what he is actually saying at any given moment without thinking that it is part of some nefarious master plan of deceit.

SDB reaps what he sows...of course, what evidence is there of 'young women' being at risk????

If you can provide some then I might not come to conclusion SDB is inferring they are. Do you think they are and on what basis?

You know very well it would be impossible to find evidence of that from my armchair

to take an SDB term...that would be psuedo-armchair ;)
IIRC one-time poster Polish
used have a great hunched in armchair avatar
before he was banned
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
macbindle said:
gillan1969 said:
macbindle said:
If you've gone down the rabbit hole of obsessional fanatical hatred that is common currency in the Clinic, then you won't even be able to put yourself in Brailsford's shoes and consider what he is actually saying at any given moment without thinking that it is part of some nefarious master plan of deceit.

SDB reaps what he sows...of course, what evidence is there of 'young women' being at risk????

If you can provide some then I might not come to conclusion SDB is inferring they are. Do you think they are and on what basis?

You know very well it would be impossible to find evidence of that from my armchair

to take an SDB term...that would be psuedo-armchair ;)

And he'd be right. It's a swivel chair....because, regrettably, I'm at work :sad:
 
Re: Re:

Nighttrain99 said:
Merckx index said:
Nighttrain99:

I'm not going to say directly in the clinic because there's never any balanced discussion, but in terms of Brailsford's anger, consider the following statements all said within context of Froome's exoneration from Lappartient.

Lappartient on Ulissi and Pettachi ADRVs
"I must emphasise that each of the relevant athletes had access to a fair hearing as provided for by the WADA Code and the UCI ADR."

Lappartient on UCI's anti-doping credibility generally:
"Everyone will have the same treatment, for sure. In the UCI there are no exceptions, everyone gets the same treatment," Lappartient insisted.

Lappartient on Froome's exoneration provided for by the WADA Code and the UCI ADR
"If you have more money, you can afford more lawyers and more experts. This can sometimes help you to prove you are not guilty"

That is what Brailsford is angry about and if that's not town mayor bias, what is, regardless of Brailsford's numptyness. Lappartients handing is not impartial and his comments make UCI look weak and complacent and unfocused on what exactly they are meant to be and how Lappartient should rise above personal bias.

Talk about discussions lacking balance. What is in any of those quotes that shows bias, that shows Lappartient is not impartial? Making that claim shows incredible lack of balance on your part.

samhocking said:
And UCI accepted that. As they accepted it, Lappartient can't then claim money bought Froomes innocence while maintaining UCI under Lappartient is credible and requesting fans to 'please still believe in cycling'. That is a copout, especially while maintaining other similar cases were dealt with properly

He didn’t claim money bought Froome’s innocence. Did you read the quote? He said money helped him prove that he was not guilty. Repeat: "help you to prove you are not guilty". Those are his words. How can someone prove he wasn't guilty, with or without money, unless he wasn't guilty? Lappartient in that quote is saying that in his opinion Froome was not guilty, but without money he might not have been able to prove it. What you’re falsely attributing to him is that he said Froome was guilty, but money bought his innocence. Not helped him prove what he actually was, but bought something he might not have been. "Money bought his innocence" is not the same as "money helps you to prove you are not guilty." I have no idea whether you and nighttrain aren't perceptive enough to see the difference, or whether you intentionally twisted the words to make Lappartient look bad, because you have a pre-existing bias that he is bad. Maybe both.

You post some of the most useful info here. Your perception of anything I’ve offered on this subject is way off, though. I’ve clearly stated my opinion of Brailsford is that of an arrogant man who used a public form to disgrace the president of the UCI. I’ve also said that I enjoy the spectacle of it all to the point of wishing Sky would accept and own their role of villain. Rowe tearing down a banner is another example. I don’t condone his or Brailsford’s actions but as a viewer of sports I can appreciate top shelf bad guy behavior as long as no one cheats or is injured.

Lappartient's exact words 'AFTER' Froomes acquittal were:
Everyone will have the same treatment, for sure. In the UCI there are no exceptions, everyone gets the same treatment," Lappartient insisted.

But what is also sure and not only in cycling or sport but also in business and politics, is that if you have more money, you can afford more lawyers and more experts. This can sometimes help you to prove you are not guilty. But the rules from the UCI are the same."

That statement using 'prove not guilty' alongside assuring everyone the UCI are credible and its anti-doping structure is solid. etc and there are no exceptions in UCI's handling, is Brailsford's issue. Lappartient can't claim both and be credible without it sounding like he has doubts Froome's innocence.

He should have worded it that UCI's doesn't treat anyone differently, while Froome's lawyers and money helped him prove his innocence, the rules are the same for everyone.

Lappartient loaded the statement that Froome was proving he was not guilty, when in fact he was proving he was innocent from what we know so far. i.e. he's proving he didn't inhale more than allowed, not that he inhaled more than allowed, but money made him not guilty of it.
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
macbindle said:
gillan1969 said:
macbindle said:
If you've gone down the rabbit hole of obsessional fanatical hatred that is common currency in the Clinic, then you won't even be able to put yourself in Brailsford's shoes and consider what he is actually saying at any given moment without thinking that it is part of some nefarious master plan of deceit.

SDB reaps what he sows...of course, what evidence is there of 'young women' being at risk????

If you can provide some then I might not come to conclusion SDB is inferring they are. Do you think they are and on what basis?

You know very well it would be impossible to find evidence of that from my armchair

to take an SDB term...that would be psuedo-armchair ;)

Not really evidence, at best anecdotal.....but i was on ADH for the 2015 stage. All day long, whilst sat on the road side waiting for the race to come through there was a particularly boisterous (not uncommon for ADH obviously) but borderline aggressive group of spectators (Italian, i presume riled by some of the past Froome/Nibali skirmishes). Anything Sky related, (cars, flags, spectators in kit, people riding pinarello's) was getting plenty of abuse, as the day went on and the beer flowed it became more overt and aggressive. By mid afternoon it was becoming quite tense. The memory that sticks with me was SDB in the team jaguar getting blocked on the road, the car surrounded by the mob, liquid objects being thrown. I'd still to this day love to know what SDB said to the mob when he wound his window down and they suddenly all quietened down and let him pass :eek:

Anyway, the relevance of all this to this particular little sub topic....given the heightened tensions in France this year, its not difficult to understand why SDB might be talking about heightened concerns for the safety and security of anyone who might display a remote link to Team Sky, Male or Female.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
gillan1969 said:
macbindle said:
gillan1969 said:
macbindle said:
If you've gone down the rabbit hole of obsessional fanatical hatred that is common currency in the Clinic, then you won't even be able to put yourself in Brailsford's shoes and consider what he is actually saying at any given moment without thinking that it is part of some nefarious master plan of deceit.

SDB reaps what he sows...of course, what evidence is there of 'young women' being at risk????

If you can provide some then I might not come to conclusion SDB is inferring they are. Do you think they are and on what basis?

You know very well it would be impossible to find evidence of that from my armchair

to take an SDB term...that would be psuedo-armchair ;)

Not really evidence, at best anecdotal.....but i was on ADH for the 2015 stage. All day long, whilst sat on the road side waiting for the race to come through there was a particularly boisterous (not uncommon for ADH obviously) but borderline aggressive group of spectators (Italian, i presume riled by some of the past Froome/Nibali skirmishes). Anything Sky related, (cars, flags, spectators in kit, people riding pinarello's) was getting plenty of abuse, as the day went on and the beer flowed it became more overt and aggressive. By mid afternoon it was becoming quite tense. The memory that sticks with me was SDB in the team jaguar getting blocked on the road, the car surrounded by the mob, liquid objects being thrown. I'd still to this day love to know what SDB said to the mob when he wound his window down and they suddenly all quietened down and let him pass :eek:

Anyway, the relevance of all this to this particular little sub topic....given the heightened tensions in France this year, its not difficult to understand why SDB might be talking about heightened concerns for the safety and security of anyone who might display a remote link to Team Sky, Male or Female.

riders can deal with crap....where has there been an inkling that 'young women' were at risk? SDB is creating a narrative.......crack on however he can at least be called out on it...he's the one heightening it :D
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
Nighttrain99 said:
Merckx index said:
Nighttrain99:

I'm not going to say directly in the clinic because there's never any balanced discussion, but in terms of Brailsford's anger, consider the following statements all said within context of Froome's exoneration from Lappartient.

Lappartient on Ulissi and Pettachi ADRVs
"I must emphasise that each of the relevant athletes had access to a fair hearing as provided for by the WADA Code and the UCI ADR."

Lappartient on UCI's anti-doping credibility generally:
"Everyone will have the same treatment, for sure. In the UCI there are no exceptions, everyone gets the same treatment," Lappartient insisted.

Lappartient on Froome's exoneration provided for by the WADA Code and the UCI ADR
"If you have more money, you can afford more lawyers and more experts. This can sometimes help you to prove you are not guilty"

That is what Brailsford is angry about and if that's not town mayor bias, what is, regardless of Brailsford's numptyness. Lappartients handing is not impartial and his comments make UCI look weak and complacent and unfocused on what exactly they are meant to be and how Lappartient should rise above personal bias.

Talk about discussions lacking balance. What is in any of those quotes that shows bias, that shows Lappartient is not impartial? Making that claim shows incredible lack of balance on your part.

samhocking said:
And UCI accepted that. As they accepted it, Lappartient can't then claim money bought Froomes innocence while maintaining UCI under Lappartient is credible and requesting fans to 'please still believe in cycling'. That is a copout, especially while maintaining other similar cases were dealt with properly

He didn’t claim money bought Froome’s innocence. Did you read the quote? He said money helped him prove that he was not guilty. Repeat: "help you to prove you are not guilty". Those are his words. How can someone prove he wasn't guilty, with or without money, unless he wasn't guilty? Lappartient in that quote is saying that in his opinion Froome was not guilty, but without money he might not have been able to prove it. What you’re falsely attributing to him is that he said Froome was guilty, but money bought his innocence. Not helped him prove what he actually was, but bought something he might not have been. "Money bought his innocence" is not the same as "money helps you to prove you are not guilty." I have no idea whether you and nighttrain aren't perceptive enough to see the difference, or whether you intentionally twisted the words to make Lappartient look bad, because you have a pre-existing bias that he is bad. Maybe both.

You post some of the most useful info here. Your perception of anything I’ve offered on this subject is way off, though. I’ve clearly stated my opinion of Brailsford is that of an arrogant man who used a public form to disgrace the president of the UCI. I’ve also said that I enjoy the spectacle of it all to the point of wishing Sky would accept and own their role of villain. Rowe tearing down a banner is another example. I don’t condone his or Brailsford’s actions but as a viewer of sports I can appreciate top shelf bad guy behavior as long as no one cheats or is injured.

Lappartient's exact words 'AFTER' Froomes acquittal were:
Everyone will have the same treatment, for sure. In the UCI there are no exceptions, everyone gets the same treatment," Lappartient insisted.

But what is also sure and not only in cycling or sport but also in business and politics, is that if you have more money, you can afford more lawyers and more experts. This can sometimes help you to prove you are not guilty. But the rules from the UCI are the same."

That statement using 'prove not guilty' alongside assuring everyone the UCI are credible and its anti-doping structure is solid. etc and there are no exceptions in UCI's handling, is Brailsford's issue. Lappartient can't claim both and be credible without it sounding like he has doubts Froome's innocence.

He should have worded it that UCI's doesn't treat anyone differently, while Froome's lawyers and money helped him prove his innocence, the rules are the same for everyone.

Lappartient loaded the statement that Froome was proving he was not guilty, when in fact he was proving he was innocent from what we know so far. i.e. he's proving he didn't inhale more than allowed, not that he inhaled more than allowed, but money made him not guilty of it.

nope...the reading made him guilty (remember it's an AAF ;) ) and he is allowed to prove he is not guilty

as we can now see through the 'process' we know that the way he did this appears to be him providing uncorroborated evidence....and it being believed.....to quote shaggy...'it wasn't me' ;)

The UCI know this and presumably don't like it....and no wonder...it stinks.....
 
Re: Re:

@gillian1969

That was kind of my point if you read it properly..the abuse wasn't being saved for the riders, it was aimed at anyone who displayed any kind of affiliation to Team Sky. Which i think was part of what SDB was saying about not being comfortable sending some people out in Sky vehicles etc....there doesn't need to be a specific threat against females for someone to decide there might be a heightened need to consider the security of said group.

Of course he can be called out on it, just like i can also empathise with what he said if i want to....

To the point on him heightening it himself to a large extent...no argument from me on that one.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
@gillian1969

That was kind of my point if you read it properly..the abuse wasn't being saved for the riders, it was aimed at anyone who displayed any kind of affiliation to Team Sky. Which i think was part of what SDB was saying about not being comfortable sending some people out in Sky vehicles etc....there doesn't need to be a specific threat against females for someone to decide there might be a heightened need to consider the security of said group.

Of course he can be called out on it, just like i can also empathise with what he said if i want to....

To the point on him heightening it himself to a large extent...no argument from me on that one.

the age of equality lives on...SDB on his white horse :D

and quietening hordes of drunken fans on the road side with just a quiet word...there really is no end to the mans 's talents :D
 

TRENDING THREADS