Dave Brailsford - cycling genius

[Wiggo's Package]

Cycling journo Lionel Birnie has posted a series of blogs about his 8 years covering Team Sky

Scroll down for Part 1: https://www.lionelbirnie.com/blog/

Part 1 of the blog goes back to 2009, quotes extensively from an interview with Brailsfraud at that time, and shows very clearly that even then, the year before Team Sky started racing, there was a big difference (which Birnie to his credit highlighted at that time) between what Brailsfraud was saying and what was actually going on:

"Lionel Birnie: When you started out you had a clean sheet of paper and 12 or 18 months of planning to put it all together. With that clean sheet of paper, the first thing you set out was you were going to be a clean team, anti-doping is going to be at the core of Team Sky, no grey areas of compromise, so what was the recruitment policy for management and riders?

[Brailsford reaches for a huge folder with Team Sky's application for a UCI ProTour licence in it and starts referring to it.]

Dave Brailsford: Recruitment criteria. Certain characteristics should be seen as non-negotiable. English-speaking, no association with doping, enthusiastic and positive, fit and healthy, open to innovation, willing to try new things – massively important to us – not averse to change, excellent inter-personal skills, must be able to work in a rider-centred programme, supporting and mentoring not directing and controlling, trustworthy... The other thing is appointments from existing teams, the recruitment would be from a small pool in the UCI ProTour, otherwise where do you go? They are not walking round the streets of Britain are they. But because of that we wanted to limit the recruitment of people from any one given team, so we set limits of one DS, two mechanics, two carers, one operational staff and one senior management from any one given team, so that limited us to taking no more than four from any given team...

Well, did you ask Steve De Jongh about what it was like being in the TVM team in 1998?

Of course we had conversations with Steve De Jongh, yeah.

What I'm trying to get at, what is an association of doping.

Are you making allegations against these guys? I don't understand.

I'm not making any allegations. Steve De Jongh was part of the TVM team arrested on the Tour de France in 1998 and spent a night in custody. They went over the line at the front of the peloton on that day to Aix-les-Bains where they all protested against the police intervention and the police investigation into syringes and EPO found in team cars. That did happen. I'm not making any allegations. Steve De Jongh was in that team. I am saying, what is an association with doping? What I mean is you could have chosen from a broad range of people within your criteria, so presumably the people you have chosen you are completely satisfied with?

Well if I wasn't I wouldn't have chosen them would I?

So the management team, is it being impressed on the management team that anti-doping is one of the key strands to Team Sky and that they will be advocates for it?

I can't believe you're asking me that question. Lionel, come on, of course it *** is. Come on.

Sean Yates hasn't spoken to me for three years because of the view we took on Astana.

That's not my issue. If you're asking me whether I'm just sticking my head in the sand so we can get people on board so we can dope, that's what you're trying to suggest."

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Another re-post from back in the day, this time a 2011 article from a journo who was embedded with Team Sky during the 2011 Criterium de Dauphine. The quote in below, from Brailsfraud of course, was given on the very day on which the infamous jiffybag was delivered by Cope to Freeman. Uncanny that Brailsfraud has the issue of dodgy injections in the back of team buses at the forefront of his mind on that of all days!

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/all-aboard-the-magic-bus-3974

“There’s nothing going on here,” [Brailsford] says, answering a question that hasn’t really been asked. “Absolutely nothing at all. I know that’s not good enough for some people. It’s like the no-needles policy. I think that is absolutely great but how’s it being enforced? I’ve spoken to Pat [McQuaid, UCI president] and I told him the UCI needs to get out here and enforce it. Where are they? They need to be on the buses. There are 20 teams, how hard can it be to have an observer on each bus? That’s your window of opportunity for recovery there, between the finish and the hotel, so get someone on the buses. “The doctors are scared, you know. Okay, so if you give someone something to go uphill faster, that’s one thing. But very few people are prepared to risk going to prison to make someone go uphill faster.”

I find the bold bit quite funny. Very few seems to define exactly how many you would need to dope the whole peloton. Currently 281,000-odd doctors registered in the UK based on LRMP. 0.01% (which to me would be a lot less than very few) of that is 28 doctors. It's either a ridiculously naive comment or obfuscation.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

im wondering if brailsford/his advisors timed the company changes to coincide with the publication of the committee report; in the best traditions of politicians the worlds over, bury your mess when there a bigger meess about to be dumped. his mate a campbell would approve im sure

One: it landed more than a week early in that case, and even without the distraction made little impact except upon our resident Ethicist in Chief.

Two: I wish I could predict that good exactly when Companies House will make a form available on their website.

Three: no one knew when the report was going to be published.

Still, this is the Clinic, where Rule #4 says there are no coincidences, only conspiracies.

Excellent!

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

2 is it not the case in the UK that a company director/advisor must themselves start the proceedings of winding up a company/change addresses by notifying companies house etc etc?

Perhaps you'd like to explain that non sequitur for me, preferably with reference to what I actually said at point two.

3. the DCMS report was widely expected to be published by middle to end of Feb as per their website? and im sure sky/DB/ their legals would have a better idea of that date of when it would be released ,than mere fans like us, seeing as he and the team were gpoing to be front and centre for some very unwelcome and hard criticism?

They knew when we knew, when the Committee announced it. And that was not the beginning of February when Brailsford signed the solvency form.

Are you really going to cling to this one, are you really trying to argue that they can manipulate the media in this fashion, skillfully bury a story? Why the *** can't they manipulate the media on big things and not just Brailsford's tax affairs? For ***'s sake, they've been behind the eight ball with the media for most of the last eight years...

 

[Wiggo's Package]

From Part 2 of the Birnie blog - the bit about Brailsfraud's infamous graph showing the Dawg in an unflattering light is noteworthy as the Skybots have always claimed the graph had no basis in reality:

"I remember learning at some point in the summer of 2010 that Dr Roger Palfreeman, who had been part of British Cycling’s medical team, had been tasked by Brailsford with writing a comprehensive medical code of practice for Team Sky but that on consulting the riders Brailsford had shelved it. I tried to ask Brailsford about this during the 2010 Tour but got nowhere.

...[Brailsford] explained his recruitment policy, a sort of Moneyball-inspired theory that broke his roster down into those who were able to deliver World Tour victories, those who were able to offer support at World Tour level and so on. He drew a chart on a napkin, with the rider age along the bottom of the chart and level of performance up the side. He drew a bell curve and explained that his model meant that expensive riders had to deliver results, potential and supporting riders could be cheap, and that once a rider’s performance began to tail off they had to be moved on. He plotted some of his riders on the chart based on their results in 2010. There was nothing too revelatory about that. All sports teams try to get the most out of their athletes and then move them on before they decline but I found it interesting and I asked him if we could reproduce it in the magazine.

Intially he said yes, then he said no, then he said yes again, then he asked if he could think about it. I took a snap of the napkin on my phone. I could understand his reluctance – would a rider in an unflattering position take kindly to seeing his place on the chart, even if it was based on pretty basic information that could not be disputed. Early in 2011, I went up to Manchester again and spoke to Brailsford in his office. The feature was published in Cycle Sport...

With Brailsford’s permission the magazine’s art department created an interpretation of his graph using my sketch and my assessments of where each of Team Sky’s riders would sit on the chart based on their performance in 2010. We made it clear in the caption printed below that the chart was our approximation of his criteria, not necessarily Brailsford’s actual assessment of his riders.

Chris Froome appeared in a pretty unflattering position on that graph – low in terms of results delivered but not young enough in age to be counted as raw potential. He was roughly in the same position as John-Lee Augustyn, who did not go on to win the Tour de France four times...

A couple of years later, as Froome was on his way to his first Tour de France win, the graph circulated on Twitter accompanied by incredulous comments. Brailsford, clearly a lurker on Twitter, had seen the Tweets. One morning at the start, he saw me and said, light-heartedly, ‘That bloody chart,’ and hopped on the team bus."

 

[Parker]

Re:

From Part 2 of the Birnie blog - the bit about Brailsfraud's infamous graph showing the Dawg in an unflattering light is noteworthy as the Skybots have always claimed the graph had no basis in reality:

You appear to have edited a large chunk out of the middle of that, which is actually the point of the whole story about the chart. To help everyone out I've reinserted it

"I remember learning at some point in the summer of 2010 that Dr Roger Palfreeman, who had been part of British Cycling’s medical team, had been tasked by Brailsford with writing a comprehensive medical code of practice for Team Sky but that on consulting the riders Brailsford had shelved it. I tried to ask Brailsford about this during the 2010 Tour but got nowhere.

...[Brailsford] explained his recruitment policy, a sort of Moneyball-inspired theory that broke his roster down into those who were able to deliver World Tour victories, those who were able to offer support at World Tour level and so on. He drew a chart on a napkin, with the rider age along the bottom of the chart and level of performance up the side. He drew a bell curve and explained that his model meant that expensive riders had to deliver results, potential and supporting riders could be cheap, and that once a rider’s performance began to tail off they had to be moved on. He plotted some of his riders on the chart based on their results in 2010. There was nothing too revelatory about that. All sports teams try to get the most out of their athletes and then move them on before they decline but I found it interesting and I asked him if we could reproduce it in the magazine.

Intially he said yes, then he said no, then he said yes again, then he asked if he could think about it. I took a snap of the napkin on my phone. I could understand his reluctance – would a rider in an unflattering position take kindly to seeing his place on the chart, even if it was based on pretty basic information that could not be disputed. Early in 2011, I went up to Manchester again and spoke to Brailsford in his office. The feature was published in Cycle Sport...

With Brailsford’s permission the magazine’s art department created an interpretation of his graph using my sketch and my assessments of where each of Team Sky’s riders would sit on the chart based on their performance in 2010. We made it clear in the caption printed below that the chart was our approximation of his criteria, not necessarily Brailsford’s actual assessment of his riders.

Chris Froome appeared in a pretty unflattering position on that graph – low in terms of results delivered but not young enough in age to be counted as raw potential. He was roughly in the same position as John-Lee Augustyn, who did not go on to win the Tour de France four times...

However, based on his results in 2010, which were sparse, it was a fair position.

After Froome’s breakthrough performance at the 2011 Vuelta a Espana, and his subsequent dominance at the Tour de France, I’ve seen this graph cited by some online as a key exhibit in the case for the prosecution, proof of a near donkey-to-racehorse transformation.

I think back to 2007 and early 2008, when Doug Dailey of British Cycling raved about Froome’s potential and talked of his desire to ensure he was eligible to ride the 2008 Olympics for Great Britain. They felt he was raw, but talented. Not capable of winning a medal at that time, perhaps, but good enough to last well into the race. The Kenyan cycling federation blocked Froome’s application to change his nationality in time, so we did not find out that summer whether Dailey’s confidence was justified.

I mention this because it is an example of how anything can be used as evidence in an attempt to prove or disprove something. To someone who believes that Sky are on a par with US Postal Service, my interpretation of Brailsford’s graph that shed a bit of light on his team-assembling policy, is proof that Froome was a hopeless cyclist and his transformation into Tour champion is not credible the same way a moon-landing conspiracy theorist would refer to shadows on a flag as proof the whole thing was shot in the desert.

A couple of years later, as Froome was on his way to his first Tour de France win, the graph circulated on Twitter accompanied by incredulous comments. Brailsford, clearly a lurker on Twitter, had seen the Tweets. One morning at the start, he saw me and said, light-heartedly, ‘That bloody chart,’ and hopped on the team bus."

The whole point of the story was to denounce people like you. He compares you to moon landing conspiracy theorists.

The original: https://www.lionelbirnie.com/blog/2018/3/7/eight-years-covering-team-sky-part-two

 

[MartinGT]

I'm sure it was Brian Smith who said Bernie was impressed with Sky.

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

From Part 2 of the Birnie blog - the bit about Brailsfraud's infamous graph showing the Dawg in an unflattering light is noteworthy as the Skybots have always claimed the graph had no basis in reality:

"I remember learning at some point in the summer of 2010 that Dr Roger Palfreeman, who had been part of British Cycling’s medical team, had been tasked by Brailsford with writing a comprehensive medical code of practice for Team Sky but that on consulting the riders Brailsford had shelved it. I tried to ask Brailsford about this during the 2010 Tour but got nowhere.

...[Brailsford] explained his recruitment policy, a sort of Moneyball-inspired theory that broke his roster down into those who were able to deliver World Tour victories, those who were able to offer support at World Tour level and so on. He drew a chart on a napkin, with the rider age along the bottom of the chart and level of performance up the side. He drew a bell curve and explained that his model meant that expensive riders had to deliver results, potential and supporting riders could be cheap, and that once a rider’s performance began to tail off they had to be moved on. He plotted some of his riders on the chart based on their results in 2010. There was nothing too revelatory about that. All sports teams try to get the most out of their athletes and then move them on before they decline but I found it interesting and I asked him if we could reproduce it in the magazine.

Intially he said yes, then he said no, then he said yes again, then he asked if he could think about it. I took a snap of the napkin on my phone. I could understand his reluctance – would a rider in an unflattering position take kindly to seeing his place on the chart, even if it was based on pretty basic information that could not be disputed. Early in 2011, I went up to Manchester again and spoke to Brailsford in his office. The feature was published in Cycle Sport...

With Brailsford’s permission the magazine’s art department created an interpretation of his graph using my sketch and my assessments of where each of Team Sky’s riders would sit on the chart based on their performance in 2010. We made it clear in the caption printed below that the chart was our approximation of his criteria, not necessarily Brailsford’s actual assessment of his riders.

Chris Froome appeared in a pretty unflattering position on that graph – low in terms of results delivered but not young enough in age to be counted as raw potential. He was roughly in the same position as John-Lee Augustyn, who did not go on to win the Tour de France four times...

A couple of years later, as Froome was on his way to his first Tour de France win, the graph circulated on Twitter accompanied by incredulous comments. Brailsford, clearly a lurker on Twitter, had seen the Tweets. One morning at the start, he saw me and said, light-heartedly, ‘That bloody chart,’ and hopped on the team bus."

So now we know....in 2010 SDB drew an impromptu graph on the back of a napkin. In 2012 it turns out that graph was a bit ***...

Cycling genius?? Meh...He can't even draw a graph on a napkin :lol:

 

[Mayo from Mayo]

Re:

From Part 2 of the Birnie blog - the bit about Brailsfraud's infamous graph showing the Dawg in an unflattering light is noteworthy as the Skybots have always claimed the graph had no basis in reality:

"I remember learning at some point in the summer of 2010 that Dr Roger Palfreeman, who had been part of British Cycling’s medical team, had been tasked by Brailsford with writing a comprehensive medical code of practice for Team Sky but that on consulting the riders Brailsford had shelved it. I tried to ask Brailsford about this during the 2010 Tour but got nowhere.

...[Brailsford] explained his recruitment policy, a sort of Moneyball-inspired theory that broke his roster down into those who were able to deliver World Tour victories, those who were able to offer support at World Tour level and so on. He drew a chart on a napkin, with the rider age along the bottom of the chart and level of performance up the side. He drew a bell curve and explained that his model meant that expensive riders had to deliver results, potential and supporting riders could be cheap, and that once a rider’s performance began to tail off they had to be moved on. He plotted some of his riders on the chart based on their results in 2010. There was nothing too revelatory about that. All sports teams try to get the most out of their athletes and then move them on before they decline but I found it interesting and I asked him if we could reproduce it in the magazine.

Intially he said yes, then he said no, then he said yes again, then he asked if he could think about it. I took a snap of the napkin on my phone. I could understand his reluctance – would a rider in an unflattering position take kindly to seeing his place on the chart, even if it was based on pretty basic information that could not be disputed. Early in 2011, I went up to Manchester again and spoke to Brailsford in his office. The feature was published in Cycle Sport...

With Brailsford’s permission the magazine’s art department created an interpretation of his graph using my sketch andmy assessments of where each of Team Sky’s riders would sit on the chart based on their performance in 2010. We made it clear in the caption printed below that the chart was our approximation of his criteria, not necessarily Brailsford’s actual assessment of his riders.

Chris Froome appeared in a pretty unflattering position on that graph – low in terms of results delivered but not young enough in age to be counted as raw potential. He was roughly in the same position as John-Lee Augustyn, who did not go on to win the Tour de France four times...

A couple of years later, as Froome was on his way to his first Tour de France win, the graph circulated on Twitter accompanied by incredulous comments. Brailsford, clearly a lurker on Twitter, had seen the Tweets. One morning at the start, he saw me and said, light-heartedly, ‘That bloody chart,’ and hopped on the team bus."

This would appear to back up 'the skybots' claim about the chart. It may be Brailsford's chart but according to Birnie it's his assessment,

 

[53*11]

Re: Re:

2 is it not the case in the UK that a company director/advisor must themselves start the proceedings of winding up a company/change addresses by notifying companies house etc etc?

Perhaps you'd like to explain that non sequitur for me, preferably with reference to what I actually said at point two.

3. the DCMS report was widely expected to be published by middle to end of Feb as per their website? and im sure sky/DB/ their legals would have a better idea of that date of when it would be released ,than mere fans like us, seeing as he and the team were gpoing to be front and centre for some very unwelcome and hard criticism?

They knew when we knew, when the Committee announced it. And that was not the beginning of February when Brailsford signed the solvency form.

Are you really going to cling to this one, are you really trying to argue that they can manipulate the media in this fashion, skillfully bury a story? Why the **** can't they manipulate the media on big things and not just Brailsford's tax affairs? For ****'s sake, they've been behind the eight ball with the media for most of the last eight years...

i believe it is possible they tried to bury the story , yes.
evidence?; casat your mind back to the little offer brailsford made to matt lawton after DBs disastrous handling of the jiffygate/needles on the bus/bus not there/pooley being in spain palaver ; he actually offered lawton a different story, as long as he didnt publish his story on jiffygate - so yes they do, and have been manipulating the media for years. In other words he tried to bury a very nasty smelling story.

so yes, they have been manipulating the british media for years; (even among experienced, formerly respected journos, 2 examples walsh and fotheringham) and widely seen as being very good at doing so, until DBs 'explanations' at jiffygate time put a large hole in his and skys credibility; or you dont agree? honourable exceptions to this, were kimmage and mat lawton, who refused the kool aid and 'fluffy pillows' marginal gains story.

the evidence of this successful manipulation is also the continuing (both hilarious and sad) devotion to skys defence by ordinary fans who have bought into the sky marginal gains 'miracles', (and their rather expensive rapha gear!).

want more evidence ? what is the most viewed sections of this website /forum ? (froome and sky with a combined 6.5 Million views). it is because of their manipulation of the press that skys whiter than white mantra, arrogance and hubris has now turned full circle ands has come back to haunt them. hoist by his own petard is DB.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Cycling journo Lionel Birnie has posted a series of blogs about his 8 years covering Team Sky

Scroll down for Part 1: https://www.lionelbirnie.com/blog/

Part 1 of the blog goes back to 2009, quotes extensively from an interview with Brailsfraud at that time, and shows very clearly that even then, the year before Team Sky started racing, there was a big difference (which Birnie to his credit highlighted at that time) between what Brailsfraud was saying and what was actually going on:

"Lionel Birnie: When you started out you had a clean sheet of paper and 12 or 18 months of planning to put it all together. With that clean sheet of paper, the first thing you set out was you were going to be a clean team, anti-doping is going to be at the core of Team Sky, no grey areas of compromise, so what was the recruitment policy for management and riders?

[Brailsford reaches for a huge folder with Team Sky's application for a UCI ProTour licence in it and starts referring to it.]

Dave Brailsford: Recruitment criteria. Certain characteristics should be seen as non-negotiable. English-speaking, no association with doping, enthusiastic and positive, fit and healthy, open to innovation, willing to try new things – massively important to us – not averse to change, excellent inter-personal skills, must be able to work in a rider-centred programme, supporting and mentoring not directing and controlling, trustworthy... The other thing is appointments from existing teams, the recruitment would be from a small pool in the UCI ProTour, otherwise where do you go? They are not walking round the streets of Britain are they. But because of that we wanted to limit the recruitment of people from any one given team, so we set limits of one DS, two mechanics, two carers, one operational staff and one senior management from any one given team, so that limited us to taking no more than four from any given team...

Well, did you ask Steve De Jongh about what it was like being in the TVM team in 1998?

Of course we had conversations with Steve De Jongh, yeah.

What I'm trying to get at, what is an association of doping.

Are you making allegations against these guys? I don't understand.

I'm not making any allegations. Steve De Jongh was part of the TVM team arrested on the Tour de France in 1998 and spent a night in custody. They went over the line at the front of the peloton on that day to Aix-les-Bains where they all protested against the police intervention and the police investigation into syringes and EPO found in team cars. That did happen. I'm not making any allegations. Steve De Jongh was in that team. I am saying, what is an association with doping? What I mean is you could have chosen from a broad range of people within your criteria, so presumably the people you have chosen you are completely satisfied with?

Well if I wasn't I wouldn't have chosen them would I?

So the management team, is it being impressed on the management team that anti-doping is one of the key strands to Team Sky and that they will be advocates for it?

I can't believe you're asking me that question. Lionel, come on, of course it **** is. Come on.

Sean Yates hasn't spoken to me for three years because of the view we took on Astana.

That's not my issue. If you're asking me whether I'm just sticking my head in the sand so we can get people on board so we can dope, that's what you're trying to suggest."

The whole of this is well worth a read:

Some choice DB quotes:

What do you mean? Why is that lofty? Look, I've got integrity, right. I'm running a clean operation here. Everyone thinks we're doping here, we're not. Everyone thinks I'm *** nuts saying Bradley Wiggins can win the Tour de France, or somebody can win the Tour de France clean. I know for a fact Bradley Wiggins is clean. I know for a fact he ran fourth in the Tour de France [riding for Garmin]. Christian Vande Velde for my money is clean. The difference between fourth and winning is a margin but it's not that big a margin in all fairness. I think it can be done clean and I think I have the wherewithall to run a clean team.

LOL.

The reason we won't appoint foreign doctors. We've only appointed British doctors who have not worked in pro cycling before. We want to minimise risk. There are clear indications when doctors become very familiar with riders and try to support and help their riders the lines get blurred. A lot of these doctors get institutionalised. We've got a doctor who's spent seven years at Bolton [Dr Richard Freeman], come out of the Premier League, he's a brilliant guy. He's a top professional and he's going to come and work for us.

Leinders, Freeman's record keeping is that of a top professional. He's worried about people getting institutionalised but isn't worried about someone spending 7 years at an EPL club...

I think certainly Garmin, they genuinely believe in it. I think those guys have integrity.

Bigger LOL.

 

[MartinGT]

He screaming at being clean so much

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Part 3 of the Birnie blog is about the June 2011 Crtierium de Dauphine - jiffygate

Birnie was enbedded with Team Sky for the race and wrote the article referred to above which includes Brailsfraud's bizarre monologue about injections in the back of buses:

"The stage finished in La Toussuire and we now know, following the Fancy Bears hack, that the events of that afternoon were significant. Simon Cope arrived at La Toussuire with a Jiffy Bag. We still don’t know for certain what was in it – Fluimucil, an over-the-counter decongestant, or triamcinolone, a corticosteroid that is permitted out of competition but can only be used in-competition with a TUE... What we do know is that Team Sky applied for a TUE at the end of May to permit Wiggins to use triamcinolone in competition. It was finally granted on June 26...

Initially Brailsford said that Cope, who managed Great Britain’s women’s team, had travelled to France to meet Emma Pooley and as he was passing nearby he could bring the package. However, it then turned out that Pooley had not been in France that day but was racing hundreds of kilometres away in the Basque Country. Lawton’s source had alleged that whatever was contained in the package had been administered to Wiggins in the back of the team bus after the final stage of the Dauphiné at La Toussuire. Brailsford told Lawton none of this could have possibly taken place in the back of the Team Sky bus, as the source claimed, because the bus had left straight after the finish to head to Sestriere, where the team was due to start a training camp the following day.

I was at La Toussuire that day and Brailsford’s version of events didn’t ring true to me. I had a vague memory of seeing Simon Cope there that afternoon but if I'd been asked in a court of law I'd not have been able to swear to it. Cope was a peripheral figure and people show up at bike races all the time. It's not like his presence there would have made anyone think, 'Hang on, what on earth is he doing here?' However, I did know the bus had stayed a good while after the stage finish because it was still there when I left and I’d had to wait for a couple of the team’s mechanics to repack equipment and load one of the vans before they could give me a lift down to Chambéry...

A video then surfaced from Dutch television. In it, Wiggins is being interviewed standing in front of what looks very much like the Team Sky bus and I am lurking about in the background. It didn’t inspire a great deal of confidence that Brailsford’s first two alibis could be so easily dismantled, or that he’d volunteered them seemingly so hurriedly without checking first they’d stand up...

One of the biggest stories of the decade was beginning to unfold around me and I didn’t have a clue... I’ve thought about Brailsford volunteering, à propos of nothing, an opinion on the no-needles policy on the very morning Simon Cope was due to arrive at the finish of the stage with The Package. Whether Brailsford knew about that or not is not especially relevant, and we don’t even need to know whether it contained Fluimucil or triamcinolone either, because we know for sure that while Brailsford was lauding the UCI’s needle ban his team had already set the wheels in motion to legitimately administer what some consider to be a powerful corticosteroid to their star rider by injection. That seems an uncomfortably odd juxtaposition to me."

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Part 4 of Birnie's blog is not up yet but, even though I have quoted extensively from the first 3 parts, I would recommend reading Parts 1 to 3 in full, because the level of detail is fascinating

https://www.lionelbirnie.com/blog/

 

[thehog]

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.

Why one remains a consultant than an employee in this context generally relates to IP and not taxes. As a large portion of Brailsfords role is creating PR (marginal gains etc.), selling merchandise etc., as a consultant he can own and remain the owner of the intellectual property thus continue to sell it after his time at Sky. As an employee he wouldn’t be afforded this right, what ever is created by its employees remians the IP of the company. Most sportsperson are under contract and own their personal image rights and IP.

Dare I say with Brailsford he was additionally looking to shield himself from potential HR issues along personal liability by acting as a free entity.

I would add that Sky perhaps are reigning him and forcing him to be more accountable by becoming an employee.

 

[keeponrollin]

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.

Why one remains a consultant than an employee in this context generally relates to IP and not taxes. As a large portion of Brailsfords role is creating PR (marginal gains etc.), selling merchandise etc., as a consultant he can own remain the owner of the intellectual property thus continue to sell it after his time at Sky. As an employee he wouldn’t be afforded this right, what ever is created by its employees is their IP. Most sportsperson are under contract and own their personal image rights and IP.

Dare I say with Brailsford he was additionally looking to shield himself from potential HR issues along personal liability by acting as a free entity.

I would add that Sky perhaps are reigning him and forcing him to be more accountable by becoming an employee.

As a consultant, DB would, if the occasion arose, have been responsible for his own legal defense; as an employee, his defense would be paid for by his employer.

A Cynic might wonder why, at this time, when under this scrutiny, Sky suddenly decided to make him an employee; perhaps DB required it of Sky ?

 

[Robert5091]

Maybe Sky plan to "promote SDB upwards" to get him out of the spotlight - e.g. executive coffee boy

 

[samhocking]

That's a very interesting point keeponrollin.
I saw it as either, he's splitting up from his partner in the business and so they're liquidating the assets between them, or simply HMRC are asking Tour Racing Ltd for him to be on payroll due to IR35. That fact any legal costs for Brailsford would now be covered by Tour Racing Ltd is just as valid. I'm not sure how this works out legally in terms of relating to events in 2011 when you were self-employed however?

 

[fmk_RoI]

As a consultant, DB would, if the occasion arose, have been responsible for his own legal defense; as an employee, his defense would be paid for by his employer.

A Cynic might wonder why, at this time, when under this scrutiny, Sky suddenly decided to make him an employee; perhaps DB required it of Sky ?

TRL have no legal obligation to pay any legal fees other than their own, unless it is written into the relevant contracts. A moral obligation? Given TRL is owned/controlled by the Murdochs it would be instructive to look to the hacking trials and the number of their employees they left swinging in the wind and footing their own legal bills.

It would also be instructive to look the hacking trials and the legal fees of contractors they did choose to cover.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

That's a very interesting point keeponrollin.
I saw it as either, he's splitting up from his partner in the business and so they're liquidating the assets between them, or simply HMRC are asking Tour Racing Ltd for him to be on payroll due to IR35. That fact any legal costs for Brailsford would now be covered by Tour Racing Ltd is just as valid. I'm not sure how this works out legally in terms of relating to events in 2011 when you were self-employed however?

As the resident expert in company law here, perhaps you could explain something simple to me? Imagine I'm employed by you. (Suspend disbelief and just work with this, it's as hard for me to picture.) Now imagine I do something illegal while employed by you, without your instruction, permission or knowledge. Use your imagination as to what, maybe lacing tea with arsenic or some such. Now imagine there's an investigation. Why would you choose to pay my legal bills? Do you want to suggest to the wider world that, well, actually, I did act with your instruction, permission and knowledge?

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Given that Walsh has said that Sky are not paying Froome's legal fees it would be odd if they are paying Brailsfraud's legal fees

In the event that the legal interests of Brailsfraud and Sky, or Froome and Sky, diverge then each entity would need separate legal advisers to avoid the obvious conflict of interest risks (for both lawyer and clients)

If it is indeed the case that Froome is paying for Mike Morgan in respect o the AAF then it's possible that Sky are also represented by Morgan but unlikely IMO (does anyone know who Team Sky's day-to-day lawyers are?)

As for Brailsfraud and Sky, IMO it is unlikely that they are separately represented especially now Brailsfraud is an employee. Everyone says Brailsfraud is Sky, the team would fold without him etc, and while I have my doubts about that (it's just a bluff to make the calls for him to resign go away), he calls the shots on strategy and Brailsfraud/Sky's interests are always aligned. And whenever a problem becomes cannot be BS'ed away any more, we know what Brailsfraud/Sky's strategy is - throw the problem under that bus (it's getting crowded under there!) but with a big enough pay-off to ensure the NDA holds

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

That's a very interesting point keeponrollin.
I saw it as either, he's splitting up from his partner in the business and so they're liquidating the assets between them, or simply HMRC are asking Tour Racing Ltd for him to be on payroll due to IR35. That fact any legal costs for Brailsford would now be covered by Tour Racing Ltd is just as valid. I'm not sure how this works out legally in terms of relating to events in 2011 when you were self-employed however?

As the resident expert in company law here, perhaps you could explain something simple to me? Imagine I'm employed by you. (Suspend disbelief and just work with this, it's as hard for me to picture.) Now imagine I do something illegal while employed by you, without your instruction, permission or knowledge. Use your imagination as to what, maybe lacing tea with arsenic or some such. Now imagine there's an investigation. Why would you choose to pay my legal bills? Do you want to suggest to the wider world that, well, actually, I did act with your instruction, permission and knowledge?

It's got nothing to do with company law as such. If you can't work that out for yourself, then i'm not willing to explain it. Companies defend their employees all the time. What do you think happens when the NHS is getting sued by an operation that went wrong. NHS's legal team is behind their staff and themselves by default if your'e on payroll. That why you have liability insurance. No member of staff is going to be expected to pay legal costs when working for their employer, even if its the member of staff's own fault.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

That's a very interesting point keeponrollin.
I saw it as either, he's splitting up from his partner in the business and so they're liquidating the assets between them, or simply HMRC are asking Tour Racing Ltd for him to be on payroll due to IR35. That fact any legal costs for Brailsford would now be covered by Tour Racing Ltd is just as valid. I'm not sure how this works out legally in terms of relating to events in 2011 when you were self-employed however?

As the resident expert in company law here, perhaps you could explain something simple to me? Imagine I'm employed by you. (Suspend disbelief and just work with this, it's as hard for me to picture.) Now imagine I do something illegal while employed by you, without your instruction, permission or knowledge. Use your imagination as to what, maybe lacing tea with arsenic or some such. Now imagine there's an investigation. Why would you choose to pay my legal bills? Do you want to suggest to the wider world that, well, actually, I did act with your instruction, permission and knowledge?

It's got nothing to do with company law as such. If you can't work that out for yourself, then i'm not willing to explain it.

So you don't know. That's cool.

Companies defend their employees all the time. What do you think happens when the NHS is getting sued by an operation that went wrong.

I believe the phrase you're reaching for might be vicarious liability or some such.

 

[samhocking]

What are you talking about?
Lets take a more simple example.
Scaffolder being paid £20K a year forgets to tighten a scaffold clamp. Clamp falls off causing permanent injury to a pedestrian. A payout of £1 Million for future loss of earnings is won against not you the scaffolder, but the company you worked for. That is how it works, not in some cases, but all cases. That's what I mean by if you can't work it out for yourself.

Just like doping isn't criminal in UK, neither is forgetting to do a up a clamp. Your employer has public and employer liability insurance to cover such issues with your staff, freelance or permanent.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

What are you talking about?
Lets take a more simple example.
Scaffolder being paid £20K a year forgets to tighten a scaffold clamp. Clamp falls off causing permanent injury to a pedestrian. A payout of £1 Million for future loss of earnings is won against not you the scaffolder, but the company you worked for. That is how it works, not in some cases, but all cases. That's what I mean by if you can't work it out for yourself.

Allow me to repeat myself: I believe the phrase you're reaching for might be vicarious liability or some such.

Allow me to add: your damages and my legal fees, one of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not the same..