Froome Talk Only

Page 1356 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Well red_flanders, it's good of you to acknowledge that despite all this smoke and mirrors about not taking anything at face value, this situation at least is one where the critics should (as I would put it) just have been sensible and put their prejudices aside. "Filling the vacuum" may explain it but does not make it any the more reasonable. We (yes, we) are lucky this was not a fatality as we saw happen to an unfortunate accident victim just this week.
 
Well red_flanders, it's good of you to acknowledge that despite all this smoke and mirrors about not taking anything at face value, this situation at least is one where the critics should (as I would put it) just have been sensible and put their prejudices aside. "Filling the vacuum" may explain it but does not make it any the more reasonable. We (yes, we) are lucky this was not a fatality as we saw happen to an unfortunate accident victim just this week.
He must indeed be feeling lucky after what’s happened. Sobering.

Regarding prejudice, it means to have pre-judged. I don’t know anyone who pre-judged Froome or Sky., and in fact it seemed at the time we were all hoping Sky would actually walk the walk with regard to their team approach. We all hoped they would do well. We have judged them based on their actions and their public statements, not out of prejudice. That word just isn’t applicable in this case.
 
You said Ineos have created the environment for conspiracies to thrive . It's not an opinion I endorse - much of the outrage has been contrived. But to base one's opinion of the cause and result of the accident solely on an opinion of the truthfulness or otherwise of Ineos is to prejudge. One may prejudge for good reason, as you contend happened, or prejudge for no good reason at all, but taking a stance that does not admit reasonable thought into the particular situation because of one's pre-existing views is to prejudge.
 
Reactions: brownbobby
Personally I stopped eating red meat a few years ago...but my kids love a good burger and I believe in letting my kids be kids and make their own simple choices in life. There’ll come a point soon enough when they’re old enough to think a bit more about stuff like this...

To be honest you’re attempts to lecture me with needless academic interpretation of the meaning of love and hate is a bit much for me on the weekend, I’ll stick with my own simple interpretations for now thanks....and don’t even think about commenting on my parenting approach

I love cows, they’re my second favourite farm animal after pigs
Our situations are actually similar. I have a daughter who isn't vegetarian, nor would I force her to be. I agree with you about kids being allowed to develop to the point where they can make choices like these more independently. The difference is that, having owned to that, I wouldn't make a joke about it by claiming that I don't hate cows. I would find that hypocritical. There's a conflict, and I don't pretend it doesn't exist.

When Clinton was President, he once extolled the virtues of public schools, insisting that parents should have no problem sending their kids to one. The problem was, he sent his daughter to a private school. I don't fault him for doing that. I fault him for preaching to others, who couldn't afford the privilege, that public schools were just as good.
 
You said Ineos have created the environment for conspiracies to thrive . It's not an opinion I endorse - much of the outrage has been contrived. But to base one's opinion of the cause and result of the accident solely on an opinion of the truthfulness or otherwise of Ineos is to prejudge. One may prejudge for good reason, as you contend happened, or prejudge for no good reason at all, but taking a stance that does not admit reasonable thought into the particular situation because of one's pre-existing views is to prejudge.
Interesting. What is the basis for the claim that the outrage is "contrived"? Contrived by whom? There are literally hundreds of people on this forum alone who have had the same reaction to their preposterous claims. Is this a conspiracy? We've "contrived" the reaction as a group? What is the motive? What evidence do you have that this reaction isn't genuine? I can assure you mine is. I wanted this team to do well. I totally understand anyone who thinks they're full of it. They've earned it.

I didn't say that anyone based their "opinion of the cause and result of the accident solely on an opinion of the truthfulness or otherwise of Ineos", I said that Ineos has created an environment where conspiracy theories can thrive because of their history of obvious and blatant lies. They are the proverbial "boy who cried wolf". I don't know why anyone would act surprised when people's default reaction is not to believe them.

I also said those conspiracy theories don't stand up to even cursory examination.

Additionally, there is never a good reason to pre-judge. We've all come to a conclusion about Sky one way or another a long, long time ago. We've made our judgements based on their actions and words over time. That's not pre-judging, it's judging. To say afterwards that people are prejudiced against them is a very strange use of the word.

The right thing is to just point out the stupidity of the conspiracy theories for all the obvious reasons they don't make sense., and stop accusing those who don't believe the team as being prejudiced.
 
Here's a good writeup from Science of Sport which outlines all the above. They're about as charitable as anyone has a right to be in this piece, but they are also pointed in their criticism.

https://sportsscientists.com/2018/07/can-we-trust-the-tour-sky-and-chris-froome-le-monde-op-ed/

The history of cycling compels scepticism. It is the canvas on which Froome’s words “Trust me” are painted. When any champion, let alone a historically dominant late-developer, insists that he is different, that he should be trusted, that his victories will stand the test of time, we must recognize that these are extra-ordinary appeals.

For such appeals to be believable, they must break a decades-long cycle. They ask for history to be set aside. For patterns to be ignored. It is in this regard that honesty and transparency would have been welcome. Openness, and the absence of contradictions and denials may have gone some way to reassuring those whose memories sow mistrust.

Instead we have been given the opposite. Team Sky, who rode into cycling with promises of transparency, have avoided, diverted and obfuscated even the most basic questions. They avoided questions in British Parliament, are linked to unexplained testosterone and jiffy-bag deliveries, and have failed to deliver on numerous promises of transparency.

These range from a promised study on suspicious blood values in Sergio Henao, to commitments to providing data from their race-winning exploits. The marginal gains philosophy has been exposed to be, at best, a PR campaign, patronizing not only to followers of the sport, but also to rival teams, who by insinuation are incompetent, unable to do basic things like keep riders healthy, recover properly, or figure out how to eat and drink enough to provide energy during stages.

...

Speaking of the famed Sky attention to detail, this is something we are meant to believe is responsible for their success, but we should set it aside about basic things like losing laptops, failing to back up medical records or histories of orders of medical products, and allegedly not knowing the weight of their riders (though they themselves have contradicted this assertion).

...

At worst, the marginal gain shtick has been diversionary and deceitful, a cover for practices that they’ve since acknowledged included the use of Therapeutic Use Exemptions to gain advantages. It is no wonder mistrust exists – the same tactics were in play during the Armstrong years.

These are not actions of a clean, transparent team. Is it any wonder that fans who have followed the sport, in particular the Tour, and who mostly accept that the sport is tainted by drugs, are so deeply suspicious of Sky and Froome.
"Is it any wonder..." No, I don't see why there would be.

They go on and make the same points about the Salbutamol positive that Merckx made above and much more.
 
Last edited:
OK, RF you've posted Tucker's report in lieu of your inability to name a single "blatant and obvious" .lie. So let me deconstruct it

The history of cycling compels scepticism. It is the canvas on which Froome’s words “Trust me” are painted. When any champion, let alone a historically dominant late-developer, insists that he is different, that he should be trusted, that his victories will stand the test of time, we must recognize that these are extra-ordinary appeals.

Right off the bat he's using history to beat someone with. History can't be changed so when does it stop being relevant? I live in a country where many still evoke World War 2 as if it is relevant to today.
And stating that his wins will stand isn't extra-ordinary in way.l


For such appeals to be believable, they must break a decades-long cycle. They ask for history to be set aside. For patterns to be ignored. It is in this regard that honesty and transparency would have been welcome. Openness, and the absence of contradictions and denials may have gone some way to reassuring those whose memories sow mistrust.

Again blaming someone for someone else's history. This is the root of most prejudice.

Instead we have been given the opposite. Team Sky, who rode into cycling with promises of transparency, have avoided, diverted and obfuscated even the most basic questions. They avoided questions in British Parliament, are linked to unexplained testosterone and jiffy-bag deliveries, and have failed to deliver on numerous promises of transparency.
Brailsford and Sutton both turned up and answered questions from MPs that think Le Tour is a Classic.

The testosterone is a fair point - we'll see how that pans out. The jiffy bag less so unless the journalist and his source give us an alternative story.

These range from a promised study on suspicious blood values in Sergio Henao, to commitments to providing data from their race-winning exploits. The marginal gains philosophy has been exposed to be, at best, a PR campaign, patronizing not only to followers of the sport, but also to rival teams, who by insinuation are incompetent, unable to do basic things like keep riders healthy, recover properly, or figure out how to eat and drink enough to provide energy during stages.

Sky said that that Sheffield Uni intended to use the study as part of a report. As an academic Tucker should know that publishing a paper isn't that simple. It's not Sky's paper.
Also I assume that Tucker has read The Sports Gene by David Epstein, which has a whole chapter about altitude natives and blood cells. He seems to have forgotten it here.

As for rivals teams - yes a lot of them were unevolved. But similarly some made innovations that Sky copied. I remember an interview with Romain Bardet a couple of years ago saying how almost everything had changed since he joined (2012 I think)
...


Speaking of the famed Sky attention to detail, this is something we are meant to believe is responsible for their success, but we should set it aside about basic things like losing laptops, failing to back up medical records or histories of orders of medical products, and allegedly not knowing the weight of their riders (though they themselves have contradicted this assertion).

The great fallacy that attention to detail gives immunity to problems. It doesn't. Also anyone who has read Richard Moore's book about the first year of Sky knows they were a bit of a shambles early on, focusing on the wrong things.
As for Sky not knowing the riders' weights. Brailsford said he didn't know. He's the boss. He delegates that sort of stuff.

...

At worst, the marginal gain shtick has been diversionary and deceitful, a cover for practices that they’ve since acknowledged included the use of Therapeutic Use Exemptions to gain advantages. It is no wonder mistrust exists – the same tactics were in play during the Armstrong years.

They acknowledged that they gained an advantage by fixing someone's medical problem over not fixing it.

These are not actions of a clean, transparent team. Is it any wonder that fans who have followed the sport, in particular the Tour, and who mostly accept that the sport is tainted by drugs, are so deeply suspicious of Sky and Froome.

And then back to the history - the last refuge of the prejudiced.

Let's bear in mind that Tucker is supposed to be a Scientist. Science is based on experimentation and observation to come to a conclusion. He rejects this and searches for justification for the opinion he holds. An opinion that I suggest he holds because it garners him attention. Remember that this is someone who felt the need to pre-empt Froome's tests with a report on what he thought the results would be - that's not a scientist's attitude.


Scrutinise all you like. Be as sceptical as you wish. If you constantly cite ''blatant and obvious lies' then make sure you know what those lies are. But if you are not scrutinising your own opinions then the only person insulting you intelligence is yourself.
 
Last edited:
...

They don't. Because they conspiracy narrative doesn't comport with logic or reality...in this case.

But hopefully reasonable people understand why no one takes anything Ineos or Froome say at face value. There is simply too long a list of the nonsense to bother with. We understand that some will refuse to accept this and are determined to prop up a "Ineos are on the level" narrative. So be it.

Ineos have created the environment for conspiracies to thrive. Someone will always fill that vacuum.

bullshit....its because the internet nutjobs believe they have every right to see every single bit of information on Froome and they don't get their way...
 
OK, RF you've posted Tucker's report in lieu of your inability to name a single "blatant and obvious" .lie.
How about buses that drive away before riders do interviews next to them, or visiting Emma Pooley in the Alps while she's leading a race in Spain?

A more contentious lie is "we will not hire anybody involved in doping ever and have measures in place to prevent this". Now, if you want to play the naïve card you can let them off with Michael Barry and Mick Rogers, because nothing was in the public domain about them that explicitly fingered them as guilty at the stage at which Sky hired them, although there was an awful lot of smoke, especially about Rogers. But Leinders was named in the Rasmussen court documents. No, I didn't know about that at the time either. But then, I wasn't hiring a doctor while preaching the strength of my anti-doping practices.

"We will be transparent" is an obvious lie, because they have done everything in their power to obstruct transparency once the snowballs of doubt became larger than they anticipated (which seemed odd, the fact that they legitimately seemed caught unawares by people doubting them when they started riding so dominantly). From delaying tactics, to filibustering, to Brailsford's politico answers to straight questions, to promising to host a Q&A session that never happened, to running away from questions about investigations that had been promised.

How about "we will not have riders with TUEs, and we will withdraw riders from races rather than take up TUEs"? Even ignoring the triamcinolone and Fancy Bears, we knew about Froome's prednisolone TUEs when he won Romandie back in 2013. Now, is there anything per se wrong with a TUE for prednisolone? No. Of course not. But it did show up the team's original policy as nothing more than PR bluster.

The "Sand Shoes" myth about Froome is another blatant and obvious lie. How blatant and obvious? So blatant and obvious that Froome's own book includes pictures of him at that very event... wearing cycling shoes.

There are other things that aren't necessarily lies but are shown up in the fullness of time, like them telling of how the roadbook is their bible and how they achieve so much because of their thorough study of the roadbook, yet in País Vasco in 2012 they toasted all their puncheurs trying to lead out Appollonio in a sprint, failing to recognise the Alto de Garagaltza, 1km @ 9%, in the route, which led to the stage eventually being a two-up sprint between Samuel Sánchez and Joaquím Rodríguez.

Does any of this mean that they are guilty of everything they are accused of? Of course not. And reporting can always be more sensationalist than the official words from the team themselves, and the fact that the team has a number of journalists who are thought of as being on-side means that some of the hyperbole of journalists who aren't directly connected to the organisation is conflated erroneously with the official statements that come out of the team.

But really, that in 2019 we're apparently going all the way back to the stage of trying to pretend Sky/Ineos/Brailsford haven't been dishonest is like going back in time. To claim that everything they've done, in the handling of the jiffy bag, the TUEs, and the mental gymnastics that have been done in the name of justifying the unusual career paths under their watch, has been entirely innocent, and they've just made mistakes when they've said things that later turned out to be untrue, is to believe that they've fumbled their way to success, and that's at odds with the outward impression of a very well-run and tightly-managed ship that they've tried to present. Personally, I believe that to have succeeded as they have, for as long as they have, with the range of riders that they have (it's clearly not just lucking into a once-in-a-lifetime talent, as they've had success with several different riders across a range of events), that they are managed well, and run professionally. And that means that I believe they have consciously lied about several if not all of the above things.

That doesn't mean I necessarily believe everything they come out with is untrue, and it certainly doesn't mean I necessarily believe every conspiracy theory about the team, and I don't want it perceiving from this post that I agree with the theorists on the Dauphiné crash (at the same time, I doubt long-standing and reasonable posters like Merckx Index do either). But it does mean that I take the majority of what I hear direct from the internal brass at Ineos with at least a fairly generous helping of salt, and after everything that has happened in the last decade, it will be a long time before they've earnt back enough trust that that won't be the case.
 
I can only surmise you have intentionally decided to confuse unwillingness to engage with disingenuous arguments with an inability to do so.

The point of my comments, again, was to explain why the conspiracy theorists find such fertile ground with Froome and Ineos. You may continue to refuse to understand this simple notion to your heart’s content, but I won’t play the game.
 
How about buses that drive away before riders do interviews next to them, or visiting Emma Pooley in the Alps while she's leading a race in Spain?

A more contentious lie is "we will not hire anybody involved in doping ever and have measures in place to prevent this". Now, if you want to play the naïve card you can let them off with Michael Barry and Mick Rogers, because nothing was in the public domain about them that explicitly fingered them as guilty at the stage at which Sky hired them, although there was an awful lot of smoke, especially about Rogers. But Leinders was named in the Rasmussen court documents. No, I didn't know about that at the time either. But then, I wasn't hiring a doctor while preaching the strength of my anti-doping practices.

"We will be transparent" is an obvious lie, because they have done everything in their power to obstruct transparency once the snowballs of doubt became larger than they anticipated (which seemed odd, the fact that they legitimately seemed caught unawares by people doubting them when they started riding so dominantly). From delaying tactics, to filibustering, to Brailsford's politico answers to straight questions, to promising to host a Q&A session that never happened, to running away from questions about investigations that had been promised.

How about "we will not have riders with TUEs, and we will withdraw riders from races rather than take up TUEs"? Even ignoring the triamcinolone and Fancy Bears, we knew about Froome's prednisolone TUEs when he won Romandie back in 2013. Now, is there anything per se wrong with a TUE for prednisolone? No. Of course not. But it did show up the team's original policy as nothing more than PR bluster.

The "Sand Shoes" myth about Froome is another blatant and obvious lie. How blatant and obvious? So blatant and obvious that Froome's own book includes pictures of him at that very event... wearing cycling shoes.

There are other things that aren't necessarily lies but are shown up in the fullness of time, like them telling of how the roadbook is their bible and how they achieve so much because of their thorough study of the roadbook, yet in País Vasco in 2012 they toasted all their puncheurs trying to lead out Appollonio in a sprint, failing to recognise the Alto de Garagaltza, 1km @ 9%, in the route, which led to the stage eventually being a two-up sprint between Samuel Sánchez and Joaquím Rodríguez.

Does any of this mean that they are guilty of everything they are accused of? Of course not. And reporting can always be more sensationalist than the official words from the team themselves, and the fact that the team has a number of journalists who are thought of as being on-side means that some of the hyperbole of journalists who aren't directly connected to the organisation is conflated erroneously with the official statements that come out of the team.

But really, that in 2019 we're apparently going all the way back to the stage of trying to pretend Sky/Ineos/Brailsford haven't been dishonest is like going back in time. To claim that everything they've done, in the handling of the jiffy bag, the TUEs, and the mental gymnastics that have been done in the name of justifying the unusual career paths under their watch, has been entirely innocent, and they've just made mistakes when they've said things that later turned out to be untrue, is to believe that they've fumbled their way to success, and that's at odds with the outward impression of a very well-run and tightly-managed ship that they've tried to present. Personally, I believe that to have succeeded as they have, for as long as they have, with the range of riders that they have (it's clearly not just lucking into a once-in-a-lifetime talent, as they've had success with several different riders across a range of events), that they are managed well, and run professionally. And that means that I believe they have consciously lied about several if not all of the above things.

That doesn't mean I necessarily believe everything they come out with is untrue, and it certainly doesn't mean I necessarily believe every conspiracy theory about the team, and I don't want it perceiving from this post that I agree with the theorists on the Dauphiné crash (at the same time, I doubt long-standing and reasonable posters like Merckx Index do either). But it does mean that I take the majority of what I hear direct from the internal brass at Ineos with at least a fairly generous helping of salt, and after everything that has happened in the last decade, it will be a long time before they've earnt back enough trust that that won't be the case.
To be fair...an excellent and well balanced post
 
I keep hearing this. Lied extensively. "Blatant and obvious lies" (Red Flanders above).

So what are these lies? Just pick your favourite few.

I'll start you off with Simon Cope going to see Emma Pooley. A lie or bad memory of a five year old event? I'd lean towards the latter, but I'll grant you that one.

So what are some more? Verifiable lies, not matters of opinion.

(Red Flanders, feel free to join in)
Whats the Emma Pooley story?
 
Sivakov favorite I guess but Vingegaard is not slow.
He’s been called worse, in fact I’d wager that you’ve called him worse...pigs are misunderstood and under appreciated animals ;)
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
Orwell
 
How about "we will not have riders with TUEs, and we will withdraw riders from races rather than take up TUEs"? Even ignoring the triamcinolone and Fancy Bears, we knew about Froome's prednisolone TUEs when he won Romandie back in 2013. Now, is there anything per se wrong with a TUE for prednisolone? No. Of course not. But it did show up the team's original policy as nothing more than PR bluster.
Similarly with MPCC. Despite all their preaching about anti-doping, Sky wouldn't join this organization. Why? They claimed they had a better program. Even assuming that were so, what did they have to lose by joining? Belonging to MPCC isn't going to handicap their own efforts to deal with doping.

If Chris Horner had ridden for Sky at the time, he could have and would have entered the Vuelta in 2014.

In his book, Froome never once mentions that he has asthma and uses salbutamol. When asked about this, he replied that he didn't regard it as that important. Yet telling the reader that he stole rabbits to feed his pet snake is important? By what possible logic is it more important for a multiple TDF champion to inform the reader that he stole rabbits, than that he had asthma, and used a drug that at various times has been subject to strict regulation? The latter has everything to do with how people might evaluate his wins--doping if you're cynical, remarkable what he has been able to overcome if you're not. The rabbit story has no relevance at all, except, perhaps, to imply that Froome from an early age was extremely hard-ass, and would do almost anything to get what he wanted or needed.
 
Last edited:
Similarly with MPCC. Despite all their preaching about anti-doping, Sky wouldn't join this organization. Why? They claimed they had a better program. Even assuming that were so, what did they have to lose by joining? Belonging to MPCC isn't going to handicap their own efforts to deal with doping.

If Chris Horner had ridden for Sky at the time, he could have and would have entered the Vuelta in 2014.
The only official statement they made on it, was Brailsford would only join MPCC if their rules prevented anyone with proven evidence of doping being on the board. Given that the entire board is pretty much formed of people with evidence of doping or having doped as riders, he said they wouldn't join. 9 years later Lavenu's team have had 4 doping violations for EPO, Blood Passport and Masking Agents and suspended themselves with their own rules he is on the board of fighiting for credibility in cycling which is about as hypocritical as one could possibly act. I think Brailsford had a point and has been proven right year after year by MPCCs members myself. i.e. what's the point claiming credibility over Coticosteroids when your members continually return doping violations for EPO, Testosterone and Blood Passport violations?
In those 9 years UCI have aligned with MPCC anyway over Corticosteroids with the 8 days anyway. MPCC is largely redundant.
 
Last edited:
9 years later Lavenu's team have had 4 doping violations for EPO, Blood Passport and Masking Agents and suspended themselves with their own rules he is on the board of fighiting for credibility in cycling which is about as hypocritical as one could possibly act.
The purpose of the MPCC is to provide rules about how to respond to dopers on one's team. It does not, and can't, develop new ways of catching dopers that non-member teams don't have.

In those 9 years UCI have aligned with MPCC anyway over Corticosteroids with the 8 days anyway. MPCC is largely redundant.
Their policy didn't stop Wiggins.
 
The rabbit story has no relevance at all, except, perhaps, to imply that Froome from an early age was extremely hard-ass, and would do almost anything to get what he wanted or needed.
What he wanted, not what he needed, since nobody needs to have a pet python. Also, that he is a sadist, who enjoyed both: killing bunny rabbits with snakes, and the fact that the stolen rabbits were beloved pets of kindergarten students. That having been said, it has been noted here and elsewhere in journalism, that Froome wasn't asthmatic on record, until being seen puffing on video of Dauphiné 2014. Why not, well, as you said, that is the glaring difference versus every other Froome malady
 
Reactions: LaFlorecita
How about buses that drive away before riders do interviews next to them, or visiting Emma Pooley in the Alps while she's leading a race in Spain?

A more contentious lie is "we will not hire anybody involved in doping ever and have measures in place to prevent this". Now, if you want to play the naïve card you can let them off with Michael Barry and Mick Rogers, because nothing was in the public domain about them that explicitly fingered them as guilty at the stage at which Sky hired them, although there was an awful lot of smoke, especially about Rogers. But Leinders was named in the Rasmussen court documents. No, I didn't know about that at the time either. But then, I wasn't hiring a doctor while preaching the strength of my anti-doping practices.

"We will be transparent" is an obvious lie, because they have done everything in their power to obstruct transparency once the snowballs of doubt became larger than they anticipated (which seemed odd, the fact that they legitimately seemed caught unawares by people doubting them when they started riding so dominantly). From delaying tactics, to filibustering, to Brailsford's politico answers to straight questions, to promising to host a Q&A session that never happened, to running away from questions about investigations that had been promised.

How about "we will not have riders with TUEs, and we will withdraw riders from races rather than take up TUEs"? Even ignoring the triamcinolone and Fancy Bears, we knew about Froome's prednisolone TUEs when he won Romandie back in 2013. Now, is there anything per se wrong with a TUE for prednisolone? No. Of course not. But it did show up the team's original policy as nothing more than PR bluster.

The "Sand Shoes" myth about Froome is another blatant and obvious lie. How blatant and obvious? So blatant and obvious that Froome's own book includes pictures of him at that very event... wearing cycling shoes.

There are other things that aren't necessarily lies but are shown up in the fullness of time, like them telling of how the roadbook is their bible and how they achieve so much because of their thorough study of the roadbook, yet in País Vasco in 2012 they toasted all their puncheurs trying to lead out Appollonio in a sprint, failing to recognise the Alto de Garagaltza, 1km @ 9%, in the route, which led to the stage eventually being a two-up sprint between Samuel Sánchez and Joaquím Rodríguez.

Does any of this mean that they are guilty of everything they are accused of? Of course not. And reporting can always be more sensationalist than the official words from the team themselves, and the fact that the team has a number of journalists who are thought of as being on-side means that some of the hyperbole of journalists who aren't directly connected to the organisation is conflated erroneously with the official statements that come out of the team.

But really, that in 2019 we're apparently going all the way back to the stage of trying to pretend Sky/Ineos/Brailsford haven't been dishonest is like going back in time. To claim that everything they've done, in the handling of the jiffy bag, the TUEs, and the mental gymnastics that have been done in the name of justifying the unusual career paths under their watch, has been entirely innocent, and they've just made mistakes when they've said things that later turned out to be untrue, is to believe that they've fumbled their way to success, and that's at odds with the outward impression of a very well-run and tightly-managed ship that they've tried to present. Personally, I believe that to have succeeded as they have, for as long as they have, with the range of riders that they have (it's clearly not just lucking into a once-in-a-lifetime talent, as they've had success with several different riders across a range of events), that they are managed well, and run professionally. And that means that I believe they have consciously lied about several if not all of the above things.

That doesn't mean I necessarily believe everything they come out with is untrue, and it certainly doesn't mean I necessarily believe every conspiracy theory about the team, and I don't want it perceiving from this post that I agree with the theorists on the Dauphiné crash (at the same time, I doubt long-standing and reasonable posters like Merckx Index do either). But it does mean that I take the majority of what I hear direct from the internal brass at Ineos with at least a fairly generous helping of salt, and after everything that has happened in the last decade, it will be a long time before they've earnt back enough trust that that won't be the case.
The usual Libery Segureos replty. Lots and lot of words.

Break it down into a post of key points of 200 words or less and I'll respond. As one of the bosses in my company says, if you can't make your case in a few sentences, you don't have a point.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS