Ross Tucker @Scienceofsport 11m11 minutes ago
1) So I meet a guy who is DEEP embedded in elite sport, has coached at the very top. 100% trustworthy in my opinion. Has stories that would
2) make sports governing bodies' heads explodes. Knows where bodies are buried, & who killed 'em. I ask what it would take for him to reveal
3) it all. First response - you only lose be revealing because authorities won't back it anyway, so the positive outcome you seek is fiction
4) Second point - the risk of revealing is massive. Not just loss of future opportunity,but real danger. So risk vs reward? No way you speak
5) He goes so far as to reveal that he has left a few copies of incriminating documents in various places for instructions for what should
6) be done if anything happens to him. That's the level of 'fear' we're talking here. So when people glibly say "there's be whistleblowers"
7) they don't appreciate the magnitude of what it takes to come out & talk - you risk everything, for a tiny possibility of uncertain change
8) Until someone creates the incentive for people to talk, it won't happen. Lance did, by pissing off so many. Walsh enabled it by searching
9) for those, inspired by something personal. Question now, is who is doing that? That's why the fawning media coverage is so frustrating
10) In the USA, there's total apathy to cycling. In UK, it's controlled & 'fan-based' (they're writing the "hug" equivalent of journalism)
11) So who is going to uncover the truth? Nobody is looking, and those who know are not exactly happy to be exposed to all that risk.
12) When I see a journo write puff pieces,or say how he hugged another when his athlete won, I despair because how is that person fulfilling
13) a responsibility to the public? All they're doing is writing unpaid for advertorials. The authorities are of course no more trustworthy
14) All of this is why I very enthusiastically support
https://www.sportsleaks.com I hope it helps shift the balance & expose more