Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Benotti69]

If it happens all the time, point out some of the big leaks.

A minority sport means leaks are much easier to trace. A minority sport means not many are interested in it. Casual sports fans already know the sport is full of doping. Sport pages in nationals barely carry cycling stories or results. Litigation laws also dont allow for leaks without hard evidence.

Again this has all been gone over. Sky are doping is as obvious to a blind man, but because there are no whislteblowers and no leaks they cant be! Yeah sure, keep obfuscating.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re:

If it happens all the time, point out some of the big leaks.

A minority sport means leaks are much easier to trace. A minority sport means not many are interested in it. Casual sports fans already know the sport is full of doping. Sport pages in nationals barely carry cycling stories or results. Litigation laws also dont allow for leaks without hard evidence.

Again this has all been gone over. Sky are doping is as obvious to a blind man, but because there are no whislteblowers and no leaks they cant be! Yeah sure, keep obfuscating.

You say its obfuscation - to obfuscate is make obscure, unclear, or unintelligible, but it seems totally clear and intellible to me that he does not fully agree with you and you are looking at this and many other matters in at least two completely different ways. There's nothing illegitimate in not agreeing with you. Time to agree to disagree perhaps? There must be other things to worry about in this world.

 

[kwikki]

Re:

If it happens all the time, point out some of the big leaks.

A minority sport means leaks are much easier to trace. A minority sport means not many are interested in it. Casual sports fans already know the sport is full of doping. Sport pages in nationals barely carry cycling stories or results. Litigation laws also dont allow for leaks without hard evidence.

Again this has all been gone over. Sky are doping is as obvious to a blind man, but because there are no whislteblowers and no leaks they cant be! Yeah sure, keep obfuscating.

Again, I havent said that. Try reading posts for what they actually say, rather than just immediately going off on a rant.

There are a million examples of anonymous leaks to journalists. Try reading a paper

Lack of leaks doesn't prove Sky are clean. Nothing can prove Sky are clean. It's impossible to prove. My own personal view is that Sky are highly unlikely to be clean. Nevertheless, I discount the notion that whistleblowing is an impossibility.

 

[Benotti69]

Millions of examples? produce some in sport as examples of leaked information of cheating/doping?

 

[kwikki]

Dan Stevens.

 

[Benotti69]

Great example of a whistleblower who was ignored by UKAD. His leaks really had a positive effect on changing the sport. No wonder so many are leaking information about Sky!

 

[thehog]

Re:

Great example of a whistleblower who was ignored by UKAD. His leaks really had a positive effect on changing the sport. No wonder so many are leaking information about Sky!

Well, Dan Stevens ignored by UKAD, sanctioned to the fullest, given a slightly reduced sentence when speaking to the CIRC, had to spend countless ten of thousands to defend against UKAD trying to stop here from speaking to the media and then when the independent commission was informed to investigate they didn't even interview him!

One could also look into the another case in with the UKAD, with the Linda McCartney team where key witnesses stated UKAD never interviewed them or followed up.

Whistleblowing is a zero sum game.

 

[Digger]

Dan Stevens who is literally laughed and made fun of by the media - Richard moore for example.
30,000 he spent on furthering the case from his own money - and still they ignored him, In fact many on here still dismiss him...yea he's a great advertisement to come clean alright....

 

[Digger]

Regards Syed and Brailsford and the conflict of interests - not in the sense of walsh, times and Murdoch...

but it does add to the feeling it's highly unlikely he'll write anything negative when they are involved in extra curricular activities together

 

[Digger]

Also I know for a fact, because the journalist told me, that he was told by the times in July 2012 to write positive about sky or come home...it wasn't kimmage and obviously not walsh.
Same person told me brailsford has phoned and threatened editors.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Also I know for a fact, because the journalist told me, that he was told by the times in July 2012 to write positive about sky or come home...it wasn't kimmage and obviously not walsh.
Same person told me brailsford has phoned and threatened editors.

I would add, that Sky is intrinsically linked to British Cycling. Criticising management can limit access to one or both entities, which makes it impossible to sustain the reporting at the Tour, major championships and major games like the Olympics. Considering the downward trend on newspaper circulation you’re not going to cut off your content source, unless there is a scandal which has long term legs.

 

[kwikki]

Re:

Dan Stevens who is literally laughed and made fun of by the media - Richard moore for example.
30,000 he spent on furthering the case from his own money - and still they ignored him, In fact many on here still dismiss him...yea he's a great advertisement to come clean alright....

So how come you got to hear about him???

Here's a Google search of 'Dan Stevens epo'.
Now count the number of newspapers, TV station websites etc the story appeared on.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?site=&source=hp&ei=2KifV8vlI4SgsAHc84CQCg&q=dan+steven+epo&oq=dan+steven+epo&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.3..0i22i30.1962.7044.0.8346.17.16.1.5.5.0.412.4140.0j2j10j3j1.16.0....0...1.1j4.64.mobile-gws-hp..0.17.3024.3..0j41j0i131j0i10j0i13i30.bmw2RR3A7es

Plus he appeared in front of a Parliamentary enquiry which was televised.

And you guys are saying there was no exposure :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[thehog]

There was only exposure because the Sunday Times did their own investigation with a hidden camera, that’s what was being exposed. The UKAD didn’t do any intel nor inform the relevant bodies. Without the Sunday Times and the recorded evidence nothing would have occurred. That was the entire point of the Stevens case, it was a media lead investigation not a Stevens whistle blowing investigation. He was vilified by UKAD.

 

[kwikki]

Agreed. But the salient point is that the Times picked up the story and ran with it. People are interested in doping stories. In fact, were there to be a Sky doping story which looked like it would have legs I wouldn't put it past the Times exposing it as a damage limitation exercise.

You'd think the Times wouldn't want to be upsetting UKAD though, wouldn't you....

 

[ontheroad]

Re: Re:

Dan Stevens who is literally laughed and made fun of by the media - Richard moore for example.
30,000 he spent on furthering the case from his own money - and still they ignored him, In fact many on here still dismiss him...yea he's a great advertisement to come clean alright....

So how come you got to hear about him???

Here's a Google search of 'Dan Stevens epo'.
Now count the number of newspapers, TV station websites etc the story appeared on.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?site=&source=hp&ei=2KifV8vlI4SgsAHc84CQCg&q=dan+steven+epo&oq=dan+steven+epo&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.3..0i22i30.1962.7044.0.8346.17.16.1.5.5.0.412.4140.0j2j10j3j1.16.0....0...1.1j4.64.mobile-gws-hp..0.17.3024.3..0j41j0i131j0i10j0i13i30.bmw2RR3A7es

Plus he appeared in front of a Parliamentary enquiry which was televised.

And you guys are saying there was no exposure :lol: :lol: :lol:

How has it been worthwhile for Dan Stevens to report his experience of drug taking in cycling? I'm sure he would disagree totally with your assertion that his case was treated seriously and the necessary action followed through on. Ostracised from his sport, suffered financial loss and ridicule yet your presenting a Google search of some newspaper articles as evidence he was taken seriously. No, I'm not having that.

 

[kwikki]

I didn't assert any of that, Mr Strawman.

I said that the whistleblower story was picked up....which it clearly was.

 

[ontheroad]

Re:

I didn't assert any of that, Mr Strawman.

I said that the whistleblower story was picked up....which it clearly was.

Your earlier argument you stated that it was worthwhile for somebody to leak, no?

 

[ontheroad]

Re:

I think in so far as journalists can actually have COIs then Syed and Walsh have them simply by writing team pr for a team owned by their employers. It really is that simple.

Still think Syed has one legitimate point. There are enough rival news agencies to Sky to make it worthwhile for somebody to leak.

With regards to journalists being too scared to write against Sky......err.......Walsh? He's still alive and breathing and seems to have picked up a great gig off the back of chasing Armstrong.

This bit.

 

[kwikki]

I didn't assert any of that, Mr Strawman.

I said that the whistleblower story was picked up....which it clearly was.

Your earlier argument you stated that it was worthwhile for somebody to leak, no?

Indeed. His leak to the press looks like it was entirely worthwhile. He might not have got the ban reduction he wanted, but he got his revenge on UKAD threefold...which is most likely what he hoped for from his leak to the press. The inquiry into UKAD pretty much wiped the floor with it. It was all over the media, and he got to live the dream by appearing in front of the parliamentary select committee on TV.

Let's face it, what do we believe he really hoped for by his whistleblowing on Boner? It wasn't to clean up the sport, it was to get a ban reduction. He wasn't repentant at all. He was just hoping to play the system for his own benefit. The end result though, was worthwhile IF his aim was to help clean up anti-doping.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

I think in so far as journalists can actually have COIs then Syed and Walsh have them simply by writing team pr for a team owned by their employers. It really is that simple.

Still think Syed has one legitimate point. There are enough rival news agencies to Sky to make it worthwhile for somebody to leak.

With regards to journalists being too scared to write against Sky......err.......Walsh? He's still alive and breathing and seems to have picked up a great gig off the back of chasing Armstrong.

This bit.

That was not really with Boner in mind. It was whether or not rival news agencies would run with a doping story about Sky. I think they would.

With regards to whether it would be worthwhile for a whistleblower depends entirely on what a whistleblower hoped to get out of it.

Look at Floyd. He wanted revenge by bringing down Armstrong. Are you going to pretend he didn't get exactly that?

 

[ontheroad]

Re:

Indeed. His leak to the press looks like it was entirely worthwhile. He might not have got the ban reduction he wanted, but he got his revenge on UKAD threefold...which is most likely what he hoped for from his leak. The inquiry into UKAD pretty much wiped the floor with it. It was all over the media, and he got to live the dream by appearing in front of the parliamentary select committee on TV.

Let's face it, what do we believe he really hoped for by his whistleblowing on Boner? It wasn't to clean up the sport, it was to get a ban reduction. He wasn't repentant at all. He was just hoping to play the system for his own benefit. The end result though, was worthwhile IF his aim was to help clean up anti-doping.

I can't speak for anybody else but I severely doubt that. Large financial cost for a start.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Indeed. His leak to the press looks like it was entirely worthwhile. He might not have got the ban reduction he wanted, but he got his revenge on UKAD threefold...which is most likely what he hoped for from his leak. The inquiry into UKAD pretty much wiped the floor with it. It was all over the media, and he got to live the dream by appearing in front of the parliamentary select committee on TV.

Let's face it, what do we believe he really hoped for by his whistleblowing on Boner? It wasn't to clean up the sport, it was to get a ban reduction. He wasn't repentant at all. He was just hoping to play the system for his own benefit. The end result though, was worthwhile IF his aim was to help clean up anti-doping.

I can't speak for anybody else but I severely doubt that. Large financial cost for a start.

One would consider the libel laws in the UK; hence why the Sunday Times had to gather their own evidence to back up Steven’s claim of being supplied PEDs. It would be hard for a whistleblower without representation to do this on their own (or the funds for representation).

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

Indeed. His leak to the press looks like it was entirely worthwhile. He might not have got the ban reduction he wanted, but he got his revenge on UKAD threefold...which is most likely what he hoped for from his leak. The inquiry into UKAD pretty much wiped the floor with it. It was all over the media, and he got to live the dream by appearing in front of the parliamentary select committee on TV.

Let's face it, what do we believe he really hoped for by his whistleblowing on Boner? It wasn't to clean up the sport, it was to get a ban reduction. He wasn't repentant at all. He was just hoping to play the system for his own benefit. The end result though, was worthwhile IF his aim was to help clean up anti-doping.

I can't speak for anybody else but I severely doubt that. Large financial cost for a start.

Only he can speak for himself, so your guess is as good as mine.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

Indeed. His leak to the press looks like it was entirely worthwhile. He might not have got the ban reduction he wanted, but he got his revenge on UKAD threefold...which is most likely what he hoped for from his leak. The inquiry into UKAD pretty much wiped the floor with it. It was all over the media, and he got to live the dream by appearing in front of the parliamentary select committee on TV.

Let's face it, what do we believe he really hoped for by his whistleblowing on Boner? It wasn't to clean up the sport, it was to get a ban reduction. He wasn't repentant at all. He was just hoping to play the system for his own benefit. The end result though, was worthwhile IF his aim was to help clean up anti-doping.

I can't speak for anybody else but I severely doubt that. Large financial cost for a start.

One would consider the libel laws in the UK; hence why the Sunday Times had to gather their own evidence to back up Steven’s claim of being supplied PEDs. It would be hard for a whistleblower without representation to do this on their own (or the funds for representation).

That is true.

Of course, potential Sky whistleblowers aren't limited to using British newspapers or TV as their conduit.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Indeed. His leak to the press looks like it was entirely worthwhile. He might not have got the ban reduction he wanted, but he got his revenge on UKAD threefold...which is most likely what he hoped for from his leak. The inquiry into UKAD pretty much wiped the floor with it. It was all over the media, and he got to live the dream by appearing in front of the parliamentary select committee on TV.

Let's face it, what do we believe he really hoped for by his whistleblowing on Boner? It wasn't to clean up the sport, it was to get a ban reduction. He wasn't repentant at all. He was just hoping to play the system for his own benefit. The end result though, was worthwhile IF his aim was to help clean up anti-doping.

I can't speak for anybody else but I severely doubt that. Large financial cost for a start.

One would consider the libel laws in the UK; hence why the Sunday Times had to gather their own evidence to back up Steven’s claim of being supplied PEDs. It would be hard for a whistleblower without representation to do this on their own (or the funds for representation).

That is true.

Of course, potential Sky whistleblowers aren't limited to using British newspapers or TV as their conduit.

Libel encompasses all written media not just Newspapers and TV as you state, McAlpine v Bercow showed that social media is part of defamation law. Thus a Sky whistleblower would not have an available avenue for telling their story as you imply.

Of course the ultimate defense against a defamation suit is the "truth" but that requires evidence and if the alleger is not represented then they would have a very hard time in defending their claims.

Not easy to do without funds, time and strong representation.