Geert Leinders

[martinvickers]

Kimmage and Walsh, apples and oranges.

It's really for the Walsh thread, but that's just a pointless quip.

 

[red_flanders]

Every CEO ultimately answers to the shareholders and investors. Do you really think Sky's $50m investment doesn't give them a say in things are wrong.

If I follow that correctly, the answer is that I don't know. I don't know who Sky are, exactly and what the structure is. But yeah, I'd assume they have say into how the team is run. That can take many forms. Some owners will find someone with the background and philosophy they agree with and let them run a team, some will be more involved.

So I don't know how much of this policy is Brailsford or not.

I don't know who sets policy but I do know that David Millar had agreed with Brailsford that he would join Sky at their inception, but was then blocked by the introduction of the policy. However, he was selected for GB every year until 2013. Brailsford is the Principal for both, yet the policies are different. It strongly suggests someone higher is writing the rules at Sky

Sounds possible, thanks for the info. Not sure where that leaves things RE: Leinders. Brailsford is responsible whether he set the policy or not. If he doesn't believe in the policy that would actually make a lot of sense if you look at what he's actually done in terms of hiring people with dodgy pasts.

What is clear is that their actual policy has become very unclear and their transparency is decidedly opaque. And I end up back where this conversation started, that he has the job of trying to defend what is clearly a whole pile of BS.

 

[Parker]

Not sure where that leaves things RE: Leinders. Brailsford is responsible whether he set the policy or not. If he doesn't believe in the policy that would actually make a lot of sense if you look at what he's actually done in terms of hiring people with dodgy pasts.

A massive screw-up is a massive screw-up regardless of policy.

 

[thehog]

Kimmage had very little dealing with Armstrong outside of the Cali press conference. Some try to play up Kimmage's role in exposing Lance but in reality he had little to do with it. He has been outspoken on it down the years but in regards to doing the digging and getting the backbone to the story, it is Walsh who takes the credit. Kimmage is great at writing columns giving his take on doping and holding people to account in press conferences and interviews. I just don't think the investigative journalism part is his strong point in the same manner as Walsh.

No one exposed Lance other than Landis.

Not Walsh, not PK not anyone.

Walsh included are only now reaping some rewards because one guy ripped the ar/e off the sham.

PK with full reign could tear Sky apart. But who's going to print that in English language press?

 

[gooner]

No one exposed Lance other than Landis.

Not Walsh, not PK not anyone.

Walsh included are only now reaping some rewards because one guy ripped the ar/e off the sham.

I was speaking from a journalist point of view and the role of it in this.

Still doesn't change the fact that Kimmage had little dealings with Lance outside the Cali press conference in comparison to Walsh.

PK with full reign could tear Sky apart. But who's going to print that in English language press?

The Daily Mail and Telegraph are papers who have asked questions on Sky regarding Rogers, Barry, Yates, ZTP, Leinders etc. The Mail in particular did very good work. I'm with Paul regarding questioning them but I disagree with his comment that the British media won't touch the story with a bargepole.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...ons-doping-Lance-Armstrong-fallout-grows.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2220801/Team-Sky-braced-departures.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...-stare-abyss-senior-staff-look-set-leave.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...at-cycling-can-regain-full-trust-of-fans.html

 

[bobbins]

The only one who might touch it is lequipe, after Brailsfords dig wrt Round Wheels at the London games they might want payback, they also might want to dig at that story a bit too.

It won't take much digging to find out, one of the previous posters is pretty spot on.

As far as sky and policy goes, they think Dave B walks on water so will beleive anything he tells them. Combine this with their win at all costs mentality and it isn't much of a stretch to work out what could have gone one.

 

[Benotti69]

I was speaking from a journalist point of view and the role of it in this.

Still doesn't change the fact that Kimmage had little dealings with Lance outside the Cali press conference in comparison to Walsh.



The Daily Mail and Telegraph are papers who have asked questions on Sky regarding Rogers, Barry, Yates, ZTP, Leinders etc. The Mail in particular did very good work. I'm with Paul regarding questioning them but I disagree with his comment that the British media won't touch the story with a bargepole.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...ons-doping-Lance-Armstrong-fallout-grows.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2220801/Team-Sky-braced-departures.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...-stare-abyss-senior-staff-look-set-leave.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...at-cycling-can-regain-full-trust-of-fans.html

Maybe because they knew they would lose any litigation from Kimmage's articles on Armstrong, so ST sent him off to write Faldo's golf diaries.

Kimmage may have requested to write such stuff in editorial meetings but was told no.

Telegraph has changed its tune on Sky and Gallagher has rolled over and has his tummy tickled.

But the dailymail did get Kimmage to write an article. Did you link it? No why not? It would prove the point that ST wouldn't let him write the stuff but others would.

 

[gillan1969]

Every CEO ultimately answers to the shareholders and investors. Do you really think Sky's $50m investment doesn't give them a say in things are wrong.

I don't know who sets policy but I do know that David Millar had agreed with Brailsford that he would join Sky at their inception, but was then blocked by the introduction of the policy. However, he was selected for GB every year until 2013. Brailsford is the Principal for both, yet the policies are different. It strongly suggests someone higher is writing the rules at Sky

national teams have a legal backdrop which commercial teams do not. Over the period of time Millar was riding there was the ongoing legal battle regarding if non-selection for a national team was in effect a double punishment after the original doping ban. It was ruled that it as. It was not Millar pursuing this I think it was Dwain Chambers (athletics).
So national teams found they might have to pick an ex-doper if they would be picked on merit regardless. Commercial teams can pick who they want, when they want....

 

[del1962]

national teams have a legal backdrop which commercial teams do not. Over the period of time Millar was riding there was the ongoing legal battle regarding if non-selection for a national team was in effect a double punishment after the original doping ban. It was ruled that it as. It was not Millar pursuing this I think it was Dwain Chambers (athletics).
So national teams found they might have to pick an ex-doper if they would be picked on merit regardless. Commercial teams can pick who they want, when they want....

That only applied to Olympics, not national championships, Millar competed at worlds and I think chambers did in athletics.

 

[gillan1969]

That only applied to Olympics, not national championships, Millar competed at worlds and I think chambers did in athletics.

yeah...but it was still there as a backdop...i.e. the moral question

 

[Parker]

national teams have a legal backdrop which commercial teams do not. Over the period of time Millar was riding there was the ongoing legal battle regarding if non-selection for a national team was in effect a double punishment after the original doping ban. It was ruled that it as. It was not Millar pursuing this I think it was Dwain Chambers (athletics).
So national teams found they might have to pick an ex-doper if they would be picked on merit regardless. Commercial teams can pick who they want, when they want....

That rule was a British Olympic Association rule, not a British Cycling one. Millar was picked every year for the Worlds. And there was no obligation for Brailsford to do so - there was no qualification system. After all BC never selected Wegelius or Southam again after the 2005 fiasco.

 

[martinvickers]

That rule was a British Olympic Association rule, not a British Cycling one. Millar was picked every year for the Worlds. And there was no obligation for Brailsford to do so - there was no qualification system. After all BC never selected Wegelius or Southam again after the 2005 fiasco.

Not sure it's as simple exactly as that. Refusal to follow team orders would be a relevant criteria in picking a team, regardless of doping stance - it would be evidence of unreliability in the actual race.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I heard before it was the sponsor's stipulation that Sky use the ztp, not Brailsford. I think it was for the British public, who were already wary of the state of road racing, to make them confident in a clean team. In fact when the whole idea of a British road team was mooted Cookson was against because of the drug problem there. Brailsford was less concerned, wanting David Millar on board and actively using him in the GB road race set up. I think that translates to them hiring people with suspect but 'clean' pasts, then the Armstrong relevations forced a clear out.

That seems to be the problem a lot of people have with Sky: that they talked ztp but hired character like Leinders and Yates anyway. I would suggest it was pragmatic: the need for experience within the set up so without something being proved in the past about a rider/staff they were willing to look the other way.

Quite frankly the moral indignation displayed by some people here again and again is Daily Mail-esque in its ridiculousness. They are a professional cycling team. Ask any pro outfit if they are clean they'll say yes, claim transparency or openess, point to membership of the MPCC, talk about rigorous internal testing blah blah blah. They all have the same PR, Sky's is a little bit louder than most, but mainly because of the extra media coverage down to the success of the team and British media.

I know it's irritating, but not sure somehow you can demand Sky be whiter than white while allowing every other team to be fifty shades of grey.

 

[Parker]

Not sure it's as simple exactly as that. Refusal to follow team orders would be a relevant criteria in picking a team, regardless of doping stance - it would be evidence of unreliability in the actual race.

It's just an illustration of BC not picking someone who was good enough. There's no criteria and no policy for selection at BC. Brailsford or Ellingworth are free to pick who they like, but at Sky they are not due to the anti-doping policy. The difference in the policies shows that different people are laying down the rules (i.e. not Brailsford at Sky). As I have mentioned, Millar was going to join Sky before the policy was put in place and Brailsford was happy to have him.

 

[Netserk]

I heard before it was the sponsor's stipulation that Sky use the ztp, not Brailsford. I think it was for the British public, who were already wary of the state of road racing, to make them confident in a clean team. In fact when the whole idea of a British road team was mooted Cookson was against because of the drug problem there. Brailsford was less concerned, wanting David Millar on board and actively using him in the GB road race set up. I think that translates to them hiring people with suspect but 'clean' pasts, then the Armstrong relevations forced a clear out.

That seems to be the problem a lot of people have with Sky: that they talked ztp but hired character like Leinders and Yates anyway. I would suggest it was pragmatic: the need for experience within the set up so without something being proved in the past about a rider/staff they were willing to look the other way.

Quite frankly the moral indignation displayed by some people here again and again is Daily Mail-esque in its ridiculousness. They are a professional cycling team. Ask any pro outfit if they are clean they'll say yes, claim transparency or openess, point to membership of the MPCC, talk about rigorous internal testing blah blah blah. They all have the same PR, Sky's is a little bit louder than most, but mainly because of the extra media coverage down to the success of the team and British media.

I know it's irritating, but not sure somehow you can demand Sky be whiter than white while allowing every other team to be fifty shades of grey.

I think you miss the point.

See The Hitch's post in the (proper) Sky thread, which addresses this.

 

[Benotti69]

I think you miss the point.

See The Hitch's post in the (proper) Sky thread, which addresses this.

Nope Jimmy didn't miss the point. He is spinning the story.

Sky never implemeted a ZTP, from day one, they hired Mick Barry! They refused to let Kimmage interview Barry, when Kimmage worked at the ST.

Not many teams ( except USPS and Garmin) have gone to the levels of Sky in proclaiming they are whiter than white. For jimmy to compare sky to all others is a joke. Brailsford showed Kimmage a tome that Sky had produced on its ZTP. Did Quickstep ever do this, BMC, Lotto or any other? No.

Sky made a huge issue out of transparency and cleanliness. They have show very little.

If Sky were getting hammered at races (like they are after the TdF with the exception of ToB) people may have believed them, but that have performed like those who came before and the explanations for it dont wash, well Brailsford obviously knew this would happen but the knighthood was worth the aggravation.

And yes Hitch has addressed this.

 

[thehog]

Nope Jimmy didn't miss the point. He is spinning the story.

Sky never implemeted a ZTP, from day one, they hired Mick Barry! They refused to let Kimmage interview Barry, when Kimmage worked at the ST.

Not many teams ( except USPS and Garmin) have gone to the levels of Sky in proclaiming they are whiter than white. For jimmy to compare sky to all others is a joke. Brailsford showed Kimmage a tome that Sky had produced on its ZTP. Did Quickstep ever do this, BMC, Lotto or any other? No.

Sky made a huge issue out of transparency and cleanliness. They have show very little.

If Sky were getting hammered at races (like they are after the TdF with the exception of ToB) people may have believed them, but that have performed like those who came before and the explanations for it dont wash, well Brailsford obviously knew this would happen but the knighthood was worth the aggravation.

And yes Hitch has addressed this.

More to the point there is no actually "policy".

It doesn't appear anywhere in words, or in a document.

Its a branding term that was thrown in at interviews.

I've not seen or heard what the ZTP actually is... has anyone?

Does it exsist?

 

[Catwhoorg]

I heard before it was the sponsor's stipulation that Sky use the ztp, not Brailsford. I think it was for the British public, who were already wary of the state of road racing, to make them confident in a clean team. In fact when the whole idea of a British road team was mooted Cookson was against because of the drug problem there. Brailsford was less concerned, wanting David Millar on board and actively using him in the GB road race set up. I think that translates to them hiring people with suspect but 'clean' pasts, then the Armstrong relevations forced a clear out.

In Millar's autobiography that point is discussed, if not explicitly stated. Millar was originally going to be one of the key initial hires (Cav was the other target), then Sky put the kybosh on that.

 

[thehog]

In Millar's autobiography that point is discussed, if not explicitly stated. Millar was originally going to be one of the key initial hires (Cav was the other target), then Sky put the kybosh on that.

Millar was never going to be hired.

He has a significant equity stake in Garmin ownership.

He wasn't going anywhere on the stuff they were selling to the public and profiting from.

He also had a 800k tax debt to the French government which was paid off in the initial set up of Garmin.

 

[Benotti69]

More to the point there is no actually "policy".

It doesn't appear anywhere in words, or in a document.

Its a branding term that was thrown in at interviews.

I've not seen or heard what the ZTP actually is... has anyone?

Does it exsist?

Armstrong used the term 'zero tolerance' in 2003 when he denied working with Ferrari

..."zero tolerance for anyone convicted of using or facilitating the use of performance-enhancing drugs"...

'Disappointed Armstrong cuts ties with Ferrari after conviction' article 2003, The Times.

 

[gooner]

Maybe because they knew they would lose any litigation from Kimmage's articles on Armstrong, so ST sent him off to write Faldo's golf diaries.

Kimmage may have requested to write such stuff in editorial meetings but was told no.

That's just an assumption.

Walsh wrote some powder puff pieces on Lance. The 7 page write up was nothing.

At the end of the day, he had little to do with Armstrong. That's fact. Hog tried to put one press conference in Cali over Walsh's whole reporting on it. Unbelievable.

Telegraph has changed its tune on Sky and Gallagher has rolled over and has his tummy tickled.

But the dailymail did get Kimmage to write an article. Did you link it? No why not? It would prove the point that ST wouldn't let him write the stuff but others would.

So the ST has never written about Leinders? You happily use the Times piece with motoman as a rod to beat Sky with.

The reason why his article was never linked is because I wanted to prove the point I think Kimmage was wrong that the British media won't touch this story. The links were shown to prove this and would have to be ones separate from the story he wrote himself. Actually the Daily Mail giving him a platform to write adds further credence to it

Interesting you say the ST refused to write his pieces and yet at the same time he had an agent trying to get work for him during the Tour for Sky Sports.

There's one or two things I don't agree with Walsh on this but don't think Kimmage has no faults either as there are clear hypocrisies in certain parts of his argument also.

 

[sniper]

More to the point there is no actually "policy".

It doesn't appear anywhere in words, or in a document.

Its a branding term that was thrown in at interviews.

I've not seen or heard what the ZTP actually is... has anyone?

Does it exsist?

there was a german article on it, i can't find it now, but I've linked it before, in which a (imo) compelling parallel was drawn with former east german practices, where PEDs were as we all know administered by team docs, and athletes had to sign convenants which assured the docs and executives would stay out of the legal line of fire and the athlete would take the fall in case of a positive.

 

[Netserk]

How about we try to stay on topic?

ZTP is fair game, since it actually has some to do with Leinders, but Kimmage vs. Walsh and Armstrong simply don't belong in a thread with the title 'Geert Lienders'.

 

[L'arriviste]

I have a google alert for Geert Leinders and nothing has popped up for weeks in a row.
Also, I see two big sponsors (Rabobank and Sky) with a clear interest in having this investigation disappear.
Perhaps Race Radio knows something but I think he'd have told us already if he did.
So as it stands I think this one is destined to be shoved under the carpet.

question is also: are the Dutch ADA in anyway after him without us knowing? They should, obviously, be after him, considering the damaging testimonies. But again, probably too many parties interested in never hearing the name Geert Leinders again.

The Belgian ADA is responsible for the sporting investigation into Leinders though it is of course possible that the Dutch shared their information. As for the criminal investigation, some more patience is necessary.

I'm pretty sure there won't be anything more this year but you can probably expect some movement just before the 2014 season begins. Annual cycles are common in these types of investigations and the Leinders "sweet spot" is late January.

 

[thehog]

Armstrong used the term 'zero tolerance' in 2003 when he denied working with Ferrari



'Disappointed Armstrong cuts ties with Ferrari after conviction' article 2003, The Times.

Yes. A branding exercise as the mood had changed from USADA.

Them words are cheap!

For all the jokes on this forum about alien Froom pre-Tour. It came true.

And we're no further down the line to understanding, why.