Geert Leinders

[martinvickers]

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.

Right. Now the GDR had the stasi to enforce such things, more or less complete control of all employment in the jurisdiction and the ability to prevent family members from leaving the jurisdiction to enforce it.

What exactly does BC have? Especially over non GB riders on the team?

thanks in advance.

 

[RownhamHill]

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?

Wasn't it that thing they announced at the end of last year. You know, the one where they asked all their employees to sign something saying they'd never done drugs? The one which resulted in the dismissals, 'retirements' or 'transfers' of Julich, Yates, Rogers and some scandinavian DS chap who's name escapes me right now? The one which they'll use to sack JTL if his passport problems continue?

I'm pretty sure it was discussed quite a lot at the time by posters here (including yourself), so it's a bit odd you forgot it.

 

[thehog]

Wasn't it that thing they announced at the end of last year. You know, the one where they asked all their employees to sign something saying they'd never done drugs? The one which resulted in the dismissals, 'retirements' or 'transfers' of Julich, Yates, Rogers and some scandinavian DS chap who's name escapes me right now? The one which they'll use to sack JTL if his passport problems continue?

I'm pretty sure it was discussed quite a lot at the time by posters here (including yourself), so it's a bit odd you forgot it.

??

Thats not a policy. That's a contract between two parties.

Could you link this policy for me?

I never actually seen it and I don't think it exisits.

The article on the Sky Cycling website has now been taken down - http://www.teamsky.com/article/0,27290,17553_8173493,00.html

from: http://www.chasingwheels.com/doping/team-sky-zero-tolerance-policy-or-how-not-to-address-reality

??

 

[sniper]

Right. Now the GDR had the stasi to enforce such things, more or less complete control of all employment in the jurisdiction and the ability to prevent family members from leaving the jurisdiction to enforce it.

What exactly does BC have? Especially over non GB riders on the team?

thanks in advance.

Just pointing out one (imo striking) parallel between the convenant DDR athletes had to sign and the 'I-never-doped' declaration Sky riders have to sign. It was pointed out by a German journalist. They know a lot more about the DDR doping past than I do. Ultimately both convenants serve the same purpose, and it is clear to people who sign it that it's basically a way of enforcing omerta. Nobody really expects those who sign it to be really truthful. The purpose is clear to all parties: individuals take the legal fall. The executives in the higher echelons of the organization stay scot free.
Reality bites, mv.
Better open your eyes to it sooner than later.

No claims about anything else.

 

[martinvickers]

Just pointing out one (imo striking) parallel between the convenant DDR athletes had to sign and the 'I-never-doped' declaration Sky riders have to sign. It was pointed out by a German journalist. They know a lot more about the DDR doping past than I do. Ultimately both convenants serve the same purpose, and it is clear to people who sign it that it's basically a way of enforcing omerta. Nobody really expects those who sign it to be really truthful. The purpose is clear to all parties: individuals take the legal fall. The executives in the higher echelons of the organization stay scot free.
Reality bites, mv.
Better open your eyes to it sooner than later.

No claims about anything else.

You just repeat yourself. You say this makes sure individuals take the fall, not execs. So how does that work with BC?

Rider A signs the doc. Rider A dopes, and is caught.

How, exactly, do they stop Rider A squealling if he wants to?

Without an answer to that, the whole 'comparison' is deader than a squirrel under a truck tyre.

 

[thehog]

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

They also hired Morris Possoni who was working with Ferrari. On the recommendation of Yates.


http://road.cc/content/news/34761-italian-police-search-team-sky-rider-morris-possinis-house

 

[RownhamHill]

??

Thats not a policy. That's a contract between two parties.


??

??

I'm not sure what the practical difference is between a contract between two parties that happens to be a universal clause in all contracts across the team, and a general company employment policy, but if it makes it easier for you, would it be better to henceforth refer to Sky's zero tolerance contracts, or ZTC for short?

??

 

[thehog]

??

I'm not sure what the practical difference is between a contract between two parties that happens to be a universal clause in all contracts across the team, and a general company employment policy, but if it makes it easier for you, would it be better to henceforth refer to Sky's zero tolerance contracts, or ZTC for short?

??

So what’s in this policy?

Because those contracts came into effect after Yates, Rogers, Possini, Leinders were hired.

It’s not a general ZTP forbidding doping at the team that is viewable for all.

It’s not seen.

JTL is a good example. There is no policy.

 

[gooner]

The ZTP is just a load of old guff and bluster. People could easily still lie out through their teeth and sign up to it. It just a thing to cover Brailsford's part in the public's eyes with him introducing it.

 

[RownhamHill]

So what’s in this policy?

Because those contracts came into effect after Yates, Rogers, Possini, Leinders were hired.

It’s not a general ZTP forbidding doping at the team that is viewable for all.

It’s not seen.

JTL is a good example. There is no policy.

What's the point of this conversation? Really, honestly, what are you trying to achieve/prove?

Here's a link, from a national newspaper, featuring quotes from the team principal, explaining what the policy was meant to be:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/oct/18/team-sky-pledge-anti-doping

Here's a link to a personal confession from one of the employees who was sacked as a result of the policy: [url=http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/exclusive-bobby-julich-doping-confession]http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/exclusive-bobby-julich-doping-confession
[/URL]

Pretty clearly there is some sort of team-wide 'contractual jeapordy' for people caught doping, or with past doping offences in place. As a result if JTL is declared guilty of some shenanigans with his BP, he will be out on his ear.

As Sniper above suggests with reference to the past example of the DDR, the existence of such an 'approach' doesn't in anyway prove anything about whether there is either individual doping on the team, or a teamwide doping programme. But to deny the existence of, or quibble over the use of the word 'policy' to describe, the protocols of the team, when they have been press-released and spoken openly about by the team principal, is just odd.

So, where exactly are we going with this?

 

[RownhamHill]

The ZTP is just a load of old guff and bluster. People could easily still lie out through their teeth and sign up to it. It just a thing to cover Brailsford's part in the public's eyes with him introducing it.

But isn't that the case with any set of rules?

 

[martinvickers]

So what’s in this policy?

Because those contracts came into effect after Yates, Rogers, Possini, Leinders were hired.

It’s not a general ZTP forbidding doping at the team that is viewable for all.

It’s not seen.

JTL is a good example. There is no policy.

I'm sorry, but where exactly does it say that a policy has to be publicly available to be a policy? It's just an odd assumption that such a policy MUST be publicly available in order to exist.

Would be nice if it was, probably good PR,but I don't see how it's fatal to the existence of it because you, Hog, can't get your hands on it - it's presumably not for you.

Edit : I see RH has rather got to the point better than I.

 

[thehog]

I'm sorry, but where exactly does it say that a policy has to be publicly available to be a policy? It's just an odd assumption that such a policy MUST be publicly available in order to exist.

Would be nice if it was, probably good PR,but I don't see how it's fatal to the existence of it because you, Hog, can't get your hands on it - it's presumably not for you.

Edit : I see RH has rather got to the point better than I.

Nothing to do with me, sorry.

It's in the publics interest along with the policy continually being quoted by Sky, in public.

With the skepticism over their performances and with each question they quote said policy, well yeah, we should see it.

Because they keep hiring these doping guys and their performances just keep getting more ridiculous.

My view it doesn't exist. Just words.

 

[martinvickers]

Nothing to do with me, sorry.

It's in the publics interest along with the policy continually being quoted by Sky, in public.

Why? They are a bike team, not a government. They are a private team, taking part in private races. There's no issue of 'public interest'. This is just flapping.

With the skepticism over their performances and with each question they quote said policy, well yeah, we should see it.

Because they keep hiring these doping guys and their performances just keep getting more ridiculous.

My view it doesn't exist. Just words.

It's a view...RH's actual recorded evidence suggests pretty strongly otherwise.

 

[sniper]

You just repeat yourself. You say this makes sure individuals take the fall, not execs. So how does that work with BC?

Rider A signs the doc. Rider A dopes, and is caught.

How, exactly, do they stop Rider A squealling if he wants to?

Without an answer to that, the whole 'comparison' is deader than a squirrel under a truck tyre.

i don't really know, admittedly.
it's certain not a perfect parallel, so perhaps i should tone down.
Anyway, the german article suggested that Sky's ZTP and the no-doping-history-declaration is to an extent in the same spirit as the DDR's approach to athletes. I tend to agree, if only intuitively.

 

[thehog]

Why? They are a bike team, not a government. They are a private team, taking part in private races. There's no issue of 'public interest'. This is just flapping.

What's flapping?

Private team in private races, on public roads, using public infrastructure, importing drugs through public countries and borders with the general public viewing the races and with the public able to cycle and join teams publicly to race.

What’s private about that?

 

[martinvickers]

i don't really know, admittedly.
it's certain not a perfect parallel, so perhaps i should tone down.
Anyway, the german article suggested that Sky's ZTP and the no-doping-history-declaration is to an extent in the same spirit as the DDR's approach to athletes. I tend to agree, if only intuitively.

Well, you are absolutely entitled to that intuition; it's as valid as anyone else's.

 

[martinvickers]

What's flapping?

Private team in private races, on public roads, using public infrastructure, importing drugs through public countries and borders with the general public viewing the races and with the public able to cycle and join teams publicly to race.

What’s private about that?

1. What's a 'public country'? Bizarre.

2. Because the general public are involved does not put something in the public sphere, or give it an issue of 'the public interest. The general public also shop in Supermarket's. It doesn't make the Supermarket part of the public sphere, either.

Spectators go as part of their private life - not as some errand of government!

You need to go away and learn the difference between "the public sphere" and "in public", and the difference between "the public interest" and "interesting to the public".

 

[thehog]

1. What's a 'public country'? Bizarre.

2. Because the general public are involved does not put something in the public sphere, or give it an issue of 'the public interest. The general public also shop in Supermarket's. It doesn't make the Supermarket part of the public sphere, either.

Spectators go as part of their private life - not as some errand of government!

You need to go away and learn the difference between "the public sphere" and "in public", and the difference between "the public interest" and "interesting to the public".

I'm sorry Mart. You're right. I need to go away and learn.

Thanks for educating me.

You truly are inspiring. How did I ever manage without you guiding me?

And the police closing down roads and chasing dopers out of hotel room windows. No interest to the public.

The public wasn't very upset with Armstrong. It wasn't really any of their business and the money they donated to Livestrong.

Anyway back to Team Sky. I think they should keep everything secret. And not tell anyone. Be super private. Hide all their SRM files, blood levels and passport.

No one needs to know. No one.

But please send 120GBP for a new jersey’s and other apparel so we can make money off you saying we are clean.

http://www.rapha.cc/shop/team-sky

 

[thehog]

I'm sorry Mart. You're right. I need to go away and learn.

Thanks for educating me.

You truly are inspiring. How did I ever manage without you guiding me?

And the police closing down roads and chasing dopers out of hotel room windows. No interest to the public.

The public wasn't very upset with Armstrong. It wasn't really any of their business and the money they donated to Livestrong.

Anyway back to Team Sky. I think they should keep everything secret. And not tell anyone. Be super private. Hide all their SRM files, blood levels and passport.

No one needs to know. No one.

But please send 120GBP for a new jersey’s and other apparel so we can make money off you saying we are clean.

http://www.rapha.cc/shop/team-sky

and buy our new book... we need your money, public people who like our private matters, private.

 

[Netserk]

Anyway back to Team Sky.

No. Back to Lienders.

 

[thehog]

no. Back to lienders.

....

 

[martinvickers]

I'm sorry Mart. You're right. I need to go away and learn.

Thanks for educating me.

You truly are inspiring. How did I ever manage without you guiding me?

Mods?

And the police closing down roads and chasing dopers out of hotel room windows. No interest to the public.

Exactly when did this happen to Sky? Dates, times and places,please.

The public wasn't very upset with Armstrong. It wasn't really any of their business and the money they donated to Livestrong.

The public didn't donate to Livestrong. a series of private individuals and companies did, and it was those same individuals, and a good many other individuals, who were upset. In so far as it involved money's from the US Gov. i.e. from the Postal Service, it's a matter of 'the public interest'. Sky are not the UK government.

You have written sarcastically about being taught what 'public interest' as opposed simply to "interesting the public" means - but you actually genuinely don't seem to know the difference!

But please send 120GBP for a new jersey’s and other apparel so we can make money off you saying we are clean.

http://www.rapha.cc/shop/team-sky

Buying merchandise from a private business stocking branded items from a private team is that individual's private choice. A stupid choice, but theirs. It is NOT the 'public realm' in terms of 'the public interest'.

There are team interests, sponsor interests, rider interests, organsational interests, even the sport's interest. Pick one, and stop trying to appear so hard to hide a mishap.

 

[Netserk]

Come on. Let's try to stay on topic.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So if Geert couldn't keep you inside the parameters of anti-doping detection and you did get pinged, he had a way of getting TUEs - where possible - regardless of when you needed them.

Had not even considered this skill and its usefulness for a pro cycling team.

But it makes a heck of a lot of sense.

A wizard at helping you not test positive; medically and procedurally.