Is Team Sky just part of a bigger plan?

[Robert21]

It is clear that many have little love for Sky because of the 'dirty money' that funds the team (me included). For example;

... in this market driven world. Pro sport is all about money, just remember that. Armstrong was covered-up for a decade, because he opened up cycling to the lucrative US market. It was a simple as that. It is the same with Sky and Great Britain (which includes the Anglo-Saxon universe)...This is simply the upgraded US Postal 4.2 version. That Murdoch is the grand financier behind this, though, only makes the hypocrisy all the more farcical and repugnant.

Fair comment, as far as it goes, but in my more charitable moments I sometimes wonder if there is more to it than this. True enough, Rupert Murdoch is an evil demagogue . However, it actually seems to be his son James who is the one pushing the promotion of cycling. He is a cyclist himself and his enthusiasm seem very real.

Then there is the link between Sky and British Cycling to consider. Again this might be much more positive than many give credit, and I think and that it is quite possible that the whole Sky / British Cycling / Wiggins / Froome thing is part of a grander plan.

In Britain cyclists are treated like vermin, with newspapers often carrying articles calling for the sterilisation or 'humane extermination' of cyclists and so forth, with the right-wing Daily Mail being one of the worst. One major reason for this, as is documented by some very credible research by bodies such as the UK Transport Research Laboratory, is that cyclists in Britain are treated as being members of a low-status out group. Now Britain is a very right-wing, hierarchical and authoritarian country, and it very much goes against the grain in such a country to do anything that might favour members of minority groups, especially those from a low-status 'out group', over members of a more dominant social group, such as motorists.

People have campaigned for over 100 years to raise the status of cyclists in Britain with practically zero effect. For that to become a reality what needs to be done first and foremost is to somehow raise cyclists from their 'out group' status. One way that could be done, at lease to some degree, is through sport, and there have been many positive portrayals of 'Britain's Olympic cycling heroes', 'Wiggo' and all the rest.

Given the nature of British 'society' (if there is such a thing) in order to break the old 'out group' status of cyclists it is also necessary to 'normalise' cycling and get more 'ordinary' people on bikes, thereby undermining their 'hated minority' status. Again, Sky and British Cycling have been trying hard to do exactly this, with their 'Sky rides' and so forth.

So, perhaps we should go along with the 'Sky myth', even if it as believable as WWF wrestling, it might actually do British cyclists some good. I am also absolutely certain that if a high-profile British cyclist such as Froome were to be busted for doping, not only would the whole Sky edifice come crashing down, any hopes that British cyclists have that they might be treated better than they have for the last 100 years or so can be forgotten. The Daily Mail for one would have a field day, arguing how this was 'proof' that all cyclists are morally corrupt and do not deserve to be allowed to ride on 'the motorists' roads.

It might be argued that even the Armstrong conspiracy was not just about boosting corporate profits, with the UCI, misguided or not, seeing protecting Armstrong as being 'good for the sport' and a way to promote its 'globalisation'. Similarly, perhaps James Murdoch and British Cycling do have some nobler aims over simply boosting the profits of Sky TV.

 

[Square-pedaller]

...
It might be argued that even the Armstrong conspiracy was not just about boosting corporate profits, with the UCI, misguided or not, seeing protecting Armstrong as being 'good for the sport' and a way to promote its 'globalisation'. Similarly, perhaps James Murdoch and British Cycling do have some nobler aims over simply boosting the profits of Sky TV.

How did that one work out?

 

[Alphabet]

I'm not so sure that there's a correlation between a having a successful number of pro cyclists and a positive attitude towards cyclists from motorists. Cyclists aren't very well respected here in Australia despite Evans' Tour win. Regardless of how this Sky farce ends up, I think, sadly, that cyclists in the UK will still get abused and disrespected by the media and motorists.

I don't want to see Sky get busted straight away, with the aftermaths of Armstrong having shook sponsor confidence so much, would the sport survive if it were to have another huge doping scandal? It might be better for cycling in the long run for Sky to continue to get away with this for a couple more seasons before getting caught. But those are just my concerns and I hope that they're unfounded.

 

[leon7766]

What Sky myth ? They have great cyclists who work harder than the others that's not myth its reality and the rest is just guff

 

[Robert21]

I'm not so sure that there's a correlation between a having a successful number of pro cyclists and a positive attitude towards cyclists from motorists. Cyclists aren't very well respected here in Australia despite Evans' Tour win.

Certainly, after Britain's Olympic cycling successes in 2008 there was quite a bit of discussion in the UK about how they seemed to have had little influence on how 'ordinary' cyclists were treated and how even Britain's Olympic stars chose to train abroad due to the threats and intimidation they received in Britain.

However, I think any attitude change would takes decades to achieve and that having cyclists as 'sporting hero' role models could only ever be part of such a shift.

I also feel that a good case can be made that the high status of cyclists in many European countries is directly related to their long history of regarding cyclists as 'sporting heroes'. Unfortunately, I feel all the doping scandals over the last couple of decades could be seriously undermining that respect.

 

[Robert21]

What Sky myth ? They have great cyclists who work harder than the others that's not myth its reality and the rest is just guff

If you wish to argue that point, there are numerous threads dedicated to that very topic...

 

[Robert21]

How did that one work out?

They almost got away with it, didn't they?

 

[del1962]

It is clear that many have little love for Sky because of the 'dirty money' that funds the team (me included). For example;



Fair comment, as far as it goes, but in my more charitable moments I sometimes wonder if there is more to it than this. True enough, Rupert Murdoch is an evil demagogue . However, it actually seems to be his son James who is the one pushing the promotion of cycling. He is a cyclist himself and his enthusiasm seem very real.

Then there is the link between Sky and British Cycling to consider. Again this might be much more positive than many give credit, and I think and that it is quite possible that the whole Sky / British Cycling / Wiggins / Froome thing is part of a grander plan.

In Britain cyclists are treated like vermin, with newspapers often carrying articles calling for the sterilisation or 'humane extermination' of cyclists and so forth, with the right-wing Daily Mail being one of the worst. One major reason for this, as is documented by some very credible research by bodies such as the UK Transport Research Laboratory, is that cyclists in Britain are treated as being members of a low-status out group. Now Britain is a very right-wing, hierarchical and authoritarian country, and it very much goes against the grain in such a country to do anything that might favour members of minority groups, especially those from a low-status 'out group', over members of a more dominant social group, such as motorists.

People have campaigned for over 100 years to raise the status of cyclists in Britain with practically zero effect. For that to become a reality what needs to be done first and foremost is to somehow raise cyclists from their 'out group' status. One way that could be done, at lease to some degree, is through sport, and there have been many positive portrayals of 'Britain's Olympic cycling heroes', 'Wiggo' and all the rest.

Given the nature of British 'society' (if there is such a thing) in order to break the old 'out group' status of cyclists it is also necessary to 'normalise' cycling and get more 'ordinary' people on bikes, thereby undermining their 'hated minority' status. Again, Sky and British Cycling have been trying hard to do exactly this, with their 'Sky rides' and so forth.

So, perhaps we should go along with the 'Sky myth', even if it as believable as WWF wrestling, it might actually do British cyclists some good. I am also absolutely certain that if a high-profile British cyclist such as Froome were to be busted for doping, not only would the whole Sky edifice come crashing down, any hopes that British cyclists have that they might be treated better than they have for the last 100 years or so can be forgotten. The Daily Mail for one would have a field day, arguing how this was 'proof' that all cyclists are morally corrupt and do not deserve to be allowed to ride on 'the motorists' roads.

It might be argued that even the Armstrong conspiracy was not just about boosting corporate profits, with the UCI, misguided or not, seeing protecting Armstrong as being 'good for the sport' and a way to promote its 'globalisation'. Similarly, perhaps James Murdoch and British Cycling do have some nobler aims over simply boosting the profits of Sky TV.

Could you give some evidence to support first bolded part.

Seconded bolded part suggest you have no idea about what Britain is like (or you are a member of the SWP).

 

[DirtyWorks]

Then there is the link between Sky and British Cycling to consider.

You mean the one where there's no boundary between the rules enforcer, BC, and Sky? The other federation set up like that was...... USA Cycling!

It might be argued that even the Armstrong conspiracy was not just about boosting corporate profits, with the UCI, misguided or not, seeing protecting Armstrong as being 'good for the sport' and a way to promote its 'globalisation'. Similarly, perhaps James Murdoch and British Cycling do have some nobler aims over simply boosting the profits of Sky TV.

We don't know Sky's motivations. We know the UCI's though!

Short answer: Make more money!

TLDR version:
-Globalize cycling #1. Which is code for more viewers, less participants. Make more money!
-Globalize cycling #2. Help riders that advance the UCI's goals of growing viewers. Make more money!
-Use your job at the UCI to personally profit. We know someone, somewhere operates a for-profit licensing operation as an arm of the UCI. Makarov was told he had to buy a license in order to use the phrase "Tour of Russia" Make more money!

 

[del1962]

If you wish to argue that point, there are numerous threads dedicated to that very topic...

As it is the whole pre-sumption of your argument he has a right to question it.

I think your whole op is full of false presumptions though,

 

[ebandit]

use

If you wish to argue that point, there are numerous threads dedicated to that very topic...

that's correct already loads of sky threads..........shame you did not choose

one for your posts

Mark L

 

[lemoogle]

As it is the whole pre-sumption of your argument he has a right to question it.

I think your whole op is full of false presumptions though,

He's not questioning anything, he's basically saying "they train harder than all the other lazy cyclists hence they win, get over it" , that' a kindergarten argument.

 

[Robert21]

Could you give some evidence to support first bolded part.

My pleasure.

Richard Tomkins, chief feature writer of The Financial Times wrote in the FT on October 26 2007 ‘In my opinion, anything that stops cyclists breeding is to be welcomed as an unmitigated good’.

Emma Parker-Bowles writing in The Sun on 7th April 2006, in a piece called ‘I hate cyclists’ said that what was ‘needed’ was ‘a natural extermination process’ for cyclists. (Parker-Bowles was at the time a presenter of a TV motoring program called ‘Vroom Vroom’ and a client of a lawyer known as ‘Mr. Loophole', real name Nick Freeman, who specialises in getting celebrities off serious driving charges on technicalities.)

There are thousands of similarly rabid anti-cyclist comments to be found in the British press over the years. Just a couple of classics:

Writing in The Sun the hugely popular motoring journalist and TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson warned cyclists ‘Do not cruise through red lights. Because if I'm coming the other way, I will run you down, for fun.’ However, stopping at red lights would also seem to be a bad idea with Clarkson warning cyclists not to stop at lights in front of him either as ‘I will set off at normal speed and you will be crushed under my wheels.’ To those cyclists who objected to their lives being put at risk by inconsiderate driving Clarkson added ‘if we cut you up, shut up’.

Tony Parsons came out with a great anti-cyclist rant in The Mirror a few years back writing:

I HAVE always thought that it should be cyclists that are chained to lamp -posts, and not their bikes...

They are all an affront to civilised society, whether you move around on four wheels or foot. Bicycles are for children. They are for little boys doing their paper round. They are for little girls going round their friend's house to play with their Barbie dolls. Bikes teach kids the joy of mobility, speed and freedom. They are not for men who think they are somehow better than everybody else because they don't have to stop for a tank of unleaded. Bicycles are like masturbation - something you should grow out of. There is something seriously sick and stunted about grown men who want to ride a bike.

Seconded bolded part suggest you have no idea about what Britain is like (or you are a member of the SWP).

Only a true 'Daily Mail Reader' could say that! (And the fact that the biggest selling newspapers in Britain are right-wing or even quasi-fascist publications such as The Daily Mail, The Sun and The Express is itself evidence of just how right-wing Britain is in its outlook.)

 

[Robert21]

that's correct already loads of sky threads.

They are all focused on doping. This one asks an entirely different question.

 

[darwin553]

Is Team Sky just part of a bigger plan? To what, **** global cycling even more than what LA has - yeah that works

 

[Robert21]

We don't know Sky's motivations. We know the UCI's though! Short answer: Make more money!

The question here is what do British Cycling and James Murdoch hope to achieve?

 

[del1962]

My pleasure.

Richard Tomkins, chief feature writer of The Financial Times wrote in October 26 2007 ‘In my opinion, anything that stops cyclists breeding is to be welcomed as an unmitigated good’.

Emma Parker-Bowles writing in The Sun on 7th April 2006, in a piece called ‘I hate cyclists’ said that what was ‘needed’ was ‘a natural extermination process’ for cyclists. (Parker-Bowles was at the time a presenter of a TV motoring program called ‘Vroom Vroom’ and a client of a lawyer known as ‘Mr. Loophole - real name Nick Freeman- who specialises in getting celebrities off serious driving charges on technicalities.)

There are thousands of similarly rabid anti-cyclist comments to be found in the British press over the years. Just a couple of classics:

Writing in The Sun the hugely popular motoring journalist and TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson warned cyclists ‘Do not cruise through red lights. Because if I'm coming the other way, I will run you down, for fun.’ However, stopping at red lights would also seem to be a bad idea with Clarkson warning cyclists not to stop at lights in front of him either as ‘I will set off at normal speed and you will be crushed under my wheels.’ To those cyclists who objected to their lives being put at risk by inconsiderate driving Clarkson added ‘if we cut you up, shut up’.

Tony Parsons came out with a great anti-cyclist rant in The Mirror a few years back writing:






Only a true 'Daily Mail Reader' could say that! (And the fact that the biggest selling newspapers in Britain are right-wing or even quasi-fascist publications such as The Daily Mail, The Sun and The Express is itself evidence of just how right-wing Britain is in its outlook.)

Dont buy any of those newspapers, you do sound like a member of SWP though,the thing is in a country with a free press you allow ppl in the press to say stupid things though.

 

[ebandit]

?

They are all focused on doping. This one asks an entirely different question.

so why in the clinic?

as it is such issues are already developed in other sky threads

Mark L

 

[Robert21]

Is Team Sky just part of a bigger plan? To what, **** global cycling even more than what LA has - yeah that works

You seem to be overlooking just how focused on the UK the whole 'Team Sky' thing is. That is where James Murdoch and British Cycling appear to be trying to make an impact, not on global cycling.

 

[darwin553]

You seem to be overlooking just how focused on the UK the whole 'Team Sky' thing is. That is where James Murdoch and British Cycling appear to be trying to make an impact, not on global cycling.

But is he selling more newspapers or getting more subscriptions to Sky out of it?

As a sidenote, I presume the Discovery Channel is fox owned as well. So is there any connection between what happened when Discovery was a sponsor and the suspicions about Sky??

 

[Polza_]

My pleasure.

Richard Tomkins, chief feature writer of The Financial Times wrote in the FT on October 26 2007 ‘In my opinion, anything that stops cyclists breeding is to be welcomed as an unmitigated good’.

Emma Parker-Bowles writing in The Sun on 7th April 2006, in a piece called ‘I hate cyclists’ said that what was ‘needed’ was ‘a natural extermination process’ for cyclists. (Parker-Bowles was at the time a presenter of a TV motoring program called ‘Vroom Vroom’ and a client of a lawyer known as ‘Mr. Loophole', real name Nick Freeman, who specialises in getting celebrities off serious driving charges on technicalities.)

There are thousands of similarly rabid anti-cyclist comments to be found in the British press over the years. Just a couple of classics:

Writing in The Sun the hugely popular motoring journalist and TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson warned cyclists ‘Do not cruise through red lights. Because if I'm coming the other way, I will run you down, for fun.’ However, stopping at red lights would also seem to be a bad idea with Clarkson warning cyclists not to stop at lights in front of him either as ‘I will set off at normal speed and you will be crushed under my wheels.’ To those cyclists who objected to their lives being put at risk by inconsiderate driving Clarkson added ‘if we cut you up, shut up’.

Tony Parsons came out with a great anti-cyclist rant in The Mirror a few years back writing:






Only a true 'Daily Mail Reader' could say that! (And the fact that the biggest selling newspapers in Britain are right-wing or even quasi-fascist publications such as The Daily Mail, The Sun and The Express is itself evidence of just how right-wing Britain is in its outlook.)

In a strange twist Jeremy Clarkson is now a cyclist!

 

[Robert21]

why in the clinic?

Because many on here never seem to have considered that the whole "team Sky' thing, a fraud or not, might be about more than trying to win a few bike races.

I have also been very sceptical about Sky, but at times feel that perhaps, 'for the greater good', I shouldn't vocalise my suspicions. Similarly, I wondered if any others on here feel that they might be more inclined to 'let things ride' if the benefits to be had from Sky's successes, in terms of the impact on UK cycling, really has the potential to substantially change the sad lot of cyclists in the UK.

Whether there is a 'plan' or not it remains the case that a major Sky doping bust would fatally damage British cycling. I also posted in another thread that I have reservations about Cookson becoming the new head of the UCI because I can't see him pursuing doping charges against Sky, should they materialise, as this would effectively burn down British cycling in the process.

Question is, are people so wedded to the idea of exposing Sky that feel the concomitant destruction of British Cycling would be a price worth paying?

 

[dan_mcloughlin]

Only a true 'Daily Mail Reader' could say that! (And the fact that the biggest selling newspapers in Britain are right-wing or even quasi-fascist publications such as The Daily Mail, The Sun and The Express is itself evidence of just how right-wing Britain is in its outlook.)

The Sun isn't right wing, it's an opportunist rag. The daily mail is laughed at by almost everyone in the country that doesn't buy it.

Which parts of Britain are so right-wing? Would these be the nationalised rail, the nationalised postal service or the nationalised health service.

What about Scotland, where I am from, with free university, free prescriptions, a winter heating allowance for pensioners and a massive welfare state?

 

[Robert21]

In a strange twist Jeremy Clarkson is now a cyclist!

He still hates cyclists who ride in lycra, or who complain about dangerous drivers, and the enforcement of traffic law as it effects motorists though!

Clarkson's recent comments are just a way of rationalising his past and present prejudices. He still hates 'cyclists', and only has time for people who he perceives are like him. That is 'motorists who just happen ride a bike as well'. I.e. in his eyes at least, 'normal' people. His old right-wing, in-group, 'out-group outlook hasn't gone away. All that has happened is that the boundaries of who he perceives to be 'us' and who he perceives to be 'them' have been modified slightly.

 

[Robert21]

Which parts of Britain are so right-wing? Would these be the nationalised rail, the nationalised postal service or the nationalised health service.

Britain's rail services were privatised in 1993! The Postal Services Act 2011 has set into motion the privatisation of the Post Office with the first shares expected to go on sale this year. The NHS has been undergoing a process of 'privatisation by stealth' for years.

Proof that the UK is right wing? The fact that they voted for 18 Years of Thatcherism, followed by years of New Labour who only got into power by throwing out any pretentions that they still had that they were in any way 'socialist'. Now Britain is 'enjoying' what is quite possibly the more right-wing government they have ever had. And yet this is what the people vote for, as do a couple of million people every day when they buy their Daily Mails.

The last time the British actually voted for a genuinely 'socialist' government was probably in 1945!