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.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram