Sean Yates

[Surfdelux]

I wouldn't trust a thing a 50-plus-er with earings in both ears says. The rave drugs have obviously taken their toll.

 

[erader]

but yates didn't see anything dodgy !

see ya mate.

 

[skidmark]

but yates didn't see anything dodgy !

see ya mate.

He's so good at not seeing things, he didn't even see when he told the truth about his past and got fired.

 

[manafana]

you can smell the fish on yates from my house, stinks and just another lance refusing to admit the truth.

 

[martinvickers]

It's funny watching the clinic get it's collective panties in a know over this. It's pretty flippin' clear what happened -

1) he's questioned, and confesses nothing
2) they say sign this under oath then, and he baulks at that (perjury fear?)
3) they say, well, you've gotta go then, and you can't get the payoff without the confession
4) f*** that says Seany, i'll just retire. don't drop me in it and i'll not demand money.
5) fine, so be it, says they.

occam's razor, and all that.

the thing to remember is, this particular process isn't about cleaning up cycling per se, just cleaning up themselves - so they could give a toss what Seanie does next. the quick hit works better - indeed, the very minor embarressment actually helps their pr long term, because many will assume it's a quiet 'push', and see it as Sky backing up what DB said, albeit in a hamfisted way.

 

[D Avoid]

I can't read the whole thread, partly because I know the answer, but if Sean was going to retire then why would there be any need to "interview" him??

 

[BroDeal]

It's funny watching the clinic get it's collective panties in a know over this. It's pretty flippin' clear what happened -

1) he's questioned, and confesses nothing
2) they say sign this under oath then, and he baulks at that (perjury fear?)
3) they say, well, you've gotta go then, and you can't get the payoff without the confession
4) f*** that says Seany, i'll just retire. don't drop me in it and i'll not demand money.
5) fine, so be it, says they.

occam's razor, and all that.

the thing to remember is, this particular process isn't about cleaning up cycling per se, just cleaning up themselves - so they could give a toss what Seanie does next. the quick hit works better - indeed, the very minor embarressment actually helps their pr long term, because many will assume it's a quiet 'push', and see it as Sky backing up what DB said, albeit in a hamfisted way.

You seem to have forgotten Yates tested positive in1989. Brailsford knew he doped before he hired him.

Still waiting for Rogers and the Barloworld refugees.

 

[martinvickers]

I can't read the whole thread, partly because I know the answer, but if Sean was going to retire then why would there be any need to "interview" him??

precisely.

That's what i mean by the flippin' obvious.

He didn't simply walk. He was pushed. Post Interview. Because he wouldn't sign. and we know why.

Sky were quite clear there was 'nothing in the interview' that would have caused dismissal - which leads to the rather obvious point that there was something outside the interview that would.

Yates said "he did nothing wrong" - which is an obtuse statement in itself. But sky didn't say that. They were pretty exact in what they said.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

precisely.

That's what i mean by the flippin' obvious.

He didn't simply walk. He was pushed. Post Interview. Because he wouldn't sign. and we know why.

Sky were quite clear there was 'nothing in the interview' that would have caused dismissal - which leads to the rather obvious point that there was something outside the interview that would.

Yates said "he did nothing wrong" - which is an obtuse statement in itself. But sky didn't say that. They were pretty exact in what they said.

Wait what? You mean what people say in the media can be taken at face value and if it doesn't make sense then something suss is going on?

 

[martinvickers]

You seem to have forgotten Yates tested positive in1989. Brailsford knew he doped before he hired him.

Still waiting for Rogers and the Barloworld refugees.

Pretty sure Yates had relied on the B test to claim he never tested positive.

As for Brailsford, I suspect, and this is clearly the 'fanboy' in me, that he simply didn't do investigations of staff or riders beyond - did he/she test positive. Yates hid behind the lack of B positive.

I suppose the choice is between hopelessly, even willfully, naive and utterly corrupt. I just think the evidence points to the former more than the latter. But hey, choose your own poison, right?

 

[martinvickers]

Wait what? You mean what people say in the media can be taken at face value and if it doesn't make sense then something suss is going on?

I'm saying that the simplest explanation consistent with the evidence, or requiring the least assumptions, is the most likely one.

Yates, with a very likely black history, retires absurdly young, bang in the middle of an internal investigation charged with ousting people with black histories. Then does some PR.

It's the equivalent of when the WWE say "we wish X the very best with all their future endeavours" - they don't say "we fired their *** for shagging the ring girls"

As for TeamSky, it makes them look weak, incompetent and naive - I'm not as convinced it makes them look corrupt.

Look, would we agree the most worrying recruit was the Dutch doctor? Is it not interesting he didn't even get as far as the review?

ok. fessing up here, my day job is a lawyer. (didn't want to admit that here, i'll be lynched!) - and as a lawyer, especially one who deals a fair bit with public law, and thus politicians, you get a nose for the carefully worded denial. Armstrong was a master of it - "Never tested positive" is the absolute classic non-denial denial.

Sky's statement has that quality in spades. Now couple that with the fact that Brendan Gallagher broke it, in advance, last night as a sacking story, and he hasn't been directly challenged, and the flippin' obvious becomes clear - Gallagher was right, but Sky didn't want a protacted contract battle with the guy, who despite the evidence, was clearly not going to fess up - so this retirement gets rid of him, saves Sky the moolah of both a legal fight and/or compo; and anyone who knows anything about the sports history knows rightly he's been pushed, and sky know rightly everyone knows it too, and don't really care - they just need to keep the lawyers happy in libel and contract terms.

remember, LA used libel laws for years; mcquaid still doing it!; to protect himself from those who might have spoken out. As a damn dirty lawyer, i just see the obvious expedience in getting him out and letting him spin a bit of a yarn, which Sky can selectively back up ("he said nothing in the interview") to get him out the door without a fight.

Maybe I'm just a fanboy, of course. But that sequence just seems the most likely - after all, if everybody's in on it, why not demand the compo on the way out anyway; it's not like Sky could afford to refuse if that were true?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'm saying that the simplest explanation consistent with the evidence, or requiring the least assumptions, is the most likely one.
...
ok. fessing up here, my day job is a lawyer. (didn't want to admit that here, i'll be lynched!) - and as a lawyer, especially one who deals a fair bit with public law, and thus politicians, you get a nose for the carefully worded denial. Armstrong was a master of it - "Never tested positive" is the absolute classic non-denial denial.

Sky's statement has that quality in spades.

Do you ride a bike at all? Maybe I should take this to PM as it's OT... hrmph.

 

[martinvickers]

Do you ride a bike at all? Maybe I should take this to PM as it's OT... hrmph.

1. Yes. I certainly don't race. Not at my age and lack of fitness.

2. off topic? I'm afraid you've confused me - I suggested the sky statement on Yates failed the nose test -and i gave a brief background why i felt that. not sure how that's off topic for a yates thread?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

1. Yes. I certainly don't race. Not at my age and lack of fitness.

2. off topic? I'm afraid you've confused me - I suggested the sky statement on Yates failed the nose test -and i gave a brief background why i felt that. not sure how that's off topic for a yates thread?

I meant: the question I wanted to ask was OT. Hence I should take it to PM. I am really trying to be a good forum citizen

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Keep it up, Martin...

 

[thehog]

I'm saying that the simplest explanation consistent with the evidence, or requiring the least assumptions, is the most likely one.

Yates, with a very likely black history, retires absurdly young, bang in the middle of an internal investigation charged with ousting people with black histories. Then does some PR.

It's the equivalent of when the WWE say "we wish X the very best with all their future endeavours" - they don't say "we fired their *** for shagging the ring girls"

As for TeamSky, it makes them look weak, incompetent and naive - I'm not as convinced it makes them look corrupt.

Look, would we agree the most worrying recruit was the Dutch doctor? Is it not interesting he didn't even get as far as the review?

ok. fessing up here, my day job is a lawyer. (didn't want to admit that here, i'll be lynched!) - and as a lawyer, especially one who deals a fair bit with public law, and thus politicians, you get a nose for the carefully worded denial. Armstrong was a master of it - "Never tested positive" is the absolute classic non-denial denial.

Sky's statement has that quality in spades. Now couple that with the fact that Brendan Gallagher broke it, in advance, last night as a sacking story, and he hasn't been directly challenged, and the flippin' obvious becomes clear - Gallagher was right, but Sky didn't want a protacted contract battle with the guy, who despite the evidence, was clearly not going to fess up - so this retirement gets rid of him, saves Sky the moolah of both a legal fight and/or compo; and anyone who knows anything about the sports history knows rightly he's been pushed, and sky know rightly everyone knows it too, and don't really care - they just need to keep the lawyers happy in libel and contract terms.

remember, LA used libel laws for years; mcquaid still doing it!; to protect himself from those who might have spoken out. As a damn dirty lawyer, i just see the obvious expedience in getting him out and letting him spin a bit of a yarn, which Sky can selectively back up ("he said nothing in the interview") to get him out the door without a fight.

Maybe I'm just a fanboy, of course. But that sequence just seems the most likely - after all, if everybody's in on it, why not demand the compo on the way out anyway; it's not like Sky could afford to refuse if that were true?

I agree 100%.

But why the zero tolerance? Why now?

 

[martinvickers]

I meant: the question I wanted to ask was OT. Hence I should take it to PM. I am really trying to be a good forum citizen

sorry, my bad (mea culpa, mea maxima culpa - feel free to DM)

 

[martinvickers]

I agree 100%.

But why the zero tolerance? Why now?

Because the only thing worse than being a fool, is looking like a fool while you're being one.

Brailsford is perhaps idealistic, perhaps devious, perhaps naive; perhaps cynical; who knows. But what he isn't is stupid.

If I was a genuine zero-tolerence team, (and personally, I'm more with Garmin) in DB's hotspot, yes, I'd double down - "we are zero-tolerence, dammit!!", and take the hit now - 'see, look how pure we are' - rather lose clean, etc, etc, etc. anything else, however sensible, however decent, looks like backsliding.

Or maybe they think they have to be seen to lead the purge which may well be coming to the sport out of italy anyway...

It's not evidence of doping, or clean-ness either. It can be made to fit both scenarii. so we rely on hunches - and my hunch is pretty simply that Yates has done a jump before he's pushed, and Sky have done what they can not to **** on him, possibly because he'll spill, but more probably because it's not worth the legal hassle so long as he's out.

And I say more probably the latter, because if there's a genuine Spill risk, why not let him get to end of year, and then pay him off good and tasty? Why highlight his departure now at all. It's not a very sensible way to handle a spill risk. It's however a very handy way to handle s/one you suspect is dirty and just want gone.

 

[Warhawk314]

If half of you ****-suckers new as much as you thought you did, you were all rise to the rank of morons. With that being said, How do you know what is exactly going on within team SKY let alone Sean Yates himself? Perhaps you naysayers should continue to suck each other dicks in hope that you will win over an ally's for your opinion to become true.

 

[Freddythefrog]

It's funny watching the clinic get it's collective panties in a know over this. It's pretty flippin' clear what happened -

1) he's questioned, and confesses nothing
2) they say sign this under oath then, and he baulks at that (perjury fear?)
3) they say, well, you've gotta go then, and you can't get the payoff without the confession
4) f*** that says Seany, i'll just retire. don't drop me in it and i'll not demand money.
5) fine, so be it, says they.

occam's razor, and all that.

the thing to remember is, this particular process isn't about cleaning up cycling per se, just cleaning up themselves - so they could give a toss what Seanie does next. the quick hit works better - indeed, the very minor embarressment actually helps their pr long term, because many will assume it's a quiet 'push', and see it as Sky backing up what DB said, albeit in a hamfisted way.

No. The evidence does not support this. Somebody leaked a story to Gallagher at the DT on Friday/Saturday. Only the DT had it and they knew they were the only ones with the story, that is why the front of the paper it says it is EXCLUSIVE! It most certainly was not the story that has now been released. All the PR spin put out on Sunday afternoon was in response to that single story.

Sky, DB and Sean wanted to change the story as soon as it appeared. We have no evidence that Sean was going anywhere at the moment, until the DT broke the story.

For all we know, Sean was going to be let to walk away quietly on "Health Grounds" and "spend more time with his family" in about 3 months time, on a day when Alex Ferguson had attacked Arsen Wenger with an axe and the sports journos were distracted.

That "pressure" was on the DT all day and night, is evidenced by:

The first change of story at around 4pm. We get "Sean Yates insists he is leaving Team Sky with his "head held high" amid reports he has admitted doping."

At 10.50pm we get another story "Team Sky will struggle to fill big gap at heart of team following Sean Yates' retirement" (Yes - as per the head line, make sure you have a sick bag handy before starting to read !)

At 7.00 am this morning the "Sean Yates insists he is leaving Team Sky with his "head held high" amid reports he has admitted doping." is changed to "Sean Yates leaves post at Team Sky and retires from cycling for health reasons" - ah bless.

Fran has been wearing out the phone trying to earn her keep. Those changes came about because of pressure.

We have no evidence that the Sean Yates story was meant to come out at this time.

This all begs two questions - 1) who leaked it and why - deliberate or mistake? And 2) is Dave now going to do another interview with everybody - sign here this "I will never speak to the press on my own ever again - I will only speak to them when either DB, Fran or Shane are with me" pledge.

The side benefit for this will be that with less competitive "noise", Shane can then fully commit to his 3 very distinct professional roles:
1) Coach for National Squad showing no favour or bias by gender or race to any squad or potential squad members - always acting as the supreme professional - just call me "Mr Discretion",
2) Demon Coach for Team Sky working out how to stuff all the other teams and best project his boss's (- Rupert) empire.
3) Press pundit, providing gossip, idle chatter, disinformation, negative stories (even on team GB riders) and leaks to the press on cycling and anything else that takes his fancy.

 

[bobbins]

Wasn't the audit done by the same company that look after Skys accounts?

Can't see any favourable outcome based on not wanting to lose that juicy contract.

 

[Cramps]

Brailsford is perhaps idealistic, perhaps devious, perhaps naive; perhaps cynical; who knows. But what he isn't is stupid.

....

It's however a very handy way to handle s/one you suspect is dirty and just want gone.

A lot of the reaction here suggests DB was surprised to find out the implications of the no-doping-ever policy.

But DB definitely not stupid, and no way was he unaware of doping past of Julich and Yates. He had to be firmly aware when he announced the policy that it would mean their departure.

So agree with the above, he was ready to get rid of these two anyway.

 

[sofacycling]

+1 to the analysis of Freddythefrog ,

Who leaked the story for their own benefit ? when they could have easily waited for a good days to break bad news some time after the New Year .

 

[summerhill]

No. The evidence does not support this. Somebody leaked a story to Gallagher at the DT on Friday/Saturday. Only the DT had it and they knew they were the only ones with the story, that is why the front of the paper it says it is EXCLUSIVE! It most certainly was not the story that has now been released. All the PR spin put out on Sunday afternoon was in response to that single story.

Sky, DB and Sean wanted to change the story as soon as it appeared. We have no evidence that Sean was going anywhere at the moment, until the DT broke the story.

For all we know, Sean was going to be let to walk away quietly on "Health Grounds" and "spend more time with his family" in about 3 months time, on a day when Alex Ferguson had attacked Arsen Wenger with an axe and the sports journos were distracted.

That "pressure" was on the DT all day and night, is evidenced by:

The first change of story at around 4pm. We get "Sean Yates insists he is leaving Team Sky with his "head held high" amid reports he has admitted doping."

At 10.50pm we get another story "Team Sky will struggle to fill big gap at heart of team following Sean Yates' retirement" (Yes - as per the head line, make sure you have a sick bag handy before starting to read !)

At 7.00 am this morning the "Sean Yates insists he is leaving Team Sky with his "head held high" amid reports he has admitted doping." is changed to "Sean Yates leaves post at Team Sky and retires from cycling for health reasons" - ah bless.

Hold on there. Has our dearest Brendan flipped character type and become a workaholic ! Writing all Sunday night just so he can correct his exclusive? Then he is up with a lark at around 6.00am modifying his earlier eulogy ?

Fran has been wearing out the phone trying to earn her keep. Those changes came about because of pressure.

We have no evidence that the Sean Yates story was meant to come out at this time. We have every evidence that what came out was exactly what was not meant to come out.

This all begs two questions - 1) who leaked it and why - deliberate or mistake? And 2) is Dave now going to do another interview with everybody - sign here this "I will never speak to the press on my own ever again - I will only speak to them when either DB, Fran or Shane are with me" pledge.

The side benefit for this will be that with less competitive "noise", Shane can then fully commit to his 3 very distinct (and non-conflicting - UK Sport got KPMG to check it all out with a white paintbrush, so it must be ok )professional roles:
1) Coach for National Squad showing no favour or bias by gender or race to any squad or potential squad members - always acting as the supreme professional - just call me "Mr Discretion",
2) Demon Coach for Team Sky working out how to stuff all the other teams and best project his boss's (- Rupert) empire.
3) Press pundit, providing gossip, idle chatter, disinformation, negative stories (even on team GB riders) and leaks to the press on cycling and anything else that takes his fancy.

Except Fran's been in hospital - so I doubt she's been working the phones. Brendan knows nothing but the way to the bar. Whoever leaked before the story had been finessed was likely drinking with Brendan on Friday.

 

[Freddythefrog]

Except Fran's been in hospital - so I doubt she's been working the phones. Brendan knows nothing but the way to the bar. Whoever leaked before the story had been finessed was likely drinking with Brendan on Friday.

(Did not know about her being in hospital but saw she came out yesterday, morning. Quite keen to get back to work though. It did not need to be Fran, several others were capable of leaning on Brendan.)

This story did not need to be finessed because the way it was meant to come out and when it was meant to come out was entirely different to how it came out. If Yates was going to "retire on health ground" and this was not part of the "look we are clean and ethical - look who we have booted out" campaign, that was going to happen months away from where we are now. The USADA releases triggered the Barry story when they had no other place to go.

As it turns out, that "scoop" was probably the best bit of journalism Brendan has ever done with respect to cycling. As he called it first, it was right and as BC/Sky have played it now, and the pressure they have put on the DT exposes their duplicity. Can't even out the guy with yellow bands on each wrist. What chance of exposing a rider who dopes ?

Who leaked and why ?