Sean Yates

[martinvickers]

(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 ?

Freddy

I do give you this - the sequence is certainly consistent with not wanting the story out at all - but that still misses the fact that BG reported Yates was out BEFORE the pr spin of why he was going started.

"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. "

BG was reporting he was already gone. That can't possibly be consistent with letting him go at the end of the season.

BG's report means they were letting go of Yates right now whether BG reported it or not. BG reported certainly affected the explanation/PR, but not the timing. After all his report on yates leaving now could hardly have caused yates to leave now; the report doesn't exist unless yates is ALREADY leaving.

And given that it's clear Yates was going now regardless, it's only the explanation, not the expulsion itself, that could be 'finessed' - which they did badly, in a hurry, like twits.

I'm sorry, but the conclusion you draw can't logically follow from the premise you set out - BG'a report cannot set in motion events (yates immediate departure) which his own report state have happened before the report was even published. That requires time travel. I don't think even Uncle Ruperts pockets stretch to that...

 

[Freddythefrog]

Freddy

I do give you this - the sequence is certainly consistent with not wanting the story out at all - but that still misses the fact that BG reported Yates was out BEFORE the pr spin of why he was going started.

"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. "

BG was reporting he was already gone. That can't possibly be consistent with letting him go at the end of the season.

BG's report means they were letting go of Yates right now whether BG reported it or not. BG reported certainly affected the explanation/PR, but not the timing. After all his report on yates leaving now could hardly have caused yates to leave now; the report doesn't exist unless yates is ALREADY leaving.

And given that it's clear Yates was going now regardless, it's only the explanation, not the expulsion itself, that could be 'finessed' - which they did badly, in a hurry, like twits.

I'm sorry, but the conclusion you draw can't logically follow from the premise you set out - BG'a report cannot set in motion events (yates immediate departure) which his own report state have happened before the report was even published. That requires time travel. I don't think even Uncle Ruperts pockets stretch to that...

BG was only reporting what had been leaked to him. If the past tense was put to him, he was going to take it. He needed to get his story out as quick, before his "exclusive" became old news. No time travel needed. Yates was going nowhere until Brendan did his story. The BBC were being criticised for failing to run the story. Presumably they had read the DT and then rang Sky for confirmation. The BBC then did not do anything until the PA release went out in the afternoon just before the story came up on Sky, so they must have been told - don't publish the DT story, we are getting the true story out now, the DT story is BS (Fran out of hospital ?).

 

[martinvickers]

BG was only reporting what had been leaked to him. If the past tense was put to him, he was going to take it. He needed to get his story out as quick, before his "exclusive" became old news. No time travel needed. Yates was going nowhere until Brendan did his story. The BBC were being criticised for failing to run the story. Presumably they had read the DT and then rang Sky for confirmation. The BBC then did not do anything until the PA release went out in the afternoon just before the story came up on Sky, so they must have been told - don't publish the DT story, we are getting the true story out now, the DT story is BS (Fran out of hospital ?).

as you say "if the past tense was put to him, he was going to take it" - but why would the past tense be put to him unless it was in fact the reality? why would the leaker lie, adn if he lied, why wouls sky, whatever the press release, turn that lie ino truth?- If Yates was going nowhere, why did the story make him go somewhere? Would the obvious Sky answer not be "nothing in this; our discussions with our staff are ongoing"?

we're delving into the conspiracy theory again here - we don't like the obvious explanation, so we find a way to make the evidence fit the less wholesome one. Now, it's not impossible you are right - but the odds still say simplest explanation - he was going - it leaked - bit of bad pr to cover it - he's gone is much more likely than - he might have gone months later but wasn't going immediately - untrue story of immediate sacking leaked - sky react to untrue story by trying to make it half true with quick sacking disguised as 'retirement.

seriously, qui bono?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

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.

You know this because she's been tweeting about it. So you're saying she has time and energy and phone credit enough to tweet sympathy t****s, but not time or energy to try and patch up the fuster cluck of a key back-office person leaving?

Disagree.

 

[ultimobici]

You know this because she's been tweeting about it. So you're saying she has time and energy and phone credit enough to tweet sympathy t****s, but not time or energy to try and patch up the fuster cluck of a key back-office person leaving?

Disagree.

enough credit? FFS!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

enough credit? FFS!

Yeah phone credit. You pay the telephone company for access to their network, and get to use it to do things like tweet "woe is me, feel sorry for me and pity me, ignore that blood all over the floor" things.

You seem incredibly upset that I mention phone credit.

How else do you think she's tweeting from hospital? Carrier pidgeon? Tins and string?

 

[ultimobici]

Yeah phone credit. You pay the telephone company for access to their network, and get to use it to do things like tweet "woe is me, feel sorry for me and pity me, ignore that blood all over the floor" things.

You seem incredibly upset that I mention phone credit.

How else do you think she's tweeting from hospital? Carrier pidgeon? Tins and string?

If Fran Millar is on PAYG I'd be very surprised indeed is all I meant.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

If Fran Millar is on PAYG I'd be very surprised indeed is all I meant.

Do you think she prefers a monthly contract?

 

[ultimobici]

Do you think she prefers a monthly contract?

The idea of Fran Millar sitting in her hospital bed agonising over whether she has enough credit to send a tweet or two was a little amusing. That's all.

 

[Freddythefrog]

Grammar Nazis !

as you say "if the past tense was put to him, he was going to take it" - but why would the past tense be put to him............................ sky react to untrue story by trying to make it half true with quick sacking disguised as 'retirement.

seriously, qui bono?

After I responded I thought, why did I do that ? The tense is irrelevant to the message, it is like whether I started each new sub-para after the colon with a capital letter or not.

Yates might have been sat at home enjoying a cup of tea. He might already be on gardening leave but certainly the punters were not about to be told anything about it until BG ran with the story. That Sky could not get the story together until mid afternoon gives witness to the fact that this was a surprise and the DT had scooped them, to react at a time not of Sky's choosing. The story in the hard copy of today's DT is a bit more hard hitting than the online version. Again, I am going to give Brendan the credit for that. It states that Yates was at the UK camp at London last week working with the team plotting the win in the 3 GTs for next year. So again that gives modest indication that the past tense was not relevant. It's not like Sean was going to tell Brailsford anything at the interview that Brailsford did not already know ! "Hold on Sean I never knew that before, I am going to take you off our planning committee ! I am "shocked""

Bottom line is - Sky have deliberately spun away from a story leaked to the press, so that they don't out Lance's team-mate who rides, with a Union Jack on his back, a Livestrong band on each wrist, in a Sky vest, alongside Brad in his yellow jersey.

Zero tolerance - get stuffed. And many thanks for the info on Fran. One of the hands gone from the shoulder ? The more I think about it, the more I think I have given a very clear answer to my own question as to where the leak came from.

 

[martinvickers]

After I responded I thought, why did I do that ? The tense is irrelevant to the message, it is like whether I started each new sub-para after the colon with a capital letter or not.

Yates might have been sat at home enjoying a cup of tea. He might already be on gardening leave but certainly the punters were not about to be told anything about it until BG ran with the story. That Sky could not get the story together until mid afternoon gives witness to the fact that this was a surprise and the DT had scooped them, to react at a time not of Sky's choosing. The story in the hard copy of today's DT is a bit more hard hitting than the online version. Again, I am going to give Brendan the credit for that. It states that Yates was at the UK camp at London last week working with the team plotting the win in the 3 GTs for next year. So again that gives modest indication that the past tense was not relevant. It's not like Sean was going to tell Brailsford anything at the interview that Brailsford did not already know ! "Hold on Sean I never knew that before, I am going to take you off our planning committee ! I am "shocked""

Bottom line is - Sky have deliberately spun away from a story leaked to the press, so that they don't out Lance's team-mate who rides, with a Union Jack on his back, a Livestrong band on each wrist, in a Sky vest, alongside Brad in his yellow jersey.

Zero tolerance - get stuffed. And many thanks for the info on Fran. One of the hands gone from the shoulder ? The more I think about it, the more I think I have given a very clear answer to my own question as to where the leak came from.

The tense matters because BG and the SunTel was already reporting it, from the outset, as past tense. Which can only mean the decision to let him go had already been taken before publication. And if the decision had already been taken, it can hardly have been taken both before BG reported, and after he reported as a response to that report. It has to be one or the other - and if it's the latter, it means they let him go to help make an untrue story true...which just seems barmy.

i can't see how that timeline can be shifted.

As for the 'clear answer', please enlighten me

 

[MartinGT]

Do you think she prefers a monthly contract?

That made me chuckle

 

[DirtyWorks]

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, .

I believe, and **this is crazy talk**, that Pat sold the 2012 TdF/Olympics combination to Sky. Bottom line, DB must be pretty confident about 2013 wins already if he doesn't need dirty help. Either that, or the 2012 wins were a one-time deal.

You guys are doing a great job with this thread. Well argued all the way around and not resorting to personal attacks too much.

 

[thirteen]

That made me chuckle

me too! thank you, Mrs John Murphy

 

[martinvickers]

I believe, and **this is crazy talk**, that Pat sold the 2012 TdF/Olympics combination to Sky. Bottom line, DB must be pretty confident about 2013 wins already if he doesn't need dirty help. Either that, or the 2012 wins were a one-time deal.

You guys are doing a great job with this thread. Well argued all the way around and not resorting to personal attacks too much.

thanks DW

i suppose my conspiracy theorist is your truth seeker; my 'normality' is your fanboy -- best not to get to upset in any event; who really cares what anonymous people think of them? you call it as you see it, best you can.

2012 was a quite extraordinary year for GB sport (disclosure; I'm irish, but with with a soft spot for teamgb and my favourite cyclists back in the day were R.Millar and Roche)...almost easy to believe it was partly 'pre-ordained' - there is little doubt that the effect has been to shoot cycling near the top of the non-football charts in GB sports consciousness - there's every chance there' about to be a third cycling sports personality of the year in four years, which along with a team award in 2008 is unheard of dominance.

The original archietect of Brit.Cycling's rise to power was Peter Keen, aggressively anti-drugs, indeed he focused on track and ignored road for that very reason (rather presient too, since his era was the boardman-quealy one) - 'marginal gains' is his invention, not brailsford's (as Keen was director of UKsport for 2012, 29 golds in 2012 suggests a successful transition of the principle to other sports)

The move onto the road for Brailsford was against keen's advice, and not based on wiggins and the current team sky model - wiggins had no real success on the road pre 2008, and froome is an adopted kenyan, no connection historically to BC - it was based, largely, on the singular success of Mark Cavendish.

Prior to that, GT brits were, to all intents and purposes Tom Simpson, Sean Yates, the odd boardman prologue and another transplantee, scots-maltese-hongkonger Dave Millar (yes, robinson, yada, yada, i know, I'm talking general knowledge) - all (boardman aside) shared certain 'traits', one might say.

In other words, GB didn't do the road, certainly not GC contenders, and when they did, the stars fell to earth badly (or very badly in Tommy's case).

I'm not sure even Brailsford saw 2012 coming - sure Wiggins had performed miracles in 2009 at Garmin, but any rider can have one miracle year, or tour - so 2012 wasn't necessary for the TSky sponsors - I'm pretty sure Brailsford still doubted that wiggins would end up being 'the one' until vuelta 2011.

So for all their money, all their back up, and all the dodgy people, I still tend to think Brailsford was more caught unawares by the sheer dominance of 2012 - or put in another way; if i wanted to win the tour with a doper, i don't think i'd have made the dominance as obvious as to win every bloody stage race going - even LA didn't do that!

But hey, I'm just a viewer really, a lover of the sport - maybe he did, maybe it really is UKPS - if it is, f*** 'em, let them go to hell - i have no personal skin in the game, their demise wouldn't bother me in that sense - indeed i'd love to see a local (GB or ireland) team to take them on just for the fun of the rivalry (Virgin cycling anyone - great name for a post dope team!).

But i think there is a difference between skepticism and cynicism...and its a difference worth preserving.

 

[DirtyWorks]

But hey, I'm just a viewer really, a lover of the sport - maybe he did, maybe it really is UKPS - if it is, f*** 'em, let them go to hell - i have no personal skin in the game, their demise wouldn't bother me in that sense - indeed i'd love to see a local (GB or ireland) team to take them on just for the fun of the rivalry (Virgin cycling anyone - great name for a post dope team!).

But i think there is a difference between skepticism and cynicism...and its a difference worth preserving.

I'm open to the possibility I'm wrong too. It wouldn't be the first time!

Another thing worth dredging up again is Team GB copied the USA Cycling model where the commercial forces behind the super-team are the IOC-blessed UCI federation. Just leaving aside the doping proven and unproven, it seems to me Pat and Hein have assisted in making the story a reality like they did for USPS. Tactically it's not the same kind of myth, but strategy is the same.

In one way, I feel bad for Yates. There's no end of dopers working inside pro cycling and he gets tagged. That's how much of a mess the UCI is though.. Paraphrasing a Hinault quote, if they took care of this 10 years ago, it wouldn't be the mess it is right now and Yates would have had to join the real world a whole lot sooner.

 

[ToreBear]

I'm open to the possibility I'm wrong too. It wouldn't be the first time!

Another thing worth dredging up again is Team GB copied the USA Cycling model where the commercial forces behind the super-team are the IOC-blessed UCI federation. Just leaving aside the doping proven and unproven, it seems to me Pat and Hein have assisted in making the story a reality like they did for USPS. Tactically it's not the same kind of myth, but strategy is the same.

In one way, I feel bad for Yates. There's no end of dopers working inside pro cycling and he gets tagged. That's how much of a mess the UCI is though.. Paraphrasing a Hinault quote, if they took care of this 10 years ago, it wouldn't be the mess it is right now and Yates would have had to join the real world a whole lot sooner.

I never understood the Hinault quote until I came across this from 1998:

Bernard Hinault and Mineral Water

Bernard Hinault who won the Tour 5 times and is now employed by the Tour Organisation claimed that you did not need drugs to win the Tour. He told the press that: "There will always be donkeys who want to become race horses. But you can win the Tour on mineral water. I hope it will have positive consequences. For the first time, people are going to be sentenced. In the past, only riders were tested and banned, now the ones who provide the dope will pay. There will be before and after the Festina case, but the Tour will survive because the public will react."

As expected, he denied ever using drugs himself despite admitting they had been offered to him. "If you're strong enough to say no the first time around, they will not come back to you. And I was not a donkey."

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/1998/jul98/jul19a.html

 

[JimmyFingers]

So for all their money, all their back up, and all the dodgy people, I still tend to think Brailsford was more caught unawares by the sheer dominance of 2012 - or put in another way; if i wanted to win the tour with a doper, i don't think i'd have made the dominance as obvious as to win every bloody stage race going - even LA didn't do that!

Good post all of it, thought this point interesting. TBH I think Brailsford did see it coming, and had planned it and worked toward it, although it might have surprised him the ease he managed to do it in the end.

Some talk of Brailsford being an evil genius, a master of a sophisticated doping regime and of media spin, but I actually think he's been really stupid, and Sky's PR has lurched from one blunder to another. For me Sky couldn't have left themselves more open to accusations of doping if they tried, from training on Teide to employing Yates, Leinders, Julich, Rogers et al. It's a right dog's dinner of a PR campaign really, and even seeds doubt in my mind (and apparently I'm a fanboy).

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'm not sure even Brailsford saw 2012 coming - sure Wiggins had performed miracles in 2009 at Garmin, but any rider can have one miracle year, or tour - so 2012 wasn't necessary for the TSky sponsors - I'm pretty sure Brailsford still doubted that wiggins would end up being 'the one' until vuelta 2011.

So for all their money, all their back up, and all the dodgy people, I still tend to think Brailsford was more caught unawares by the sheer dominance of 2012 - or put in another way; if i wanted to win the tour with a doper, i don't think i'd have made the dominance as obvious as to win every bloody stage race going - even LA didn't do that!

I agree with this - DB was surprised with their dominance. And surprised at the attention from bone idle lazy w*nkers.

SURPRISE: In 2008 when Hayles went over 50.3%, DB had to "manage" the fallout. I don't think he minds if people on his team dope, as long as he cannot be connected to it, then he minds a lot ("I nearly quit"). I think Hayles was desperate and overdid it, but nothing came of it officially, thanks to quick thinking from DB and a complicit UCI and an unthinking / naive media. Very limited social media attention - global reach at the time was limited.

MANAGEMENT: Hayles (at DB's behest, I am guessing) did extra tests over 2 weeks to prove his Hct was high naturally or ok or whatever - the result as reported in the media is unquestionable. Hayles did not make the Olympics, even though he dominated the UK road scene that season.

SURPRISE: In 2012, the "Hct > 50% test" is essentially the CQ points of Team Sky vs all the other, dirty, doping teams. They are ~50% higher. Again, I don't think David minds, as long as he cannot be connected to any doping practices. I think Brad is organising it - "Doing it my way", "Not doing it by the book".

MANAGEMENT: DB now ejects all manner of doping connection with the team (back-office staff) - as if it explains the domination. And yet again, the media are unthinking / unquestioning / naive.

 

[Freddythefrog]

OK so why did the DT not out their source

I bought the DT a few times recently. Sky do a lot of advertising on the sports section and it is the biggest sports section of any daily in the UK. I bought it every day after Last Sunday, to see what the follow up was.

OK, if there was an excellent source - most likely Sutton - for Gallagher and his Editor so that they are empowered to run with the story on the front page. Then later in the day the contradictory version comes out. One is a lie they cannot both be true. DT are persuaded to publish the new one and edit the old ones. They could have outed their source to justify their position. Certainly, against the counter, if the story that Yates was leaving as a result of the drugs interviews was a lie, we would see BC/Sky really ripping into the DT. We have not seen that.

Instead on Friday, Brendan had another "exclusive", this time with Cav. On the same double page there was an interview with Laura Trott. The 2 interviews took up the whole spread.

Fran - We will get you Cav for an exclusive ? We will get you Laura as an exclusive ? It makes sense - big interviews on cycling for the DT and moves the story on. A little bit of "My life at Sky was hell" controversy(well not really but did not get a 100% dedicated lead out train and heck, night follows day !) It certainly takes the story away from "Yates gone" and the unstated "who's next ?", "when does Sutton go ?" And then what about a bit of pressure on the advertising revenue as well. Certainly that would explain away the big change last Sunday and match the BC/Sky mood music they want us to listen to.

As the Saville case exposes things linked ever further away, holding onto Sutton and putting out the BS in support of Yates may not be the long term success it appears right now.

 

[Pharazon]

I agree with this - DB was surprised with their dominance. And surprised at the attention from bone idle lazy w*nkers.

SURPRISE: In 2008 when Hayles went over 50.3%, DB had to "manage" the fallout. I don't think he minds if people on his team dope, as long as he cannot be connected to it, then he minds a lot ("I nearly quit"). I think Hayles was desperate and overdid it, but nothing came of it officially, thanks to quick thinking from DB and a complicit UCI and an unthinking / naive media. Very limited social media attention - global reach at the time was limited.

MANAGEMENT: Hayles (at DB's behest, I am guessing) did extra tests over 2 weeks to prove his Hct was high naturally or ok or whatever - the result as reported in the media is unquestionable. Hayles did not make the Olympics, even though he dominated the UK road scene that season.

SURPRISE: In 2012, the "Hct > 50% test" is essentially the CQ points of Team Sky vs all the other, dirty, doping teams. They are ~50% higher. Again, I don't think David minds, as long as he cannot be connected to any doping practices. I think Brad is organising it - "Doing it my way", "Not doing it by the book".

MANAGEMENT: DB now ejects all manner of doping connection with the team (back-office staff) - as if it explains the domination. And yet again, the media are unthinking / unquestioning / naive.

seems to me there that you're adding 2 + 2 and getting 56

 

[Dear Wiggo]

seems to me there that you're adding 2 + 2 and getting 56

That's fine. Point out my error and let's discuss.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Fran - We will get you Cav for an exclusive ? We will get you Laura as an exclusive ? It makes sense - big interviews on cycling for the DT and moves the story on. A little bit of "My life at Sky was hell" controversy(well not really but did not get a 100% dedicated lead out train and heck, night follows day !) It certainly takes the story away from "Yates gone" and the unstated "who's next ?", "when does Sutton go ?" And then what about a bit of pressure on the advertising revenue as well. Certainly that would explain away the big change last Sunday and match the BC/Sky mood music they want us to listen to.

Very handy then, that Fran had been Cav's agent previously, and probably still has a good connection with him. And fortunate timing that he's now on another team.

Cav was probably keen to dump on Sky - even a little bit - after a disappointing $2M salary for the year and only 3 wins at the TdF in the WC jersey.

I loved the line in Scause for Applause where Jesus and Stan are sitting on the couch and Jesus says, "Let's see if we can distract them and get them to focus on what matters" or something like that. Must grab that as a sound/vision bite, it seems so apt for the scenarios playing out.

 

[Velo_vicar]

I think Brad is organising it - "Doing it my way", "Not doing it by the book".

Wow! It really is all about the Wiggins for you. Evil mastermind. i hear he has a hollowed out volcano near Wigan and a white cat.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Wow! It really is all about the Wiggins for you. Evil mastermind. i hear he has a hollowed out volcano near Wigan and a white cat.

Wow! You really think Brad went from autobus to 4th behind a doped Armstrong in 2009 clean! You really think Garmin had any hand in his performance, even though it was Sky coaching him! You really think Sky would coach someone so well, for the first time, that they would get 4th and have to pay him and his current team millions $$ for salary and transfer.

Then, after his first year at Zero Tolerance Policy Team Sky, and only coming 24th - same coach mind you, and a much richer setup, full of marginal gains and attention to detail, he had this to say:

He admits that, to some extent, Sky got carried away with their own hype in their pronouncements about podium finishes and winning the Tour within five years. But, he adds, doing so has taught them an invaluable lesson. Wiggins says that 2010 has been "a huge learning year in the sense of how not to do it and it showed what we can do differently next year. In terms of how I will approach things, I'm not going to be something I'm not, which means I'm not going to be this super 'everything by the book athlete', because that doesn't work for me. My biggest thing is just being relaxed and doing it my way.

Not a single mention of Kerrison or reverse periodisation or Tenerife or altitude training (which he didn't do in 2009 and still came 4th) or Leinders or anything.

Just "I'm not going to be this super 'everything by the book athlete'" and "doing it my way".

And then Wow! 2011 stomping it. 2012! Stomping it in spades.

Sure, it wasn't Wiggins organising it, it was his dirty, dirty team that are now all sacked, so 2013 will be the lean year again.

In his latest interview he says - Olympics does not lead to wealth. So he had to do what it takes to get that wealth.