thehog said:
What Sky should be providing is transparency not zero tolerance.
This depends on the purpose of Sky's actions.
Sky's management (or most likely News International's lawyers) want to be able disassociate themselves from any riders or team-members found to have been doping in the past. The new "Zero Tolerance Policy" gives dodgy employees the chance to fess up and leave on good terms or get sacked in future.
Sky can then clear demonstrate they took doping seriously post-USADA, with subsequent relevations clearly the responsibility of the employees concerned if they signed the document knowing they had skeletons in the cupboard. As Sky can't question employees under oath, this is realistically all they can do.
I don't think Sky is bothered about clean cycling per se or the Clinic and other such forums; they are concerned about wider public opinion in the UK should something emerge in the future. My guess is that public opinion will accept that an employee whose dodgy past emerges after they were given the chance to "do the decent thing" is not Sky's fault. Particularly if they happen to be foreign.
There's a huge amount of goodwill in the UK towards Sir Brad and Sir Dave, and a very strong view that Sky, GB, Wiggo etc are clean. This goodwill/view will only be compromised if one of the current riders/senior managements gets busted for / seriously implicated in a recent offence (or Sir Brad turns into John Terry). Until this good will is eroded, internet chatter, even if well-founded, will most likely be dismissed as conspiracy theories/jealousy.
I'm no fortune teller, mind you. The Daily Mail may out Wiggo tomorrow, with pictures of him simultaneously taking EPO and sh*gging Chris Froome's other half!