Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[BYOP88]

So, do I get my own thread?
Pretty impressive.
3 personal attacks and zero contribution to what was a well manner and sensible debate.
Still sore over that GT chat.

See Jimmy, MV didn't deny what I posted.

 

[Afrank]

I'm not going to bother with deleting much as there isn't anything too bad (did delete an insult up thread). But lets please move on now and get back on topic. Thank you.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

LS writes like a politician speaks.
Looks and sounds moderate, but has actually attacked the entire UK cycling system, for what amounts to being a "small pool".
Root for McQuaid? Sure. No family COI there.

Which is why I pointed out that Cookson's calls on women's cycling were vastly superior, and would "almost" root for McQuaid, based on the "better the devil you know" principle. After all, we know all about McQuaid's conflicts of interest and what effects they have, whereas we do not yet know what effect the potential COIs could have with Cookson.

And it's not so much about it being a small pool that makes it such a tangled organisatory web, is it? I mean, Portuguese cycling has a small pool, and there's not the same level of intrigue. Australian cycling has all the comparison points you could wish for - the track scheme, the nationally-focused WT team - yet Australian cycling does not have the same level of interdependence that British cycling does. And the guys that ran GreenEdge resigned their places at CyclingAustralia before they started the team (not that they're angels if the rumours about sabotaging Pegasus are true) in order to disentangle such webs.

Yes, British cycling is a small pool, and yes, there are reasons for everybody to know everybody. But it doesn't necessarily follow that therefore you need to have interlinking between groups, media arms, national and international entities, officialdom and sporting concerns. I know it's hardly a Soviet bureaucratic machine, but it's still the kind of complex layering of entities that requires a good deal of transparency to ensure good faith.

 

[Parker]

And it's not so much about it being a small pool that makes it such a tangled organisatory web, is it? I mean, Portuguese cycling has a small pool, and there's not the same level of intrigue. Australian cycling has all the comparison points you could wish for - the track scheme, the nationally-focused WT team - yet Australian cycling does not have the same level of interdependence that British cycling does. And the guys that ran GreenEdge resigned their places at CyclingAustralia before they started the team (not that they're angels if the rumours about sabotaging Pegasus are true) in order to disentangle such webs.

The President of Cycling Australia is also the sole owner of Orica-Greenedge. That pretty much trumps any intrigue or conflict of interest that you can find with Sky.

 

[thehog]

The President of Cycling Australia is also the sole owner of Orica-Greenedge. That pretty much trumps any intrigue or conflict of interest that you can find with Sky.

When they turn Brett Lancaster into a multi-GT winner superstar then, yes, we can start worrying about a conflict.

Outside of Gerrans wheel sucking efforts, GreenEdge have barely had a influence in 3 years.

If Sky were as a Sky should be like in 2010 then I don't think their would be a conflict. Considering the 'all of sudden' decided to win every stage race going in a 2 year period with a track rider and a guy who had a penchant for hanging onto motorbikes then, yes, be worried.

 

[stutue]

The President of Cycling Australia is also the sole owner of Orica-Greenedge. That pretty much trumps any intrigue or conflict of interest that you can find with Sky.

Tumbleweed......

Funny how well they did in last years tour, wasn't it.

Bus driver so off his trumpet on finish bottle he rammed the finish gantry

 

[red_flanders]

Tumbleweed......

Funny how well they did in last years tour, wasn't it.

Bus driver so off his trumpet on finish bottle he rammed the finish gantry

Again, all these national orgs tend to be this way. It's been the same with Och and Weasel so involved in USA Cycling.

I thought Cookson was going to get us independent testing. Then it all becomes moot.

 

[stutue]

Again, all these national orgs tend to be this way. It's been the same with Och and Weasel so involved in USA Cycling.

Oh...righto. Its all OK then if everywhere is like it!

(Except the UK)

Amazing.

All this cacophony and calls for heads to roll because a father and son both work in the same industry, and now its all OK because everyone does it and its Cookson's fault anyway for not delivering independent testing in 6 months flat.

You guys are i-n-c-r-e-d-i-b-l-e

 

[Parker]

I thought Cookson was going to get us independent testing. Then it all becomes moot.

He's only been in post for about six or seven months. In that time he's set up CIRC, the doping commission that lots of people were clamouring for. I think it would be wise to wait for their findings before undergoing any major structural change. If you want to fix a problem, it's best to analyse the problem fully first.
Thoughtful steady progress is the way to go, not knee-jerk reactionary rhetoric

 

[red_flanders]

He's only been in post for about six or seven months. In that time he's set up CIRC, the doping commission that lots of people were clamouring for. I think it would be wise to wait for their findings before undergoing any major structural change. If you want to fix a problem, it's best to analyse the problem fully first.

I have seen nothing to indicate at this point that the CIRC is any different than the last, farcical iteration of a doping commission. That could change, if it actually proves to be (rather than is promised to be) independent.

The UCI has been corrupt for a long, long time. For me, they have to prove otherwise. Short of that it's talk.

I don't disagree with thoughtful progress. Steady progress sounds like slow progress, which is the opposite of what iNADO calls for. They call for "urgent" progress, which is the only realistic conclusion anyone could come to after decades of corruption.

What exactly are we waiting for? They have solid recommendations.

http://www.evolutionary.org/indepen...ds-improvements-to-uci-anti-doping-practices/

Let's hear some plans.

 

[red_flanders]

Oh...righto. Its all OK then if everywhere is like it!

(Except the UK)

Amazing.

All this cacophony and calls for heads to roll because a father and son both work in the same industry, and now its all OK because everyone does it and its Cookson's fault anyway for not delivering independent testing in 6 months flat.

You guys are i-n-c-r-e-d-i-b-l-e

What's incredible is that you could react to my post the way you did, in particular omitting the part that explains that I mean exactly the opposite of what you're reacting to. It's far from OK, it's simply not the key problem. The key problem is that we have the promotional body and the testing body intertwined. Also conflict of interest, but one that has proven a hundred times over to be at the source of actual corruption.

I am utterly un-interested in heads rolling.

You've made some good posts and I usually find them worth reading. This was tripe.

 

[gooner]

Again, all these national orgs tend to be this way. It's been the same with Och and Weasel so involved in USA Cycling.

I thought Cookson was going to get us independent testing. Then it all becomes moot.

This is where journalists should be questioning him on left, right and centre. It's early days but he should be asked about the likely hood of this, how's his plans are progressing on it and what timescale does he hope to have it achieved and implented by.

It was a big part of his manifesto. Maybe something might have got past me but agree, the talk has quietened a fair bit on this.

I have seen nothing to indicate at this point that the CIRC is any different than the last, farcical iteration of a doping commission. That could change, if it actually proves to be (rather than is promised to be) independent.

The UCI has been corrupt for a long, long time. For me, they have to prove otherwise. Short of that it's talk.

I don't disagree with thoughtful progress. Steady progress sounds like slow progress, which is the opposite of what iNADO calls for. They call for "urgent" progress, which is the only realistic conclusion anyone could come to after decades of corruption.

What exactly are we waiting for? They have solid recommendations.

http://www.evolutionary.org/indepen...ds-improvements-to-uci-anti-doping-practices/

Let's hear some plans.

Well it was said it will take over a year so early next year should be about it if that's the case.

I think we have to be patient on this one until then.

 

[red_flanders]

This is where journalists should be questioning him on left, right and centre. It's early days but he should be asked about the likely hood of this, how's his plans are progressing on it and what timescale does he hope to have it achieved and implented by.

It was a big part of his manifesto. Maybe something might have got past me but agree, the talk has quietened a fair bit on this.



Well it was said it will take over a year so early next year should be about it if that's the case.

I think we have to be patient on this one until then.

I think that's all fair. I wish there were more discussion on this point. For those of us interested in the sporting aspect, that's really all that matters. If he did nothing else and got testing completely separate from promotion, he would change everything.

I fear that is exactly the reason why it will ultimately prove difficult or worse. Change is the last thing a lot of the interested parties want.

So far we have talk. I shall continue to wait, but yes, the cycling press should be pushing hard on this.

And we don't need to hear all the details at this point. Let's hear some broad outlines from the recommendations. Let's hear some plans. I should not take a year to figure out the broad strokes. Where does that put us, 5 years from detailed implementation? I don't know.

 

[Parker]

I have seen nothing to indicate at this point that the CIRC is any different than the last, farcical iteration of a doping commission. That could change, if it actually proves to be (rather than is promised to be) independent.

The UCI has been corrupt for a long, long time. For me, they have to prove otherwise. Short of that it's talk.

I don't disagree with thoughtful progress. Steady progress sounds like slow progress, which is the opposite of what iNADO calls for. They call for "urgent" progress, which is the only realistic conclusion anyone could come to after decades of corruption.

What exactly are we waiting for? They have solid recommendations.

http://www.evolutionary.org/indepen...ds-improvements-to-uci-anti-doping-practices/

Let's hear some plans.

I'm guessing that you know absolutely sod all about what CIRC are doing (like everyone else). So you say things like 'I have seen nothing to indicate...CIRC is any different'. You have seen no indication of anything.

This forum thrives on ill thought out theories and speculation. And all too often, when those theories don't hold up to logic it is attributed to corruption from "The Man" (aka the UCI). It doesn't matter if the UCI changes personnel, they need to be kept as a fail safe for failed theories.

Go and look at all the (non-cycling) daft conspiracy theories you have read on the internet. They all revert to corruption from "The Man" when their theories break down. It is essential that "The Man" is portrayed as corrupt at all times as that's the get out clause.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Great to see some old Sky fans like Mellow Velo back here. Stutue is also an old dog but cant place her yet.

Fireworks for july!

 

[Mellow Velo]

Great to see some old Sky fans like Mellow Velo back here. Stutue is also an old dog but cant place her yet.

Fireworks for july!

Well, at least you got the old bit right.
Giro man, not that silly carnival in July.

 

[red_flanders]

I'm guessing that you know absolutely sod all about what CIRC are doing (like everyone else).

Thanks for making my point.

Let's hear what they're doing. An organization that has been corrupt for decades? For me they need to go out of their way to prove otherwise. Nice for them if they have people willing to believe in them for reasons I can't even begin to imagine. There appear to be several of those. Good luck with that.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Well, at least you got the old bit right.
Giro man, not that silly carnival in July.

Okido, but nice to see ya back old dawg.

 

[the sceptic]

This is where journalists should be questioning him on left, right and centre. It's early days but he should be asked about the likely hood of this, how's his plans are progressing on it and what timescale does he hope to have it achieved and implented by.

It was a big part of his manifesto. Maybe something might have got past me but agree, the talk has quietened a fair bit on this.



Well it was said it will take over a year so early next year should be about it if that's the case.

I think we have to be patient on this one until then.

Agree. How hard can it be to dig up an old article and question him on things like "my first act as president will be to ensure anti-doping is independent".

 

[Parker]

Thanks for making my point.

Let's hear what they're doing. An organization that has been corrupt for decades? For me they need to go out of their way to prove otherwise. Nice for them if they have people willing to believe in them for reasons I can't even begin to imagine. There appear to be several of those. Good luck with that.

No, I haven't made your point for you. Your point was that because you hadn't heard anything that it was business as usual - the status quo. The happenings of the world are not restricted by your personal knowledge of them.

If a tree falls in the forest and red_flanders doesn't know about it, does it really happen?

 

[red_flanders]

No, I haven't made your point for you. Your point was that because you hadn't heard anything that it was business as usual - the status quo. The happenings of the world are not restricted by your personal knowledge of them.

If a tree falls in the forest and red_flanders doesn't know about it, does it really happen?

Fantastic contribution.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The President of Cycling Australia is also the sole owner of Orica-Greenedge. That pretty much trumps any intrigue or conflict of interest that you can find with Sky.

Point conceded on that front, I wasn't aware of the conflict at the ownership level, just of the guys involved in the day-to-day running of the team.

But still - the point remains that there are many intertwining organisations and levels within British Cycling, Sky, the UCI, and the entities behind them. That's not wrong per se, and there is no evidence of any wrongdoing in terms of conflicts of interest to date either, but it is something that can be abused, and given that many people involved, or even a single person who is involved centrally in more than one major organ of the hydra-head (Brailsford), is prone to changing his stories and being evasive (literally running away from questions being the nadir of his trustworthiness), it is easy to see how such a system could be abused, and while the Clinic can get pretty paranoid at times, it does not require a fully paid-up membership to the TinFoil Hat Club to realise this.

Yes, I said "realise", not imagine or theorize or anything like that. Because the system CAN be abused by building an intricate web of connected entities like we have here, where everybody has a connection to create a vested interest. Whether it IS being abused by them is another matter, and maybe that does require more of a conspiratorial mind.

 

[Parker]

Point conceded on that front, I wasn't aware of the conflict at the ownership level, just of the guys involved in the day-to-day running of the team.

Don't worry about it. It's not mentioned on CQ Ranking, so there's no reason you should know about it.

But still - the point remains that there are many intertwining organisations and levels within British Cycling, Sky, the UCI, and the entities behind them. That's not wrong per se, and there is no evidence of any wrongdoing in terms of conflicts of interest to date either, but it is something that can be abused, and given that many people involved, or even a single person who is involved centrally in more than one major organ of the hydra-head (Brailsford), is prone to changing his stories and being evasive (literally running away from questions being the nadir of his trustworthiness), it is easy to see how such a system could be abused, and while the Clinic can get pretty paranoid at times, it does not require a fully paid-up membership to the TinFoil Hat Club to realise this.

Yes, I said "realise", not imagine or theorize or anything like that. Because the system CAN be abused by building an intricate web of connected entities like we have here, where everybody has a connection to create a vested interest. Whether it IS being abused by them is another matter, and maybe that does require more of a conspiratorial mind.

This really doesn't make sense. It's someone trying to be smart without any content.

But don't worry. Any long prose post that endorses the overarching cynical feeling of this forum will be acclaimed as 'genius'. Enjoy it.

 

[The Hitch]

Agree. How hard can it be to dig up an old article and question him on things like "my first act as president will be to ensure anti-doping is independent".

You've spent enough time in the clinic to know that cycling journos are way too startstruck with anyone who has their own wikipedia page and will never ever confront them on what they said before

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Don't worry about it. It's not mentioned on CQ Ranking, so there's no reason you should know about it.



This really doesn't make sense. It's someone trying to be smart without any content.

But don't worry. Any long prose post that endorses the overarching cynical feeling of this forum will be acclaimed as 'genius'. Enjoy it.

You don't see the potential for corruption to be masked by such a network of connected entities, when people like Brailsford who are known liars, are in positions of power in them?

Let's face it, there are a lot of corrupt business models out there. The British one at present may or may not be corrupt, but it gives plenty of opportunity for corruption to arise. The reason it's the one getting the attention is because it's the one being the most successful. The reason I didn't know about Orica-GreenEdge is because I don't give a flying one about Orica-GreenEdge to find out anything beyond what I already know.

So I'll tell you what - I'll enjoy people praising my over-long mixed metaphors while it lasts, and you can enjoy patronising people who have their doubts about this amazing renaissance in British cycling, and then we can both be happy.

(also, you forgot that I also consult all my beloved climb-profiling sites, like APM, Altimetrias, PRC, Salite.ch, Genetyk and Quäldich)