• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1552 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

MatParker117 said:
Benotti69 said:
yaco said:
Benotti69 said:
Shane Stokes interviews Matt Lawton about breaking the Jiffeygate story.

Boy Sky sure come across as pathetic with their lies.

https://cyclingtips.com/2017/11/story-behind-story-journalist-exposed-team-sky/

Imagine if a decent journalist had got hold of this story. I think Sky would be no more by now and Wiggins stripped of his TdF.

What makes you say Matt Lawton is not a decent journalist.

Wiggins took Kenacort without a TUE on the bus. That is doping. Lawton knows yet in that interview he refuses to call Wiggins a doper. Yet as a sports journalist he should have decent idea of pro cycling's history. A bit of a quick research would lead anyone with half a brain to see that the culture to dope did not change, not after the reasoned decision, which was in June of 2012 when Wiggins won his TdF, so how did Wiggins and Sky beat the dopers. Why did he tink in Rio Wiggins was this clean athlete? Lawton is either not to bright or liks to run with hare and hunt with hounds aas suits his purposes, just like Walsh.

Also, he caught the team lying. Their is only 1 reason to lie, doping. Lawton still not called teamSky cheats.

He has to have indisputable evidence of that or he will lose his job because any decent libel attorney would rip him and The Mail to pieces.

Jeez, journalists know how to write nowadays calling a spade a spade without getting into libel.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Matt Lawton is obliged to protect the identity of his source not for legal reasons but because a journalist who betrays a source's confidence won't get any more scoops. It would be good if the identity of the source and importantly that person's motivation were in the public domain because there's stuff that hasn't come out yet that adds another layer of intrigue to what we already know

In the meantime if Lawton is able to get someone else in Sky's inner circle to corroborate what the original source said then any small elements of doubt about what Sky have been up to would turn to dust. If I were Lawton I'd be doing my best to have a cosy chat with Richard Freeman. The rest of Sky's inner circle have got too much to lose to go rogue but Freeman has lost it all already. And Freeman's payoff from Brailsford isn't going to last forever
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
Matt Lawton is obliged to protect the identity of his source not for legal reasons but because a journalist who betrays a source's confidence won't get any more scoops. It would be good if the identity of the source and importantly that person's motivation were in the public domain because there's stuff that hasn't come out yet that adds another layer of intrigue to what we already know

In the meantime if Lawton is able to get someone else in Sky's inner circle to corroborate what the original source said then any small elements of doubt about what Sky have been up to would turn to dust. If I were Lawton I'd be doing my best to have a cosy chat with Richard Freeman. The rest of Sky's inner circle have got too much to lose to go rogue but Freeman has lost it all already. And Freeman's payoff from Brailsford isn't going to last forever
Lawton has already stated he is still on this. I bet he is still talking to his source, who by definition must be either in/was in the inner circle of BC or Sky. I actually believe he wants to break this. But, if he doesn't, as ever, time will tell. Been there, seen this too often not to believe otherwise. Wiggins will be the first to fall, I've no doubt. He's not the guy I would go after though.
 
Re: Re:

ferryman said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Matt Lawton is obliged to protect the identity of his source not for legal reasons but because a journalist who betrays a source's confidence won't get any more scoops. It would be good if the identity of the source and importantly that person's motivation were in the public domain because there's stuff that hasn't come out yet that adds another layer of intrigue to what we already know

In the meantime if Lawton is able to get someone else in Sky's inner circle to corroborate what the original source said then any small elements of doubt about what Sky have been up to would turn to dust. If I were Lawton I'd be doing my best to have a cosy chat with Richard Freeman. The rest of Sky's inner circle have got too much to lose to go rogue but Freeman has lost it all already. And Freeman's payoff from Brailsford isn't going to last forever
Lawton has already stated he is still on this. I bet he is still talking to his source, who by definition must be either in/was in the inner circle of BC or Sky. I actually believe he wants to break this. But, if he doesn't, as ever, time will tell. Been there, seen this too often not to believe otherwise. Wiggins will be the first to fall, I've no doubt. He's not the guy I would go after though.

Wiggins would be perfect. He's not known for biting his tongue and keeping quiet is he? If he bleated the whole world would believe every word.
 
Feb 23, 2011
618
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
Matt Lawton is obliged to protect the identity of his source not for legal reasons but because a journalist who betrays a source's confidence won't get any more scoops. It would be good if the identity of the source and importantly that person's motivation were in the public domain because there's stuff that hasn't come out yet that adds another layer of intrigue to what we already know

In the meantime if Lawton is able to get someone else in Sky's inner circle to corroborate what the original source said then any small elements of doubt about what Sky have been up to would turn to dust. If I were Lawton I'd be doing my best to have a cosy chat with Richard Freeman. The rest of Sky's inner circle have got too much to lose to go rogue but Freeman has lost it all already. And Freeman's payoff from Brailsford isn't going to last forever

I think the bottom line is...........every man has his price.

SDB's willingness to broker a better news story with Lawton shows that when his back is against the wall he will result to brokering a deal. There is every possibility that this is standard operating procedure when his back is not up against the wall either.

I would think that there were a handful of people who witnessed the good doctors alleged receipt from Cope and what happened thereafter. It cant be that difficult for SDB to work out who the possible source or sources can be and offer them a deal to not collude/co-operate.

Can a journo ultimately break the Omerta at Team Sky? Time will tell.
 
Re: Sky

With all the BS Sky attempted to feed Lawton, I'm not surprised he's careful with his reporting.
When I came out of one of the media centres during the Tour, a foreign journalist told me what had happened. They were talking to a couple of the Sky staff guys standing by the car as I came out of the media centre and walked into the car park.

One of the journalists who were there said afterwards, ‘it was quite amusing that after you had walked passed us, the Sky guy turned and looked at you and said, ‘that guy is a c*nt.’’

Well liked at Sky! :lol:
 
Re: Re:

MikeS369 said:
thehog said:
El Pistolero said:
Irondan said:
Before we get too crazy trolling the Sky supporters please remember that trolling is against forum rules.

TIA :)

Sky fans have been trolling us for years now. They're noticeably absent now, I wonder why?

I want to know where is Sam Hocking?!? :eek:

He's in the Cycling News article comment section.
He’s retreated to the BikeSkydar forums where everyone is trying to blame this on the French, LeMonde and Emma Pooley, in that order.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
brownbobby said:
King Boonen said:
Ok folks, lets put a stop to that. Calling out other members is trolling.

But you seem happy to allow this in the Froome Talk Only forum??
If you have a problem with a post, report it. Unsurprisingly it’s difficult for us to keep up with every post on a normal day, it’s impossible when something like this hits the news.

Fair enough. I don't have a problem, i'm too thick skinned to get upset by people on internet forums. Just an observation that there were lots of personal attacks/individuals being called out on the Froome forum these last couple of days, yet the first one on this thread gets pulled up.

But not a problem for me if its not for you.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Sky

pastronef said:
talking about Diney buying 21st Century Fox (and SKY)
if Disney does not want to have any links to pro cycling, could they create a High-Road situation? the financial backing is guaranteed, but without SKY on the jersey?

The Froome story is straight out of a Disney cartoon. Perfect for them. :D
 
Re: Sky

pastronef said:
talking about Diney buying 21st Century Fox (and SKY)
if Disney does not want to have any links to pro cycling, could they create a High-Road situation? the financial backing is guaranteed, but without SKY on the jersey?

The timing is interesting, even though the Sky/Disney story broke the day after the Froome one. I wonder how much the UCI's patience has run out with Sky, and the penny is starting to drop that the team is really just James Murdoch's hobby project. Looking rationally at the sport's current structure we don't want no Team Sky, we should want 17 more 'Team Sky' s: the UCI must have been hoping for a race to the top, that Sky really were getting a commercial 3-to-400% roi and that the sport would by now be full of blue chip companies making big long-term investments, paying their riders well, outwardly promoting the sport and raising the quality of the sport. Hardly a surprise on that basis that Sky would get away with things other teams don't and could achieve some unlikely victories without +ve tests - they're an exemplar sponsor model in a symbiotic relationship with the governing body.

Except that they're not. Eight years on from Sky's launch and the sport is otherwise made up of the same types of sponsors as before, bike companies and medium-size firms where the owner happens to be a cycling fan. Plus a few more suspect dictatorships trying to sportswash their reputations. And has a load of deathly boring races because one team has more money and protection than the others. And now the guy who's been sinking the €€€ into his hobby won't even be in charge any more. There are now only negatives to Sky's involvement, even the idea of them as a start of something bigger and better is dead. The sport is cutting its losses and hopefully at least we have a few more entertaining races in 2018.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Sky

VO2 Max said:
pastronef said:
talking about Diney buying 21st Century Fox (and SKY)
if Disney does not want to have any links to pro cycling, could they create a High-Road situation? the financial backing is guaranteed, but without SKY on the jersey?

The timing is interesting, even though the Sky/Disney story broke the day after the Froome one. I wonder how much the UCI's patience has run out with Sky, and the penny is starting to drop that the team is really just James Murdoch's hobby project. Looking rationally at the sport's current structure we don't want no Team Sky, we should want 17 more 'Team Sky' s: the UCI must have been hoping for a race to the top, that Sky really were getting a commercial 3-to-400% roi and that the sport would by now be full of blue chip companies making big long-term investments, paying their riders well, outwardly promoting the sport and raising the quality of the sport. Hardly a surprise on that basis that Sky would get away with things other teams don't and could achieve some unlikely victories without +ve tests - they're an exemplar sponsor model in a symbiotic relationship with the governing body.

Except that they're not. Eight years on from Sky's launch and the sport is otherwise made up of the same types of sponsors as before, bike companies and medium-size firms where the owner happens to be a cycling fan. Plus a few more suspect dictatorships trying to sportswash their reputations. And has a load of deathly boring races because one team has more money and protection than the others. And now the guy who's been sinking the €€€ into his hobby won't even be in charge any more. There are now only negatives to Sky's involvement, even the idea of them as a start of something bigger and better is dead. The sport is cutting its losses and hopefully at least we have a few more entertaining races in 2018.

The sport is FUBAR'd. Motors have killed it. It is now Disneyesque since Wiggins and Froome started transforming and winning races so easily. They were like superheroes with superpowers that mere mortals would not understand.

As i said the sport is FUBAR'd.
 
Re: Sky

Benotti69 said:
VO2 Max said:
boring stuff what I said

The sport is FUBAR'd. Motors have killed it. It is now Disneyesque since Wiggins and Froome started transforming and winning races so easily. They were like superheroes with superpowers that mere mortals would not understand.

As i said the sport is FUBAR'd.

Nah, the sport would be awesome again if there were 18 teams with loads of money battering each other on a level playing field. What's f'ed up is one team outspending (and out-job-security'ing which is also important) all the others to get the best riders, then getting the best protection from the governing body, just to kill the entertainment with their reductionist strategies.
 

TRENDING THREADS