Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1561 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
It wasn't an investigation into the legality of Sky's actions. It was an investigation into the whole culture of doping in sport. There are no laws against doping in sports but that does not mean that an investigation is outside the remit of parliamentary select comittees.

How do you think laws change, or get created????

There would never be any action against Sky as a result of the DCMS, just recommendations for legislative change. That is why Brailsford was perfectly free to lie through his teeth at the hearing. which he did with his usual aplomb.
 
Re: Sky

Parker said:
pastronef said:
https://twitter.com/stevechapman65/status/970304453839671296

“The committee gathered information about senior personnel who doped as cyclists and then allegedly lied about that, including to Parliament. Sources say a separate study into that alleged cheating, cover-ups and an ongoing culture of omertà “
Who are these personnel? Are they seriously going to have a study into whether a third rate Australian pro took some disco biscuits in the 80s?
Portal? Tossato? Lancaster?

But I agree there isn't really any ex-Brit riders in the senior staff. Doesn't mean though some of the names i.e. above hasn't been questioned by the parliament in the investigations. At least Portal was around already during Jiffy Bag times, the others of course not.
 
Aug 26, 2014
2,148
0
0
Re: Sky

Parker said:
macbindle said:
Well, actually, yes it is.

The context is the culture at Team Sky. Whether or not they implemented their much vaunted ZTP proactively, or whether it was just employed to the bare minimum and only after being exposed. In other words, it is important to know in order to determine the actual culture at Sky rather than the one they presented.
No it isn't. Sky are free to employ who they like. Whether a private company has stuck to its own internal recruitment guidelines is not a matter for Parliament.
Yes, it is. The Committee is concerned with the whether more is required to regulate sport, or whether teams (whether publically or privately funded) have adequate governance without it. Material to this is the culture and practices with which such teams operate. No one is saying Sky can't employ whom they like, or even break every internal policy they have, but of course such questions are relevant. Bear in mind, Sky do not have to attend the committee, nor are the compelled to reply to questions they don't like, but they know damn well that they'd look crap, and potentially invite a whole heap more regulation on their head if they don't at least pretend to do so. Then there's the indirect public funding involved in enabling the sport as a whole - the funding that comes via outfits like Welcome to Yorkshire or even the BBC. Sky get benefit from that, as they do from association with British Cycling. No co-operation, no inclination to support any of this. This is not merely a question of strict compliance.
 
Re: Sky

Electress said:
Yes, it is. The Committee is concerned with the whether more is required to regulate sport, or whether teams (whether publically or privately funded) have adequate governance without it.
Then why haven't they asked for evidence from Davide Lappartient, Christian Prudhomme or Francesca Rossi? They're not going to change the governance of the sport my changing the driver of Sky's second car.

Bear in mind here that these MPs probably couldn't name more than three non-British current riders
 
Re: Sky

Parker said:
Electress said:
Yes, it is. The Committee is concerned with the whether more is required to regulate sport, or whether teams (whether publically or privately funded) have adequate governance without it.
Then why haven't they asked for evidence from Davide Lappartient, Christian Prudhomme or Francesca Rossi? They're not going to change the governance of the sport my changing the driver of Sky's second car.

Bear in mind here that these MPs probably couldn't name more than three non-British current riders
methinks you sound slightly worried..if there is 'nothing to see here' there will be...eh...nothing to see
 
Re: Sky

gillan1969 said:
methinks you sound slightly worried..if there is 'nothing to see here' there will be...eh...nothing to see
Not really. I'm just wondering why public money is being spent on finding out if some non-British riders doped a couple of decades ago. Sutton or Knaven doping wouldn't surprise me at all. I also don't see it as important.
 
Re: Sky

Parker said:
gillan1969 said:
methinks you sound slightly worried..if there is 'nothing to see here' there will be...eh...nothing to see
Not really. I'm just wondering why public money is being spent on finding out if some non-British riders doped a couple of decades ago. Sutton or Knaven doping wouldn't surprise me at all. I also don't see it as important.
probably relevant for two reasons
a) credibility of witnesses...looks like they may have lied about one thing and so can the rest of their testimony be trusted?
b) if they doped they may be more likely to not have a problem working within a team that doesn't have a problem with doping?
 
Re: Sky

Parker said:
gillan1969 said:
methinks you sound slightly worried..if there is 'nothing to see here' there will be...eh...nothing to see
Not really. I'm just wondering why public money is being spent on finding out if some non-British riders doped a couple of decades ago. Sutton or Knaven doping wouldn't surprise me at all. I also don't see it as important.
We don't know if it is Sutton or Knaven. It could also be something nee about Yates fron US Postal period. Or something about Portal (would be a surprise though).
 
Public money was spent funding TeamGB, and by extension Team Sky. Looks like they shared the same drugs cabinet ;)

Select committees are about investigating the efficacy of the government department, in this case the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. If British sport is mired in filth, which thanks to Team Sky it is (thanks guys, thanks Brad, thanks Dave) then it suggests the government department isn't functioning effectively. This is why the forthcoming DCMS will have recommendations.

You don't seem to get this, Parker, and by the way the 'Public money defence has been tried, tested, and failed by Mr L Armstrong, Mr B Wiggins and Mr D Trump.
 
Feb 21, 2017
1,019
0
0
It may have more to do with the crossover of finances and resources between Sky and BC, like USPS and misuse of governmental funds.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
Public money was spent funding TeamGB, and by extension Team Sky. Looks like they shared the same drugs cabinet ;)

Select committees are about investigating the efficacy of the government department, in this case the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. If British sport is mired in filth, which thanks to Team Sky it is (thanks guys, thanks Brad, thanks Dave) then it suggests the government department isn't functioning effectively. This is why the forthcoming DCMS will have recommendations.

You don't seem to get this, Parker, and by the way the 'Public money defence has been tried, tested, and failed by Mr L Armstrong, Mr B Wiggins and Mr D Trump.
Did UK public money fund Sutton's Raleigh Banana in the 80s or Knaven's TVM in the 90s? If not then why should public money be spent on conducting a survey into weather they were? (That's the specific bit I'm questioning)
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,273
2
0
Re: Sky

bambino said:
Parker said:
pastronef said:
https://twitter.com/stevechapman65/status/970304453839671296

“The committee gathered information about senior personnel who doped as cyclists and then allegedly lied about that, including to Parliament. Sources say a separate study into that alleged cheating, cover-ups and an ongoing culture of omertà “
Who are these personnel? Are they seriously going to have a study into whether a third rate Australian pro took some disco biscuits in the 80s?
Portal? Tossato? Lancaster?

But I agree there isn't really any ex-Brit riders in the senior staff. Doesn't mean though some of the names i.e. above hasn't been questioned by the parliament in the investigations. At least Portal was around already during Jiffy Bag times, the others of course not.
Was Yates questioned by Parliament?
 
Re: Sky

Beech Mtn said:
bambino said:
Parker said:
pastronef said:
https://twitter.com/stevechapman65/status/970304453839671296

“The committee gathered information about senior personnel who doped as cyclists and then allegedly lied about that, including to Parliament. Sources say a separate study into that alleged cheating, cover-ups and an ongoing culture of omertà “
Who are these personnel? Are they seriously going to have a study into whether a third rate Australian pro took some disco biscuits in the 80s?
Portal? Tossato? Lancaster?

But I agree there isn't really any ex-Brit riders in the senior staff. Doesn't mean though some of the names i.e. above hasn't been questioned by the parliament in the investigations. At least Portal was around already during Jiffy Bag times, the others of course not.
Was Yates questioned by Parliament?
That came into my mind as well. That whole description in Daily Mail is like it would be directly from the playbook of US Postal.
 
Re: Sky

bambino said:
Parker said:
gillan1969 said:
methinks you sound slightly worried..if there is 'nothing to see here' there will be...eh...nothing to see
Not really. I'm just wondering why public money is being spent on finding out if some non-British riders doped a couple of decades ago. Sutton or Knaven doping wouldn't surprise me at all. I also don't see it as important.
We don't know if it is Sutton or Knaven. It could also be something nee about Yates fron US Postal period. Or something about Portal (would be a surprise though).
Well the report said that they had lied 'including to parliament'. The only ex-cyclist who said anything to parliament was Sutton. So it has to be him. As to the others, Yates has long gone and as far as I know has never said anything about doping one way or an other. The only other person anyone has made claims against is Knaven (and he's not really 'senior personnel').
Someone at British Cycling? Maybe. I know little about them.
 
Re: Sky

Parker said:
bambino said:
Parker said:
gillan1969 said:
methinks you sound slightly worried..if there is 'nothing to see here' there will be...eh...nothing to see
Not really. I'm just wondering why public money is being spent on finding out if some non-British riders doped a couple of decades ago. Sutton or Knaven doping wouldn't surprise me at all. I also don't see it as important.
We don't know if it is Sutton or Knaven. It could also be something nee about Yates fron US Postal period. Or something about Portal (would be a surprise though).
Well the report said that they had lied 'including to parliament'. The only ex-cyclist who said anything to parliament was Sutton. So it has to be him. As to the others, Yates has long gone and as far as I know has never said anything about doping one way or an other. The only other person anyone has made claims against is Knaven (and he's not really 'senior personnel').
Someone at British Cycling? Maybe. I know little about them.
Do we really know who all had been interviewed by the parliament? If there is conclusive list, then I'll get my coat.

I would find it strange if the sports director at the time would've not been interviewed for the whole Jiffy bag stuff, but maybe not by parliament..
 
Re: Sky

bambino said:
Do we really know who all had been interviewed by the parliament? If there is conclusive list, then I'll get my coat.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/blood-doping-15-16/publications/

bambino said:
I would find it strange if the sports director at the time would've not been interviewed for the whole Jiffy bag stuff, but maybe not by parliament..
Yates would just tell them to get stuffed. And it wouldn't be strange. They haven't interviewed Wiggins.
 
Re: Sky

Parker said:
bambino said:
Do we really know who all had been interviewed by the parliament? If there is conclusive list, then I'll get my coat.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/blood-doping-15-16/publications/

bambino said:
I would find it strange if the sports director at the time would've not been interviewed for the whole Jiffy bag stuff, but maybe not by parliament..
Yates would just tell them to get stuffed. And it wouldn't be strange. They haven't interviewed Wiggins.
Thinking about it... nowhere in the news it says the lying happened "in person" to the parliament. I guess these reporters might claim lying to the parliament if that happens in any hearing during the investigation that are "governed" or "administrated" by the parliament or the material is used by the parliament in their investigation.

Don't know, maybe it is Sutton, but it sounds very strange indeed. I guess we are ought to know soon.
 
Re: Sky

bambino said:
Thinking about it... nowhere in the news it says the lying happened "in person" to the parliament. I guess these reporters might claim lying to the parliament if that happens in any hearing during the investigation that are "governed" or "administrated" by the parliament or the material is used by the parliament in their investigation.

Don't know, maybe it is Sutton, but it sounds very strange indeed. I guess we are ought to know soon.
From the report linked earlier: "The committee gathered information about senior personnel who doped as cyclists and then allegedly lied about that, including to Parliament."

Only three Sky, past or present, people have been questioned. Only Sutton was a pro cyclist. Now, a journalist may very well be wrong. They frequently are.

Bear in mind any evidence provided to the committee must go through a process called Maxwellization, whereby the accused is given a right to reply (of course that may be done by way of refusal to talk). I don;t think you'll get anything of substance that is not in the evidence list I provided. Collins will make a huge fuss of it all, of course. He loves a headline.
 
Re: Sky

Parker said:
bambino said:
Thinking about it... nowhere in the news it says the lying happened "in person" to the parliament. I guess these reporters might claim lying to the parliament if that happens in any hearing during the investigation that are "governed" or "administrated" by the parliament or the material is used by the parliament in their investigation.

Don't know, maybe it is Sutton, but it sounds very strange indeed. I guess we are ought to know soon.
From the report linked earlier: "The committee gathered information about senior personnel who doped as cyclists and then allegedly lied about that, including to Parliament."

Only three Sky, past or present, people have been questioned. Only Sutton was a pro cyclist. Now, a journalist may very well be wrong. They frequently are.

Bear in mind any evidence provided to the committee must go through a process called Maxwellization, whereby the accused is given a right to reply (of course that may be done by way of refusal to talk).
i think we all know its Sutton
 
Re: Sky

gillan1969 said:
i think we all know its Sutton
Which would get back to my original point. Why is public money being spent on a study (as the Mail report implied) on finding out if a third rate Australian pro took drugs thirty years ago? If they find out he did, so what? Who cares? A convicted doper is currently running Britain's top sports team*. Today his team beat a team lead by someone described as being 'practically certain' to have taken EPO in the 90s. The public don't care about ancient history.


(*Manchester City)
 
Re: Sky

Parker said:
gillan1969 said:
i think we all know its Sutton
Which would get back to my original point. Why is public money being spent on a study (as the Mail report implied) on finding out if a third rate Australian pro took drugs thirty years ago? If they find out he did, so what? Who cares? A convicted doper is currently running Britain's top sports team*. Today his team beat a team lead by someone described as being 'practically certain' to have taken EPO in the 90s. The public don't care about ancient history.


(*Manchester City)
if the public don't care stop worrying...all you're doing at the moment is echoing the armstrong fanatics line....we all now how this story will end...it always does.....never mind another one will be along in a few years
 
Re: Sky

gillan1969 said:
if the public don't care stop worrying...all you're doing at the moment is echoing the armstrong fanatics line....we all now how this story will end...it always does.....never mind another one will be along in a few years
They care about riders doping now. They don't care about what someone did in the 80s. But a Select Committee is, largely because its chairman gets headlines from it.

If this Committee is fighting doping in sport - why only evidence from two sports? Rugby has more positives than any other sport. Recently the RFU reported that in the 2016-17 season the top two leagues (around 800 players) did 623 tests - less than one per person. Why no questions about that? The hospitality at Twickenham I expect.
 
Re: Sky

Parker said:
gillan1969 said:
i think we all know its Sutton
Which would get back to my original point. Why is public money being spent on a study (as the Mail report implied) on finding out if a third rate Australian pro took drugs thirty years ago? If they find out he did, so what? Who cares? A convicted doper is currently running Britain's top sports team*. Today his team beat a team lead by someone described as being 'practically certain' to have taken EPO in the 90s. The public don't care about ancient history.


(*Manchester City)
Well maybe they are not interested about Sutton's doping. Maybe that is just a sidetrack that came to light from somewhere.

What they should be more interested is... what else did he lie about?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS